V 


The  Law  of  Trademarks 
^  Tradenames 


and 


Unfair  Competition 


Including  Trade  Secrets;  Goodwill;  The  Federal  Trademark 
Acts  of    1870.    1881  and   1905;    The  Trademark 
Registration  Acts  of  the  States  and  Terri- 
tories; and  the  Canadian  Trademark 
and  Design  Act;  with  Forms 


By 

JAMES  LOVE  HOPKINS 


THIRD  EDITION 


Cincinnati 

THE  W.  H.  ANDERSON  COMPANY 

1917 


T 
1917 


C'OrYRIC.IlT.    lit  17 

nv 
THE  \V.   II.  ANDERSON  COMPANY 


INTRODUCING  THE  THIRD  EDITION 


With  the  present  revision  this  book  becomes  the  first  Amer- 
ican text  on  the  subject  to  attain  a  third  edition.  This  fact 
would  have  been  im]iossible  had  it  not  been  for  the  generous 
use  given  the  earlier  editions  by  the  judges  and  lawyers  of 
this  country,  and  for  the  many  and  kindly  suggestions  and 
criticism  from  my  professional  brethren  which  have  lightened 
my  labors,  all  of  which  I  take  equal  pride  and  ])leasure  in 
here  acknowledging. 

A  quarter  of  a  century  has  elapsed  since  I  first  ventured 
upon  the  literature  of  this  division  of  the  law,  and  engaged 
in  its  practice.  I  trust  that  these  pages  may  reflect  to  the 
reader  something  of  the  fascination  and  charm  the  subject 
has  ever  had  for  the  author. 

JAMES  LOVE  HOPKINS. 

Chemical  Building,   St.  Louis. 
December  1,  1916. 


Ui 


GG^S? 


AUTHOR'S  NOTE 

(FROM     I  UK   SKCONI)    KDI'I'ION.) 


Froude,  in  his  essay  on  the  Science  of  History,  said,  "Opin- 
ions alter,  manners  change,  creeds  rise  and  fall,  but  the  moral 
law  is  written  on  the  tablets  of  eternity.'' 

In  the  law  of  trademarks  is  contained  the  first  recognition 
by  the  courts  of  the  princ'ij)le  that  no  man  sliould  be  permitted 
to  pass  off  his  goods  as  those  of  another.  Does  the  fact  that 
this  department  of  our  law  is  of  so  recent  origin  import  that, 
in  the  past,  English  speaking  traders  were  more  honest  in  their 
dealings?  The  answer  to  that  question  must  be  looked  for  in 
the  pages  of  history.  Even  if  Napoleon  was  correct  in  his 
assertion  that  history  was  "but  a  fiction  agreed  upon,"  it  con- 
tains the  only  evidence  available  for  our  jjurpose.  Further- 
more, Buckle's  theory  that  history,  though  conflicting  as  to 
the  character  and  achievements  of  individuals,  is  still  har- 
monious as  to  the  manners  of  a  given  period,  leads  us  to  be- 
lieve that  the  authors  to  whom  we  purpose  to  briefly  refer 
may,  for  the  purpose  of  our  inquiry,  be  deemed  authoritative. 

Writing  of  the  conditions  existing  in  England  during  the 
Anglo-Saxon  period,  Hume  says  "Whatever  we  may  imagine 
concerning  the  usual  truth  and  sincerity  of  men  who  live  in 
a  rude  and  barbarous  state,  there  is  much  more  falsehood, 
and  even  perjury  among  them,  than  among  civilized  nations; 
virtue,  which  is  nothing  but  a  more  enlarged  and  more  cul- 
tivated reason,  never  flourishes  to  any  degree,  nor  is  founded 
on  steady  principles  of  honour,  except  where  a  good  education 
becomes  general ;  and  where  men  are  taught  the  pernicious 
consequences  of  vice,  treachery  and  immorality.  Even  super- 
stition, though  more  prevalent  among  ignorant  nations,  is 
but  a  poor  supply  for  the  defects  in  knowledge  and  educa- 
tion ;  our  European  ancestors,  who  employed  every  moment 
the  expedient  of  swearing  on  extraordinary  crosses,  and  relics, 
were  less  honourable  in  all  engagements  than  their  posterity, 


Vi  Al'TIIOR  S    N'OTE. 

wlio,  from  oxprriciu'c,  liavf  oiuittcd  tli<»s(»  iiicfTrc'tual  securi- 
ties. This  ^'t'lM'fal  proiuMU'ss  to  ix-rjiiry  was  fiim-li  iiuTcased 
by  the  usual  want  of  (lisconmuMit  in  jiul^'cs.  wlio  could  not 
disi'uss  an  intrirati'  ovidcnco.  and  were  oldij^oil  to  number, 
not  weijrh.  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses.   " 

Daniel  I)e  Foe  (whom  Taine  describes  as  "one  of  those 
indefati^'al)Ie  labourers  aiul  obstinate  eond)atants,  who.  ill- 
treatetl.  «'aluniniatrd.  imprisoiied.  sucfcrdcd  l>y  tlieir  upright- 
ness, eommon  sense,  and  enerjry  in  ^'aininj;  Kn^rland  over  to 
their  side")  p»d)lished  in  172")  and  1727  his  book.  "The  Com- 
plete Enplish  Tradesman."  in  wliitli  he  treats  of  the  ethics 
of  En^'lish  trade.  In  that  W(»rk  he  refers  to  the  "shop  rhe- 
toriek"  and  "tlux  of  falsehoods"  used  by  tradesmen  in  dispos- 
ing of  their  wares,  and  the  connnon  practice  of  keeping  on 
hand  a  bap  of  si)urious  or  debased  coin  from  which  to  make 
eljange.  Charles  Lamb  said  this  work  was  "of  a  vile  and 
debasing  tendency."  The  French  critic  is  prol)ably  the  bet- 
ter judge  of  Dc  Foe. 

In  1859  Herbert  Spencer  in  his  essay  on  "The  Morals  of 
Trade,"  treats  of  the  ethics  of  the  same  tradesmen  more  than 
a  century  later.  He  refers  to  "the  often-told  tale  of  adul- 
terations," and  .says,  "It  is  not  true,  as  many  suppose,  that 
only  the  lower  classes  of  llie  commercial  world  are  guilty  of 
fraudulent  dealing.  Those  above  them  are  to  a  great  extent 
blameworthy.  On  the  average,  men  who  deal  in  bales  and 
tons  differ  biit  little  in  morality  from  men  who  deal  in  yards 
and  pounds.  Illicit  praetiees  of  every  form  and  shade,  from 
venial  deception  up  to  all  but  direct  theft,  nuiy  be  brought 
home  to  the  higher  grades  of  our  commercial  world.  Tricks 
innumerable,  lies  acted  or  uttered,  elaborately-devised  frauds, 
are  prevalent;  many  of  them  established  as  'customs  of  the 
trade':  nay.  not  only  established,  but  defended.  •  •  • 
We  cannot  here  enlarge  on  the  not  uncommon  trick  of  using 
false  trademarks,  or  of  imitating  another  maker's  wrappers. 
•  •  •  Omitting  the  highest  mercantile  classes,  a  few  of  the 
less  eommon  trades,  and  those  exceptional  cases  where  an 
entire  command  of  the  market  has  been  obtained,  the  uniform 
testimony  of  competent  judges  is.  that  success  is  incompatible 
with   strict   integrity.     To   live   in   the  commercial   world  it 


author's  note.  vii 

appears  necessary  to  adopt  its  ("thical  code;;  immIIht  exceeding 
nor  falling  short  of  it— neither  being  less  lioiiest  nor  more 
honest.  Tiiose  who  sink  below  its  standard  are  expelled; 
while  those  who  rise  above  it  are  either  ])ulled  down  to  it  or 
ruined.  As,  in  self-defense,  the  civilized  man  becomes  savage 
among  savages;  so  it  seems  that  in  self-defense,  the  scrupulous 
trader  is  obliged  to  become  as  little  scrupulous  as  his  com- 
petitors. It  has  i)een  said  that  the  law  of  the  animal  creation 
is_'eat  and  be  eaten';  aiul  of  our  trading  community  it  may 
similarly  be  said  that  its  law  is— cheat  and  be  cheated.  A 
system  of  keen  competition,  carried  on,  as  it  is,  without 
adequate  moral  restraint,  is  very  much  a  system  of  commer- 
cial cannibalism.  Its  alternatives  are — use  the  same  weapons 
as  your  antagonists  or  be  conquered  and  devoured." 

If  the  statements  of  those  three  writers  are  to  be  accepted 
as  evidence,  and  they  would  seem  to  be  the  best  evidence,  as 
to  the  ethics  of  trade  in  England  at  the  several  periods  re- 
ferred to,  it  would  appear  that  the  present  condition  of  trade 
as  to  fairness  in  competition  is  far  more  wholesome.  That 
bettered  condition  must  be  attributed  largely  to  the  judicial 
evolution  of  the  principles  treated  in  this  book. 

In  this  conclusion,  the  author  is  supported  by  Sir  Frederick 
Pollock.  In  his  First  Book  of  Jurisprudence  he  says,  "Rules 
of  law  may  Avell  have,  in  particular  circumstances,  an  effec- 
tive influence  in  maintaining,  reinforcing,  and  even  elevating 
the  standard  of  current  morality.  The  moral  ideal  present  to 
lawgivers  and  judges,  if  it  does  not  always  come  up  to  the 
highest  that  has  been  conceived,  will  at  least  be,  generally 
speaking,,  above  the  common  average  of  practice;  it  will  rep- 
resent the  standard  of  the  best  sort  of  citizens.  This  is 
especially  the  case  in  matters  of  good  faith,  whether  we  look 
to  commercial  honesty  or  to  relations  of  personal  confidence. 
With  few  exceptions,  the  law  has,  in  such  matters,  been  con- 
stantly ahead  not  only  of  the  practice  but  of  the  ordinary  pro- 
fessions of  business  men." 

Ethical  evolution  and  organic  evolution  alike  are  accom- 
plished slowly,  and  the  possibilities  of  each  are  alike  limitless. 
From  the  days  when  the  Anglo-Saxon  judges  numbered  the 
witnesses  because  of  inability  to  weigh  their  testimony,  to  the 


Vin  AUTHOR  S   NOTE. 

era  wliou  the  requirement  of  fairness  in  trade  was  established, 
the  English-speaking  ])eople  have  made  immeasurable  ethical 
l)ri)gress.  To  that  progress,  the  science  of  law  has  made  many 
contributions,  and  has  been  indispensable. 

We  are  dealing  in  the  subjects  comprised  in  this  book 
witii  the  highest  ethical  development  of  that  wiiicii  we  term 
the  common  law.  The  standard  set  for  the  regulation  of  com- 
petition by  the  modern  decisions  evidences  the  high  degree  of 
ethical  development  of  the  modern  judiciary.  It  is  not  to  be 
expected  that  all  of  the  decisions  should  reach  the  same  alti- 
tude as  the  foremost.  To  say  this,  is  merely  to  say  that  the 
judges  who  wrote  the  opinions  were  not  of  equal  ability  and 
learning.  It  is  impossible  that  they  should  be.  But  on  the 
whole,  the  body  of  cases  with  which  we  here  deal,  forms  the 
most  convincing  proof  which  we  have  of  the  steady  improve- 
ment of  the  morals  of  trade,  and  the  gradual  extinction  of 
that  "commercial  cannibalism"  of  which  Spencer  wrote  less 
than  fifty  years  ago.  It  is  doubtful  whether  jurisprudence  has, 
during  any  corresponding  period  in  the  world's  history,  been 
of  greater  value  to  the  advancement  of  civilization  than  it 
has  in  dealing  with  the  subjects  here  considered,  during  the 
past  half  century. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  in  this  department  of  the  law 
which  has.  less  than  any  other,  been  hampered  by  statutes 
and  precedents,  and  which,  more  than  any  other,  rests  uiK)n  a 
foundation  purely  ethical,  there  should  be  found  so  great  har- 
mony between  so  many  independent  jurisdictions,  English  and 
American.  Such  legislation  as  has  been  effected  in  the  United 
States  has  been  desultory  and  comparatively  ineffective.  Its 
most  admirable  quality  is  its  non-interference  with  common- 
law  trademark  rights. 

In  submitting  this  more  comprehensive  work  to  the  pro- 
fession, it  is  a  subject  of  gratification  to  the  author  that  his 
former  book  entitled  "The  Law  of  Unfair  Trade"  has  been  so 
generally  accepted,  and  used  as  a  working  tool.  The  present 
work,  it  is  hoped,  will  be  found  more  adequate.  The  late 
cases  have  been  exhaustively  dealt  with.  The  addition  of 
the  statutes  and  forms  for  registration  employed  in  the  several 
states  and  territories,  and  the  Dominion  of  Caiuida,  is  intended 


AUTHOR  S  NOTES.  IX 

to  facilitate  the  business  of  the  practitioner,  in  registration 
and  litigation  outside  of  the  state  in  which  he  resides.  The 
forms  of  pleading  liave  been  added  to  from  the  best  sources. 
The  recently  enacted  federal  trademark  act,  together  with  the 
rules  and  forms  prescribed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Patents 
for  the  registration  of  trademarks  and  patent  office  i)ractice 
under  the  act,  is  reproduced  in  the  appendix.  Mobile  the  acts 
of  1870  and  1881  have  been  preserved,  with  their  annotations. 

THE  AUTnOR. 
St.  Louis,  October  1,  1905, 


CONTENTS 

CIIAPTKK    I. 
PREFATORY. 

SECTION.  I'ACJK. 

1.  Primitive  mercliandiae   inaikH I 

2.  The  neod  of  lt'j;al  n-straiiit  of   unfair  tradi- -i 

3.  Trademark   di-fiiu'd    '^ 

4.  Tradename    defined 10 

5.  Earliest  reco^Miition  ol   trademarkH    l'> 

0.     The  evolution  of  llu-  law  of  trademarks 10 

7.  Tlie  relative  protection  given  l)y  patents  and  trademarks KJ 

8.  Trademarks  distinguishcvl  from  patents  and  copyriglits 17 

9.  Function 1' 

10.  Nature  of  the  right  to  a  trademark   IB 

11.  The  test  of   exclusivenesa    20 

12.  Requisites  of  a  valid  trademark   20 

13.  Perpetual    existence     , 21 

14.  Territorial    limiLdtion    21 

15.  The  necessity  of   user    .•  •  2r> 

16.  How  trademark  rights  may  be  acquired    26 

17.  Trademarks  as  subject  of  sale,  assignment  or  becjuest 27 

18.  A8signal)ility  of  distillery  brands  and  the  like  38 

19.  Unfair    competition     '-^^ 

20.  Historical 40 

21.  Property  right  as  the  basis  of  the  action  for  unfair  competition.  4r> 

22.  Unfair  competition  distinguished  from  trademark  infringement.  47 

23.  Trade  slander  and  libel   •">'^ 

24.  Are  trademark  rights  monopolistic  in  ,"haracter  ? .')(> 

25.  Title 57 

26.  Licenses '"'^ 

27.  Trademarks  as  subjects  of  taxation 60 

CHAPTER  n. 
THE   ACQUISITION  OF  A  TRAE>EI\1ARK. 

28.  Who  may  acquire    ,.  •  61 

29.  User 63 

30.  Affixing   the    mark , 6.1 

31.  Registration  not  a  means  of  acquiring  65 

32.  Acquisition  by  assignment    67 

33.  Acquisition  by  an  alien    f>'^ 

34.  Priority   of   appropriation    69 

35.  Acquisition  of  the  right  to  use  the  name  of  another 73 

xi 


.\ii  CONTK.NTS. 

niAl'TKli  III. 

WHAI    lONSTriTTKS  A  VALID  TltADKM Ai;K 
SECTION.  PAGE. 

:UJ.     Tlu*    jri-noral    rulf    75 

.{7.      It  must  In-  truthful    75 

38.     A  dislionost  luhi-l  will   invalidate    7ii 

30.     Tlie  cast's  of  false  representation  in  connection  with  trademarks.  78 

40.  Manhattan  M«'dicine  ("o.  v.  Wood   80 

41.  The    .similar    eases — Assij,'nment    must   be   made    jjulilie    in    con- 

junetittn  with   the  trade  mark,  wlu-n   81 

42.  Unautliori/.i'd  use  of  words  "patent"  or  "patented" 81 

43.  Use  of  such  word  as  a  trademark  wlicn'  then-  has  been  a  patent.  84 

44.  The   effect  of  expiration  of   the  patent  upon   the  collocation   of 

color  used  in  the  patented  article   87 

45.  Names  of  patented  articles   88 

46.  Generic  term,  delined    93 

47.  Illustrations  of  ;,'fneri<.   t«'rm8 98 

48.  E.xamples  of  valid   trademarks,  fancy,  arbitrarj'   or  distinctive 

words 114 

49.  Generic  terms  judicially  defined    132 

50.  Marks  common  to  the  trade   134 

51.  The  name  ;;iven  an  unpatented  invention  by  the  inventor 130 

52.  Necessary   name  of  a  product    13(» 

53.  The  tradtmark<-d  article  not  a  trademark    139 

)4.     Paekafzes   as   tradi-marks    140 

)5.     Pictures    as    tradt-marks 141 

)6.     Words   as   trademarks    141 

w .     Method  of  arran^jinj,'  fjoods  as  trademark    142 

")8.     Words  taken  from  the  dead  lan<,aia^'es   143 

■>9.     Words  and  phrases  from  modern  foreign  languages 143 

60.  Words  become  generic  through  use   148 

61.  The  use  of  generic  nanus  protected   149 

62.  "Distinctive  names,"  under  the  Food  and   Drugs  Act    (June  30, 

190U,  Chap.  3015,  34  Stat,  at  L.  7(18 154 

63.  Systems  of  licensing  and  inspection  of  goods  mad     from  a  basic 

ingredient  bearing  a  trademark    155 

64.  The  teat  of  "origin  or  ownership"   157 

05.     Geographical    names    159 

66.  Ah  employed  l)y  sole  owner  of  a  natural  product  and  its  place 

of    production    160 

67.  When  geographical  names  will  be  protected  as  trademarks 160 

68.  Gef)graphical  names — The  underlying  principle   161 

09.     A  falw  gef»gTaphieal  name  vitiates  trademark   165 

70.  The  right  to  eom|)lain  of  unfair  use  of  geographical  name 166 

71.  When  relief  will  be  granted  against  fraudulent  use  of  geograph- 

ical    names     167 

72.  Proper  numes  as  trademark   168 


CONTENTS.  Xlll 

SEX3TI0N.  TAOK. 

73.  "Secondary  meaning"  doctrine  a|)i)li(>d  to  proper  names 1(J!) 

74.  Namea  of  celebrities   170 

75.  In  general,  of  one's  own  name   , 171 

76.  The  use  of  proper  namea  in  trade 172 

77.  The  proper  name  cases  classified    174 

78.  Fictitious  proper  names    1K2 

79.  Revocation  of  license  to  use  one's  own  name   182 

80.  Corporate    names    ,.  . .  IH'.i 

81.  Names  of  unincorporated  associations   ....  A'. 190 

82.  "Secondary   meanin-j;"    defined    190 

83.  Words  of   double   meaning    194 

84.  The  mark'L  validity  to  be  judged  as  of  the  date  of  its  adoption . .  195 

CHAPTER  IV. 

TRADEMARK  RIGHTS  IN  TITLES  OF  BOOKS,  PERIODICALS 
AND  PLAYS. 

85.  Trademark  in  title  of  a  book   196 

86.  Trademark  in  title  of  periodical    198 

87.  Play  titles  as  trademarks    202 

88.  Infringement   of  book  titles   and  play   titles  by   motion   picture 

titles 204 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE  LOSS  OF  THE  RIGHT  TO  A  TRADEMARK'S  USE. 

89.  Laches 206 

90.  Laches  and  acquiescence  distinguished   208 

91.  Acquiescence 209 

92.  Caution  notices  to  infringers  as  evidence  of  acqiiiscence 210 

93.  Abandonment 210 

CHAPTER  VI. 

GOODWILL. 

94.  Defined 218 

95.  In  particular  cases 221 

96.  As  a  subject  of  sale   225 

97.  Goodwill  subject  to  proceedings  in  eminent  domain 229 

98.  Goodwill  in  its  relation  to  firm  and  other  names 229 

99.  Rights  of  vendor   230 

100.  Right  of  vendee  to  reassign   233 

101.  Covenants  not  to  re-engage  in  business  233 

102.  The  valuation  of  goodwill    23S 

103.  Competition  between  vendor  and  vendee  239 

104.  Partnership   goodwill    243 

105.  Remedies 245 

106.  Breach  of  covenant  not  to  re-engage  247 

107.  Remedy  as  to  infringement  of  tradenames  identified  with  good- 

will     252 


Xiv  CONTT-rNTS. 

("llAriHU   \  11. 

T1L\I)K  SKCKKTS;    KKMIT  t>F  1MMVA(  Y. 
S»XTIOX.  PAOE. 

IdS.  Trndo    w-cn'tH^lntrodvutory     2ri3 

Un».  I'r<>t<vtii>n    in    .iiuity     255 

110.  TrH(l«nuirks  «)H  jinxluctM  of  wrtTrt  jinn'ortwH   '265 

111.  Actions   unil    drft-nm-H . .  266 

112.  The  riglit  of  privacy    267 

CIIAPTEK   \  ill. 
inkuin<;i:.mi:nt. 

1  i;j.  Of    infrinpomont   ponorally    279 

1 14.  No  trademark  in  form,  si/A',  nmttTiul  or  color   280 

1 1."..  The   early   adjudications 283 

1 1(5.  Infringement  of  color 284 

1 17.  Infringement  of  size  and  form — Distinctive  dress 287 

118.  Intent    and    scienter    293 

119.  What    persons    lial)le     , 295 

120.  Of    lahels,    generally    296 

121.  Of    packages,    generally 297 

122.  The  engraver  or  manufacturer  of  tlie  lalx>l    298 

123.  Of   counterfeiting   trademarks    300 

124.  Of  imitation  of  trademarks    , 300 

125.  C'oloralile    imitation     300 

126.  The  test  of  prohaliility  of  di-ception   301 

127.  The  degree  of  resemldance  which  constitutes  infringement 302 

128.  The  degree  of  care  expected  of  the  purcliaser    304 

129.  Infringement  must  he  l>y  use  on  same  class  of  goods 307 

130.  The  value  of  proof  of  fraudulent  intent   310 

131.  The  manner  of  establishing  fraudulent  intent    311 

132.  Infringing  hy   refilling  trademarked  packages   313 

133.  Packages  distinguished  from  their  contents    314 

134.  Infringenn-nt     hy     refitting     and     reselling     worn     trademarked 

artieh-s  .  .  .  . " 315 

135.  Infringement  hy  applying  a  manufacturer's  trach mark  to  goods 

of  his  to  which  he  does  not   iiittiid  its  a])pru'!itinn 315 

130.  Substitution ,.  .  .  317 

137.  The  tiBe  of  misleading  signs  and  circulars   319 

138.  Infringement  by  a  non-identical  word  or  mark    321 

139.  Patent  oflice  rulings  on  similarity  of  alleged  conflicting  marks.  .  330 

140.  MiKcellaneotis  matters  relating  to  infringement   330 

141.  The  use  of  letters  and  numerals    33S 

142.  The   judicial  t«'st  of   infringement 342 

143.  Kestraint  of  us*-  of  misleading  a<lvi  rtiscments  and  Hie  like 347 

144.  Infringement  in  another  jurisdiction    34S 

145.  Trademarks  of  variable  sound  and  pronunciation   349 


CONTENTS.  XV 
BECTION.                                                                                                                                                  PAOK. 

140.     The  ofTt'ct  of  ft  plurality  of  mnrk-B  for  a  flinplc  nrtiflo 350 

147.  ConfuHion  of  iiiail  inafttT  uh  t<Ht  of  tin-  ri/,'lit  to  injunction .'ir»2 

148.  Hotel,  restaurant  and  tlieat<'r  nameH  and  rij^litH  created  thereby.  .  354 

149.  Artistic  productions  as  sulijects  of  unfair  competition 350 

150.  Trade  ri^^lits  in  patentable  l»ut  unpatented  articles   357 

151.  "The  right   to   imitate"    36H 

152.  The  use  of  machine  manufacturer's  name  in  sale  of  rej)air  parts.  35H 

153.  Solicitation  of  customers  iiy  former  employee    351) 

154.  Inciting  iireach  of  contract  as  unfair  comijctition   363 

155.  Contracts  relating  to  stock  (piotations    366 

156.  Appropriation  of  "blind"'  advertising  as  unfair  coaipetition .  .  .  .  366 

157.  The  appropriation  of   ideas,   aside   from    patent,   trademark   or 

copyright,  as  unfair  competition    368 

158.  Threats  as  unfair  competition    372 

159.  Private  actions  for  damages  under  the  federal  anti-trust  acts...  37-> 

CHAPTER  IX. 

REGISTRATION. 

160.  Introductory  .  .  » 378 

161.  The  invalid  registration  acts    378 

162.  The  power  of  congress  to  jjrotect  trademarks   379 

163.  The  constitutionality  of  the  present  registration  act 37'* 

164.  The  advantages  of  registration    384 

1G5.     The  disadvantages   of  registration    386 

166.  Interferences 388 

167.  Between  a  registrant  and  an  applicant   388 

168.  The   preliminary    statement    389 

169.  The    issues    in    interference,    opposition    and    cancellation    pro- 

ceedings    389 

CHAPTER  X. 
COURTS,  PARTIES  AND  PROCEDURE. 

170.  Introductory 391 

171.  Jurisdiction  of  United  States  District  Courts   391 

172.  Jurisdiction  of  the  state  courts    395 

173.  Jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  Trade  Commission    396 

174.  The  eh>ments  whereon  jurisdiction  must  be  predicated    398 

175.  The  parties  plaintiff   399 

176.  The   parties   defendant    , 402 

177.  Forms  of   action    40.1 

CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  CRIMINAL  PROSECUTION— FEDERAL  AND  STATE. 

178.  The  Act  of  1876    407 

179.  Section   3449,  Revised  Statutes    , 408 

180.  Criminal  liability  at  common  law   410 

181.  Tlie  penal  statutes  of  the  several  states 411 


xvi  coNirrNTs. 

ClIAl'TKH  XII. 

ACTIONS    Al     LAW 
HFATION.  I'AOE. 

1S2.     Til.-   form    of    notion 412 

183.  T\h-   (l.olaration    4i:{ 

184.  I)»-f»>nm'« 417 

183.     L)am»gv» ....418 

("IIAPTHK   XIII. 

THK   ACTION    IN    Ki^  ITY. 

180.     The  liapJH  of  i><|uital>I<-  jurirtdiotion    424 

187.  Tin-  bill  in  t-iiuity . .  42H 

188.  Tri-wntin;,'  tho  «l.fenm'8    432 

189.  The    nnswj-r 4:{:{ 

15)0.      rarticulars 434 

101.     Soandal  and  imp«'rtint'nc(»    *  .  .  .  43."» 

1!>2.     Till-  di-ft-nsos  in  oquity    43rt 

l!t3.     The  n-Iiof    in   t'<|iiity    451 

194.     Till-  dirn-i'  in  unfair  competition  caws  as  to  tho  accounting 458 

19').      Forbidding  puldic-ation   of  tht-  di-croi*    460 

196.  H«'>itrainin<;  niitiri'j)n'st'ntationa  concerning;  the  decree    460 

197.  I'unitive  damufies   in   ifjuity    460 

198.  Increas*-  of  damages  in  equity 4(il 

199.  The  defendant's  credits  upon  accountinjj    401 

200.  Label  designing  as  a  judicial  function    462 

201.  Appeals 464 

202.  Certiorari 46.') 

CllAPTKR    XIV. 

MATTERS  OF   PRACTICK   AM)   FVIDENCE. 

203.  Matters  of  which  courts  will  take  judicial  notice    467 

204.  E.vpert  and  other  evidence  on  the  qui-stion  of  infringement 467 

20.'».      Successive  changes,  approach  to  plaintilY's  dress    470 

206.  Exhibits , 470 

207.  Discovery 471 

208.  Evidence  of  recognition  by  others  of  plaintill's  riu'ht  to  tiie  mark.  472 

209.  Cont«mpt8 473 

210.  AfTidavits 470 

211.  The  taking  of  testimony    477 

212.  EflTeet  of   former   adjudication     48S 

ClIAPTEH  XW 

COSTS. 

213.  Oenerally 490 

214.  Aviiiding  c«)HtH  by  HubnuKsion    490 

21.').      SulmiiMsion  to  avoid  costH  must  lie  complete    492 

216.     C<mtH   refuwd   HUcceHMfnl   defendant    492 

217       MiKci-lliiiiciMiM    iniiltcrs    493 


CONTENTS.  Xvii 

APPENDIX. 

PAOK. 

A.  Tradomnrk  Art  of  July  R,  1870.     Annotated   .OOl 

B.  Laltcl    Hf^iHtration    Act   of    .luno    IS,    1K74.      Annotated.      Patent 

Ollifc  Kulcs,  and  Form  nlutivc  thcrt'to   513 

C.  Trademark  Act  of  Au^Mist   14,  1H7(1.     Annotated    fiZH 

I).     'l'ra<lcniark  Act  of  March  3,  1S81.     Annotated   r/.i'l 

K.     Tradtniark   Act  of  Ki-ltruary   20,    HK).').      Annotated.      Patent  Ollice 

KiileH,  and  Korma  relative  thereto  549 

F.     Trademark    Htatutes    of    tlie    etatcH    and    territories.      Annotated. 

Witli  forms  for  rcfjistration  applications    620 

(J.     Canadian  Trademark  and  Desifni  Act.  with  rules  and  forms 8.31 

H.     Pills  of  complaint  and  answers.     Judicially  approved    8.'52 

I.       Forms  of  injunction — Interlocutory  and   final  decrees 901 

J.      Classification  of  re<ristered  trademarks   907 

K.     International  Convention  of  March  20,   1883    90') 

L.      Trademark   provision  of  an  act   incorporatinj,'  the   American   Na- 
tional  Red   Cross    922 

M.     Federal  Trade  Commission  Act ;   rules  of  the  commission    923 

N.     False  Stamping;  Act  of  June  13,  190G,  Ch.  3289,  34  tStat.  L.  260..  944 


TABLE  OF  CASES 


A.  Bailor  &  Co.  v.   Distillt'rie  de  la 

Liqueur   Bcni'dictine    {^^6  C.   C. 

A.  480),   IKi. 
V.    Order    of    Carthusian    Monks 

( Mi  C.  C.  A.  484 ) ,  :i2r). 
Abbott    V.    Bakers    &    Confectioners 

Tea    Assn.     (\V.     N.,    1S71,     p. 

207),  301. 
Abernethy  v.   Hutchinson    ( 3   L.   J. 

Ch.   214),  2G0. 
Acker,  Merrall  &  Condit  Co.  v.  Mc- 

Caw    (144  Fed.   Rep.  864),  233. 
Acme  Harvester  Co.  v.  Craver   (110 

HI.   App.  413),  223. 
Actienpesellschaft  Vereini*»te  Ultra- 

marin-Fabriken  v.  Amberg    (48 

C.  C.  A.  2()4 ) ,  443. 
Adams    v.    Heisel     (31     Fed.     Rep. 

279),    7,    142,    27fl,    334,    38(5, 

fiOB,  536,  538. 
V.  Tannage  Pat.  Co.   (81  Fed.  Rep. 

17!»),  440. 
Addington     v.    Cullinane     (28    Mo. 

App.   238-241),  419. 
Addley    Bourne   v.    Swan   &   Edgar, 

Ltd.    (20    R.    P.   C.    105,    120), 

348. 
Adoe  V.  Peck  Bros.   &  Co.    (39  Fed. 

Rep.  209,  210),  8,  88.  149. 
Adriance,  Piatt  &    Co   v.    National 

Harrow  Co.    (58  C.  C.  A.  163), 

375. 
Aetna  ^Mill  &  Elec.   Co.   v.   Kramer 

Milling  Co.  (82  Kan.  679),  174. 
A.   F.   Pike   Mfg.    Co.    V.    Cleveland 

Stone  Co.    (35  Fed.   Rep.  896), 

167,  896. 


References  are  to  pagra. 

A.   O.    Spalding   &    Bros.  v.   A.   W. 

Carnage,     Ltd.     (32     R.     P.     C. 

284),  23. 
V.   A.  W.  CJaniage.  Ltd.    (31    R.   P 

C.    125,    139),   317. 
V.  A.  W.  Carnage,  Ltd.    (32  R.  P. 

C.  273,  286),  347. 
Ainswortli    v.    Walnisley    (L.    R.     1 

Eq.    518),    114,    168,    307,    338. 

341,    439,   443. 
V.   Walmesley  (44  L.  J.  555),  213. 
Air-Brush  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Thayer    (84 

Fed.  Rep.  640),  52,  308,  546. 
A.   J.  Reach   Co.  v.   Simmons  Hdw. 

Co.    (155  Mo.   App.   412),   401. 
Alaska   Packers'  Assn.  v.  Crooks  & 

Co.    (18  R.  P.  C.    135),  469. 
V.  Alaska  Imp.  Co.   (60  Fed.  Rep. 

103),  30,  81,  417. 
Albany    Perforated    Wrapping    Pa- 
per   Co.    V.    John    Hoberg    Co. 

(  102  Fed.  Rep.  157,  158),  352. 
Albers   Bros.    Milling   Co.    v.    Acme 

Mills  Co.   (170  Fed.  Rep.  989), 

101. 
Albert   v.    Strange    (2   UeG.   &   Sm. 

652),   260. 
Alden  v.  Gross   (25  Mo.  App.   123), 

103,   471. 
A.     Lesclien     &    Sons    Rope    Co.    v. 

Broderick   &   Bascom   Rope   Co. 

(201  U.  S.   166),  139,  282. 
V.  Broderick  &   Bascom  Rope  Co. 

(36  App.  D.  C.  451),  570. 
V.  Broderick  &   Bascom  Rope   Co. 

(123   Fed.   Rep.    149.   152),  545, 

580. 
V.  Broderick  &   Bascom  Rope  Co. 

(134   Fed.    Rep.    571),  99,   335. 
xix 


XX 


TAULi;  OK  cA^i:.- 


Al.-Aim 


Rrfrrmcts 

A.  Iy<'Kluii  \  Sons  Rope  (\).  V.  Fill- 

l.r  (  1.14  C.  ('.  A.  :.7ui.  i.m 

V.  MacDmlHT   vV    Why  to    Hop*-  ("«». 

(142   F.Hi.    Hi'p.  2H1M,   1. 10. 

Alfxandcr  v    MorH.-    (14   K.   I.   IVl). 

Alexander    I'irir  A    Sons   v.   Cixulall 

(L.  K..  isni.  1  (Ml.  I).  :<:>4i). 
or). 

AlfT  V.   Ha.liim    (77  Tex.  r»30).   107. 
Allen  V.  MiCartliy    (37   .Minn.  347  > . 
f.-i.   .')(»!». 
V.   MoK<>en     (I     Sumn.     l27()-314), 

20!». 
V.  Walton     Wood     &     Metal     Co. 
(178    Fed.    Tvep.    '287 ) ,    17S. 

Allen   B.    Wrisl.y   Co.   v.    Buck    (9") 

Off.    (Jaz.    24S;)i,    330. 
V.  Geo.    K.    Rouse    Soap    Co.    (87 

Fed.    Rep.    589),   286,   290. 
V.  Iowa  Soap  Co.    ( 104  Fed.  Rep. 

r.48i,    108. 
V.    Iowa    Soap    Co.     (i\'.}    C.    C.    A. 

541.    108. 
V.   Iowa  Soap  Co.    ( 122  Fed.    Uej). 

796),   48. 
Allegheny    Fertilizer    Co.    v.    Wood- 
side    (Fed.    Case    No.    20(i),   98, 

120.    143.   34.-). 
Allepretti     v.     All.-<:n'tti     Cliocolate 

Cream  Co.    (  177    111.    12!>l,  28. 
Allepretli    ChfK-olate    Cn-ani    Co.    v. 

Keller    (85   Fed.    Rep.   643),   52, 

176,   307. 
Alpin  V.  HiclmriU  (2(1  K.  P   < '.  7'M\>. 

331. 

Aluminum    ('(M)kiii;;    rtcn-^i!    Co.    v. 

National       Aluminum       Works 

(226    Fed.    Rep.   SI. I,  SI7  I.    131, 

3((2,    332. 
Ameriean    Bmtk    ('«».    v.    TJates     (85 

Fid.    Rrp     729-734).    54. 
Ameriean   Box  Co.   v.  C'rosman    '57 

F.-d.    Kep.    1021,    1029),  454. 


n,     to    i>ii<i'/t. 

.American    Hrtwin;;   Co.    v.    Bii-nville 

Mnw.ry     (153    Fed.     K.p.     615, 

619).    99,   2!M1. 
V.  St.  Ixtuis  Brewinjr  Co.   (47  M«». 

App.    14),   286,   .320. 
.XnitTican    Cereal    Co.    v.     V'A'i    IN-tti 

John  Cereal  Co.    (2)     (22  C.  C. 

A.    2361.    174,  451. 
V,    KJi    rittijoliM    Cereal    Co.     (72 

Fed.    Rep.   903),    166.    187. 
American   Clay   Mfp.  Co.  v.  Ameri- 
ean   Clay    Mfg.    Co.     (198    Pa. 

189).  295. 
American   Coat    Pad   Co.   v.    Phwnix 

Pad    Co.    (113    Fed.    Rep.   629). 

52. 
American    Fxchaii^'e  National   Bank 

V.    First    Natl.    Hank    (82    Fed. 

Rep.    961),    484. 
American    Filtre  Cluimois  Co.   v.   De 

l.ee     (67     Fed.    Rep.    .329),    121, 

443. 

American  drocer  Pul).  (^o.  v.  firoeer 

Pul..    Co.     (25    Hun.    398.,    294, 

344. 
American  drocery  Co.  v.  Sloan    (68 

Fed.    Rep.    539),    126,   328. 
American  Law  Book  Co.  v.  Edward 

Tlionipson  Co.    (84   N.   Y.  Supp. 

225),    3ti4. 
American    Novelty    i    Mf;;.    Co.    v. 

Manufacturing,'    Klectrieal    Nov- 
elty Co.    (73   .\.  Y.  Supp.  755). 

320. 
.Vnii-rican    Order    of    Scottish    Clans 

\.  .Merrill   (151  Mass.  558) ,  190. 
.\nierican  Solid  Leather  Button  Co. 

V.  Anthony    (  15  R.  I.  .338).  339. 

.'>08. 
American  Stay  Co.  v.  Delaney   (211 

Mass.  229),  257. 
.\ineriean  Stove  Co.  v.  l)<troit  Stoxe 

Works    (31    App.    U.    C.    304), 

123. 


Amc-Arm 


'l'AUI,K    OF    CASRS. 


XXI 


RcfcrvncvH 

Aiiuiiian  Tin    I'liift-  Co.   v.  Lickinf,' 

Koll.T  Mill  Cn.    (i:.H   K.mI.    It.-p. 

(iJH)),  4:)(). 
AmtTicnn  Toliacco  Co.  v.  (ilolir  To- 

Imcco  Co.   (lO.S  F.'(i.  Kcji.  1015), 

11.}. 
V.  Cucht    (!»    K.    I'.    C.    "J IS),   4;{H, 

493. 
V.  Polaosek    (170    Fcl.    H.-p.    117. 

120),  8,  131. 
American    Waltham    Watcli    Co.    v. 

Sandman    (!K!   F.'d.    Rep.    330), 

Kil. 
V.  United  States  Watch  Co.    (173 

Mass.  8.")),   10,   IGl,   r.»3. 
American   Washboard    Co.   v.    Sa<?i- 

naw   Mfg.   Co.    (103  Fed.    Rep. 

281),  45,  64,  1)8. 
American    Wine    Co.    v.     Kohlman 

(ir)8  Fed.  Rep.  830),  !t8. 
Amoskeap  Mfg.   Co.  v.   Garner    (2) 

(54  How.  Pr.  298),  439,  493. 
V.  Garner     (55    Barb.    151),    148, 

213,  293,  308.  537. 
V.  Spear  (2  Sand.  S.  C.  599),  132, 

158,    209. 
V.  Trainer     (101    U.    S.    51,    5(>), 

4,   5,   7,  77,   98,    157,   340,   341, 

342. 
Anargyros   v.   Egyptian    Aniasis  Ci- 
garette   Co.    (150    X.    Y.    Supp. 

626),  326. 
Anargyrop  &  Co.  v.  Anargyros  ( 167 

Fed.  Rep.  753,  769 ) ,  452. 
Anderson     v.     Liebig's     Extract    of 

Meat  Co.   (45  L.  T.   N.  S.  757- 

758),  54.  106. 
V.  Rowland     (18    Te.x.    Civ.    App. 

460),  251. 
Andrew    Jergens    Co.    v.    Woodlmry 

(133  0.  G.  513),  .567. 
Andrew  McLean  Co.  v.  Adams  Mfg. 

Co.    (31   App.  D.  C.   509),  131, 

569. 


arv   (u  pages. 

Angle  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  Railway  Co. 

(151    V.   S.    1),  364. 
Angier    v.     Wehlier     (92    .\m.     Dee 
7541,  247. 
V.   Webber    (11  Alien,  211),  240. 
Anglo-SwisH  Condensed   Milk  Co.  v. 
Metcalf    (I..   R.  31  Cli.   I).  454  i , 
321. 
Anhenser-BuHeh     Brewing    Assn.     v. 
Clarke   (26   Fed.  Rep.  410),  286, 
296,  337. 
V.   Pisa   (23  Blatelif.  245),  159. 
V.   Piza    (24    Fed.    Rep.    149-151), 

167,   .307,   337. 
V.  Yuengling   &   Son    ( 129   O.   G. 
3501),  573. 
Anheuser-Busch      Brewing      Co.      v. 
Fred    Miller    Brewing    Co.     (87 
Fed.  Rep.  864),  52,  l.-)2,   168. 
Ansell  V.  Gaubert  (Seton   (4th  Ed.) 

235),  256. 
-Apollinaris  Brunnen  v.  Somborn  (14 

Blatchf.  380),  324. 
Apollinaris   Co.    v.   Brumler    (Man- 
ual, 429),  290. 
V.  Ilerrfeldt    (4   P.    R.  478),    115, 

324. 
V.  Moore  (Cox,  Manual,  Case  Xo. 

675),  115. 
V.  Norrish    (33  L.  T.  N.   S.  242), 
61,   115. 

Apollinaris   Co.     (Ltd.)     v.    Scherer 

(23  Blatchf.  459,,  115,  402. 
Apollo  Bros.   V.  Perkins    (207   Fed. 

530),   367. 
Appeal    of    the    Putnam    Nail    Co. 

(Cox,  Manual,  No.  725),  490. 
Applebee  v.  Skiwanek  ( 140  X.  Y.  S. 

4.50),  257. 
Annington     V.     Palmer    (21     R.     I 

109),  14,  15,  184. 
Armistead  v.  Blackwell  ( 1  Off.  Gaz. 

603),  32,  120,  507,  512. 
V.  Kleinhaus    (82    Ky.    303),   37, 

213.  401. 


XXII 


TAHLi;    OK    C'ASt>i. 


Arm  itiik 


Ut  fm  nrt  s   a 

Arinstr«)i)^'   v.    Ritn«r    (71    M«l.    US- 

1-27).  222.  24.». 
Arm-troiif:  A  (\>.  v.  Snvnnimli  Soap 

UorkH  (:.:<  FihI.  Hrp.  124..  40.M. 
Arni>tr<in;;     Scntn;;     i»yHt«T    Co      v. 

Sniitlis"   Isliijul  Ovslrr  Co.    (130 

c.  c.  A.  «i:iti).2s:{.  ;{7n. 
Arthur   \.    Ilowarti    (  !!•    I'a.  (<>.  ft. 

811.   123. 
Arnnd.ll  v.   H.ll    ( .V2  L.  .1.  iMi.  -).S7  I . 

224. 
ABlH'Btoiu'  Co.  V.    I'liilip  Cany  Mfj,'- 

Co.    (41    Ap|».    1).  C.   ■"><»7).   rM\. 
AslwstoK    &     AxlM'tic     Co.     V.     Win. 

Sdntt-r  Co.   (IS  Rap.  .lud.  i}\u'. 

c.  s.  :u;n  i .  !)<». 

Aphlcy    V.    Dixon     (4S    N.    V.    4.WI ) , 

.3(i.'). 
A.    Stfin    \    Co.    V.    Lihcrty    (!artfr 

Co.    (1!IS   F.a.    K.-p.    !>.-)«»).    127. 
Aptor  V.  \V«'8t  82(1   Str.   Realty   Co. 

(1.V2  N.  Y.  s.  (i:n ».  :i.")(}.  :{ti7. 
Atkin8  V.    Moon-    (142  « >.   C    .')71». 

.^>74. 
Atkinson     v.    Atkinson     (8.")     I>.     'J'. 

.lour.  22!1).  404.  44.S. 
V.  .lolin    K.    Dolicrty    &    Co.    (121 

Midi.  :{72).  27:i. 
Atlanta    v.   Cliattaiioo;ia    Kouri(iry    & 

Pipi'works    (127    l''<<i.    l\<p.  2:1), 

.170. 
Atlantic     Millin;;    Co.    v.     Roliiiison 

(20  K»-d.  R.-p.  217).  27.  37,  <il, 

117,  212,  401. 
V.   RowlaiKJ     (27     l"«(l.     I{<-l'-    --•»• 

4.''>(S. 
Atlan  AHBiirancf  Co.  v.   Atlas  Insnr- 

an«<'  Co.    (112  N.  W  .  R.  p.  2;<2  i , 

22,   ll.V 
AtlBH    Mf^'.    Co.    V.   Stn.t   &.    Smitli 

(122  C.  C.  A.  .')(18),  205. 

AtwKttr  V.  Cahtncr  (.'12  C.  C.  A.  77), 

100. 
Anliin  v.  H<ilt  (2  K.  A  .1.  (WD,  22'.. 
Ain-rliHrh    A    Sohh    v.    Hall    &    Hay- 

ward  Co.   (Ill  O.  G.  8(10),  389. 


re   to   payis. 

Ault  A  Wylvorn  Co.  v.  Cli.-sliir.    (  IIH 

K.-d.    R.'p.    741),    108. 
Anstt-n   V.    Boy«    (2   DcCn-x  A   .loru's, 

(J20-(»3«),  223. 
Autoniatif     Rtcordin<;    Safr    Co.     v. 

Raiik.rs"     Rr;;.     Siif.-    Co.     (224 

F.d.    R.'p.  .".00.  .".11  ),  Jm,   130. 
Avory   V.    Mciklc    (HI    Ky.    73,   01), 

(>.  318.  341.  424. 
V.   Wilson   (20  K.-d.  R.-p.  S.'iU-S.'iO  i , 

44!i.  40.".. 
,\v.narius    v.    Korii.-ly    (  121     N.    W . 

R.-p.  330  I.   117. 
V.    Korii.ly    (  13'.)   Wis.  247),  00. 
Ay.r  V.  Hall   (3  Rn-wst.  .".0!)).  241. 
V.    Riislitoii    (7    Daly,   !• , ,    100. 

6 

Ral.i.itt   V.    Brown     ((18    Hun.   .'.1.'.), 

13.    33.".. 
Rac-li.-ld(-r  A    (<..    v.    Racli.l.l.r    (220 

Mass.    1731,  232. 
Racku-    \.     laylor     ( S4     in.l.    .".03). 

24.-.. 
B.  A.  Corliin  A   S..n  v.  Mill.-r.  Kohl- 

h<-pp.  Cri.'s.'  A  Co.  (!IH  OIF.  (la/.. 

148.-.).  .300. 
Bajrhy    A    Riv.-rs   C...    v.    Rivers    (87 

Md.  400).  2.33,  2.34,  244. 
Ba;:l.-y    v.    IVddi.-    (10    N.    Y.    4(iO). 

24  C. 
Ba<ilin    v.    Cus.-iii.-r    Co.     (  l.-.O    K.-d. 

R.-p.   1010),  00. 
V.   Cus.iii.r  Co.    (72  C.  (\  .\.  .".."».'i). 

4.V2. 
V.   Cus.-iii.-r   Co.    (221    V.   S.   .".HO). 

118. 
Bailly    v.    Nasliawamiu.k    Mff;.    Co. 

(.-.1    ()(T.  C.a/..   070).   123. 
Bain    v.    Muiir..    (  1.".    ."-^(-ot.    L.    R.-p 

200),   224. 
Baker  v.    Bak.r   (  ".3  C.   C.   A.    1.'.7  i. 

187. 
V.   .Sandi-rs     (07     1-".  .1      iup     048). 

170. 


fiak-Bat 


TAitM';    OK    CASES. 


XXlll 


Rcfcrincis 

Baker  &  C"o.  v.  Baker    (77   Ki-d.  Kq>. 

181),  KUi.  17<i,  177,  320. 
Baking  I'owdir  Co.  v.  Fyfc  (45  Fed. 

Rep.  71M>),  ir)0. 
Baldwin  v.  (Jrit-r  Bros.  Co.  (21")  Fed. 

Rep.  73"),  737),  2!»3,  3(1!). 
V.  Von      Mifhcroiix      (2")     N.      Y. 

Supp.  8r)7),  28,  38,  2(i3,  401. 
Ball    V.    l{ost     (135    Fed.    I{cp.    434, 

437),  23,  353. 
V.  Broadway    Bazaar     (87    N.    K. 

Rep.   074),   1)0. 
V.  Sii-<rcl    (110    III.    137-14(i|,   104, 

27!»,  301,  300,   508. 
Ball  &   Sofki't  Fastener  Co.   v.  Colin 

(!t0  Fed.  Rep.  004),  430. 
Baltimore  Life   Ins.  Co.  v.  Cleisner 

(202  Pa.  380),  56. 
Bamfort  v.   Douglass   Post  Card  Si 

Maeliine    Co.     (158    Fed.     Rep. 

355,  357),   140,  357.  372. 
Banks  v.   Gibson    (34   Bevan,    50()), 

11,  20,   31,   32,   222. 
Banzhaf   v.   Chase    (150   Cal.    ISO), 

52. 
Barher  v.   Connecticut    Mutual    Life 

Ins.    Co.     (15     Fed.    Rep.    312, 

313),  210. 
Barclay    v.    Carter    Med.    Co.     (41 

App.  I).  C.  240),  507. 
Barlow  v.  Johnson  (7  R.  P.  C.  305), 

127,   152,  323,  344. 
Barnes    v.    Pierce    (104    F.d.    Rep. 

213),  115,  318. 
Barnett  v.  Leuchars  ( 13  L.  T.  X.  S. 

405),  313. 
Barrett   v.    doom    (74    L.    T.    .Tour. 

388),  337,  443. 
Barrett  Chem.  Co.  v.  Stern   (170  X. 

Y.  27),  05.   128. 
Barrows    v.    Knijiht    (0    R.    T.    434, 

438),  128,  170,  424. 
V.  Pelsall    (Sel).  530),  340. 
Barry  v.  Edmunds    (116  U.  S.  550, 

562),  421. 


ntr  to  I'liyes. 

Barstow  Stove  (  <>.  v.   Detroit   Stove 

Works    (31     .\j.p.     1).    (;.    .304), 

123. 
Basket  Stores  v.  Allen   (Neb.)    (155 

N.   \V.    |{ep.  803),  300. 
Hass    V.    Dawher    (1!)    L.     T.    N.    S. 

()20i,   400. 
V.  (Jufigenlieiiner     (00    Fed.     Rep. 

271),  438,  401. 
V.  Henry  Zeltner  Brewing  Co.   (87 

Fed.   Rep.  408),  310. 
V.   Henry    Zeltner    Brew.   ('o.    (37 

C.  C.  A.  355),  310. 
Bass,    Rateliir  &   Cretton    (Ltd.)    v. 

Feinjcnspan    ^00   Fed.    Rep.  200- 

211).     10,    .308,    333.    337,    441, 

442. 
Bassett    V.    I'ereival     (87    Mass.     (5 

Allen),  345-347),   231. 
Batcheller  v.  Thomson    (35  C.  C.  A. 

532),   00. 
V.  Thcmison    (80    Fed.    Rej).   630), 

31,  37,  241. 

Mat<Mnaii    v.    Faii.'asoii    (4    Fed.    Rep. 

32,  33),  445. 

Bates  Mfg.  Co.   v.   Bates  Mach.  Co. 

(141   Fed.   Rep.  213),  315. 
v.   Bates  Numbering  Machine  Co. 

(172    Fed.    Rep.   802),   115. 
V.   Bates     Xumbering    ^lach.     Co. 

(172    Fed.   Rep.   802),    188. 
Bates  Xumbering  Mach.  Co.  v.  Bates 

Mfg.   Co.    (178  Fed.   Rep.   681), 

188. 
Hattersby  v.  Collier   (54  X.  V.  Sujip. 

363),  55. 
Batt«'rshell   V.    Bauer    (01    111.    App. 

181).  242. 
Battle  V.  Finlay    (li,   (45  Fed.  Rep. 

706),   117.    138. 
V.    Kiiilay      (2).      (50     Fed.     Hep. 

106),   10.    117,  302,  442. 
Battle  Creek  Sanitarium  Co.  v.  Ful- 
ler   (30    App.    I).    C.    411  ).    562. 

564,  567.  560,  570. 
Batty  v.  Hill  ( 1  H.  &  M.  264),  100. 


TAIILK    oy    CASUS 


m.ii  Mht 


Kcfcrcnccx  arc  to  /»«_«;«'«. 


H  U.  Hill  lo.  V.  Siiwyor-RoHs  Mf« 
Co.    (112  K.><1.    Hop.   144).  8l». 

lieadlrtiton  &  Wtn-rz  v.  I'tMiki-  Hn-w- 
iiip  l"o.    (20   V.   ('.    A.    4().'.  I.   S, 

io:>,  itir). 

Boakin    v.    Stantt>n     (;l     Ff<l.    Krp. 

435),  454. 
Bcal  V.  Cha«4'    (:U   Mich.  4«.M)).  242. 
Beard  v.  n.nni8   ((J  Ind.  2(M)),  247. 
V.  Turn.r    ( l.'l  L.  T.   N.   S.   746), 

14:5.  2on.  :vM. 

B.-ddnll  V.  Mnitliind   (17  C.  I).  ISl). 

434. 
Becbc  V.  Tolerton  &  Stetson  Co.  ( 117 

Iowa,  593),  62. 
Borcham   v.   Jacohs    (l.'iO    Fed.    Rtp. 

12St),   82,  44(i. 
Bein  v.  Ihath   (12  How.   Itlhi,  4.'>4. 
Bell  V.  Ellis  (.33  Cal.  «;2()-<>2r)),  219. 
V.  Locke    (8    Pai-je,  75),   41,   126, 

199,  202. 
Bell  4  Bopart  Soap  Co.  v.  Petrolia 

Mfp.  Co.    (54  X.  Y.  Supp.  0(53- 

666),  261,  262. 
Benbow    v.    Low    ( L.    R.    10  Ch.    I). 

931,   472. 
Bender   v.    Enterprise  Mfj,'.    Co.    (S4 

C.  C.  A.  353).  315. 
Benedictus  V.  Sullivan   (12  R.  P.  C. 

251,   326. 
Benjamin    Moore    &    Co.    v.    Auwell 

(1.58    Fed.    Rep.    4«2),   453. 
Benkert    v.    Feder     (34     Fed.    Hep. 

534),  429,  455,  4.56,  893,  901. 
Bennett  v.  MeKinley    (65  Fed.   Rep. 

.505  1,  96,   105,    193,    194. 
V.   White    (W.    N.,    1910,    p.    107), 

434. 
Benton  v.  Ward   (59  F.-d.  Rep.  411- 

413  I,  201. 
Berpamini  v.   Bantien   (35  La.  Ann. 

OU),  231. 
Berliner    Brauerei     r.es«-ll»cliaft     v. 

Kniplit    (W.    N.,    1883,    p.   70), 

130. 


Bernstein  v.  Danwit/.  (  190  Fed.  Rep. 

004).  .581. 
Iliekinore    Call    Cure    Co.    v.    Karni* 

(  134   Fed.  Rep.  833).  51. 
V.   Kariis  Mfp.  Co.    (126  Fed.  Rep. 

.573),  469. 
Hiphie  Bros.  &  Co.  v.  Blutlienthal  & 

Bickart   (126  ().  O.   1063),  .573. 
Billiken  Co.  v.  Baker  &  Bennet  Co. 

(174   Fed.   Rep.  829),  116,  440. 
Hinpliam    Seliool    v.    (Jray    (  122    N. 

(  ar.  099),   175. 
Hininper   v.   Clark    (00    Marb.    113), 

244. 
Hinninper  v.   Wattles    (28  How.   l*r. 

206).    108,    174. 
Hinns  v.  Vitapraph  Co.    (132  N.  Y. 

S.   2371.   278. 
Rirniinphan'  N'inepar  Rrewery  Co.  v. 

Pow.U   (L.  R.,  1897,  A.  C.  710), 

206. 
Hischoirscheim   v.    Baltzer    (10   FVd. 

Rep.   1),  485. 
Hissell  Chilled  Plow  Works  v.  T.  M. 

Bissell  Plow  Co.   (121  Fed.  Rep. 

357,  364),  20. 
Hlaek   v.   Allen    (42    Fed.    Rep.    (518. 

023),  4.30. 
Hlaek  V.  Ehrich   (44  Fed.  Rep.  794), 

102,   197,  205. 
Hlacklook  v.  U.   S.    (208  U.  S.  75), 

410. 
Hlaekwell   v.   .\rnii.stea<l    (Fed.   Case 

No.   1474),  .57,   120. 
V.  Armistead     (3     Huphes,    163), 

326. 
V.  Crahh   (30  L.    J.  Ch.  504  i ,  337. 
V.   Dibrell    (Fed.  Case  No.   1475), 

104,  210. 
V.   Dibrell  (14  OIL  (Ja/..  (5.33).  120. 
V.   Wripht    (73    N.    l'.    310),    102, 

120,   305. 
Hlaekwell    4    Co.    v.    Dibrell    A    Co. 

(3   Huphes,    151),    1(50. 
ir.akoy  V.  Latham    (85  L.  T.    (.Tour- 

iwl),    17).   S(\. 


]ila  Km 


taum;  of  casks. 


XXV 


UlaiKliaid  \.   Hill    (2  Atk.  4«t  I ,   If., 

40. 
Blaiu-liard   Co.   v.    Simon    (.'.l    S.    I]. 

|{<|..   22->),  71. 
HIcas*  V.   Carlin^itoii    (02  U.  S.    1), 

47S.   47!l. 
lUofk  V.  Staiidaril  Distilling,'  &   Dis- 

trilnitiiif,'    Co.     (D")     F«'(l.     H«'p. 

07S),  r.2.  4:?n. 

Blocto    V.    Simon     (  1!>    Alil).     \.    C. 

88),   (12,   r)00. 
niofifid  V.  I'ayn.-   (4  H.  &  Ad.  410), 

338,  412,  422,  442. 
Blogjr  V.   Anderson    (X.  S.  \V.  21    L. 

R.    Kq.   238),   217. 
Bloss    V.    HJooin.T     (23    Hail).    ()04 ) , 

4  IS. 
Blutlu-nthal   v.   Molilmann    (48   Fia. 

321),  32!). 
Boardman  v.  Moriden  Britannia  Co. 

(3.>  Conn.  402),  330,  341,  442. 
Board  of  Trade  v.  L.  A.  Kinsey  Co. 

(130  Fed.   Rep.   oOT,  513),  3()(>. 
Bodofja  Co.   (Ltd.)   v.  Owens  (23  L. 

R.  Jr.  371),  418. 
Boossneck  v.  Iselin    (82  N.  V.  Sujip. 

1G4),    334. 
Boggs   V.   Friend    (W.   Va.)     (87    S. 

E.  Rep.   873),  247. 
Bolander  V.  Peterson   (130  111.  21.")), 

112. 
Bol,on  &  Byrne  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Jonasch 

(GO  X.  Y.  Supp.  5;").-)),  312. 

Bond  V.  Milhourn  (20  W.  R.  107), 
20. 

Bondier  v.  Depatie  (3  Dorion,  233), 
340. 

Bonnie  &  Co.  v.  Bonnie  Bros.  (Ky.) 
(160  S.  W.  Rop.  871),  116. 

Boon  V.  Moss   (70  X.  Y.   465),  220. 

Boord  V.  Huddart  (21  R.  P.  C.  140), 
13.-). 

Boord  &  Son  v.  Thom  &  Cameron, 
T.d.  (24  R.  P.  C.  607,  at  pages 
720,   721),   73. 


h'vfcrcnciH  (irr   to  /«/(/<  v. 

HooKing    \.    Durniaii    (  133    X.    \.   S. 

010),  .{(iO. 
Booth  V.  .Jarrett  (.'.2  How.  i'r.   100  i , 

180,  212. 
Bordt'H     Ice    Cream    Co.     v.    Borden 

CondenHed   Milk  Co.    (201    PVd. 

510),  307. 
Bortliwiek   v.   Evening   I'ost    ( L.    H. 

37  Ch.  D.  440),  202. 
Boston  Diatite  (!o.  v.   PMorenco  Mfg. 

Co.     (114    Mass.    00),    10,    273, 

204. 
Boston  El.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Cirace  &  Hyde 

Co.   (50  C.  C.  A.  320),  414. 
Bourlier  v.  Macauley  (01  Ky.  135), 

365. 
Bourne  v.  Swan  &  Edgar  (1003)    (1 

Ch.  211),  460. 
Bout<'lle  V.  Smith    (110  .Mass.   Ill), 

242. 
Bowden  v.   Randolph  Tp.    (41   N.  J. 

Law,  462),  73(). 
Bowman    v.    Floyd     (85   Mass.    76), 

11. 
Boynton  v.  Shaw  Stocking  Co.    (146 

Mass.  210),  55. 
Boyson    v.     Thorn      (08    Cal.     578), 

365. 
Bozon    V.     Farlow     ( 1     Mer.     459 ) , 

224. 
Bradhury  v.  Barden   (35  Conn.  577), 

225. 
V.  Beeton    (.39  L.  J.  Ch.  57),  202. 
V.  Dickens    (27  Beav.  53),  32. 
Bradford  v.  Belknap  Co.    (105   Fed. 

Rep.   63,  66 J,   454. 
V.  Peckham     (0    R.     I.    250-253), 

231,  239. 
Bradley  v.  X'orton    (33  Conn.    l.")7), 

118. 
Braham  v.  Beachim   (7  Ch.  D.  848  i . 

01. 
V.  Bustard    (1  H.  &  M.  447),  121. 

143.  215,  301. 
V.   Bustard    (0   L.  T.   X.   S.    190), 

279. 


TAIU.1-:    «>K    (AShX. 


Iha  H(ir 


h'l  III!  nrtK   nir   In  jmifrs. 
I'.riiii.lntli   \     I.Hiic-    (S   Pai;,'.'t.  27:i.    i    hn.wii    Clioniioal    Co.    v.    M.-vcr    (31 


Urant    v.    Fr«N'lioli     ( 4!>    N.    •'.    I.a". 

•XU\\.    I'Mh 
HrHHH   \    Iron    Workn    v.    I'aync    (.'»() 

Ohio  St.    n:>i.   240.   244. 
Uranii    A    Co.   \.    lU-u-kwilI    (lit   (XT. 

Caz.  4S1  (.  :.n. 

I'.ri'cdinf:    v.    Tandy    (14S    Ky.    :M."> ) , 

24JI. 
IJn'it4'nl>Hcli   \    S(ron;i  Co.   v.  Hoscii- 

Imtv   (  K!"  (V  (;.   7«i:{|.  .").">!). 
r>r«-nnan   v.   KmiTv-HirdTliavcr   Drv 


Krd.    H.'p.  4r.;n.   1.V2.  222. 
V     .M.y.r    {:t-t  on:  V,a/..  2«7 ) ,  177. 
V.    .Mi-yiT   (  i:{!»  C.  S.  .".40  1,  Jit,  I0.\, 

172.    174.    17."..   S!l(i. 
V.  Sti-arns  (."{7  Ft<l.  \U-\t.  M\),  10.'.. 
Mrownr  V.  Fn-omun    (li.   (12  W.  H. 

nn.-.).    100,   14S.  212,   480. 
V.   Frcfman    (2).  W.   N..    1H7.J.    p. 

17M).  .■>:{.    100,   148. 
Hrysuri  v.  Wliitrluad   (  I  S.  &  .S.  74), 

22:j.  2r.<j. 


(UhhU  Co.    (!»!»    F.d.    IJ.|i.    !t7  |  i .    i    Muck's  Stove  A   Ran^o  Co.  v.  Kiochli' 


111.    44S. 
V.   Kmorv-Bird-TlmyiT    Dry    floods 

Co.    (47   C.    C.    A.   .".;i2i.    1!»1. 
Hn-wcr     V.     Lamar     (tiO     Ca.     (i.".(i ) . 

17!i. 
Krill    \.    Sin;:(r    Maniilartiirin;i    Co. 

(41  Oliio  St.  127).  SO.  270.  2!M>. 

508. 
Bristol     V.     K(niitalilc     Life     As.sur- 

ancT   Sociftx-    (1:52    N.    Y.    204). 

201. 
Hroadliurst  v.   Harlow    ( \V.  N.,  1872. 

p.    212 1.    147.   .{.{f).    ;{41. 
Ilrodorick    &    Rascom    Rope    Co.    v. 

A.     Lfschen    &     .Sons    Rf.j.e    Co. 

(100   0(T.   Caz.  .toll  I.  .{Sit. 

Hronk    v.    Scott   Co.    (211    Fed.    K.-p. 
:W8),   488. 

RrfK)klyn  White  LcikI  Co.  v.  Masury 

(2.'.    Marl..    4  l(i  i .    l.'.O 
Hn.v.er    V.    Roiilton     (1).     (."..3    Fed. 
Rep.  .{80  (.  20,  m,  70,  .38-.,  ;-.:)(!. 
V.   Houlton    (2),  (7  C.  C.  A.  .-.07), 
26,  00,  .'■.45. 

Urown   V.   Henzinjier    (lis    Md.   20). 

2.32. 
V.    HraiMiHteiM     (8.3     N.     V.    Siip|t. 

lOitO).    .320.    440. 
V.    DoKclier    (147    .v.    Y.    047 » .    52, 

270. 
V.   Mercer     (.37    \.    Y.    Super.    (1 

205),  755. 


(70   Fed.    Rep.    7r.8|,   285. 
Huckiand  v.   Rice   (40  ()lii(.  St.  52(ii, 

70. 
HucyruM  Co.   v.   .McArthur    (210   Fe»l. 

Iiep.  2t>(> ) .  432. 
I'.uerk  v.    Indiaeu.>;er    (  F.-d.  Case  No. 

21(l7a).    47(5. 
IhilTalo  Ruhber  Mf;,'.   C(..   v.   IJutuv  ia 

ihil)her  Co.    (153   X.   Y.  S.  770). 

110,    .565. 
Rullalo   Specialty    Co.    v.    \an    Chef 

(227    Fed.   Rep.  301).   00. 
V.    Van   Cleef    (217   Fed.    Rep.  HI  i, 

434. 
Ruleiui  V.  Newman    (31  \.   V.  Sup|>. 

440  1.   02,    755. 
Rullocli.    Lade    &    Co.    v.    Cray     (  10 

dour.  .Juris.  21Si.    I0(i.    l.-,n. 
Rullock  V.  Chaj.man    (2  DvC.  A  Sm. 

2111,-  53. 

Rulle    V.    Tjjleheurt    Rros.    (137    I'd. 

Rep.  402).    113,    136. 
V.    Iii;.'leheart    Rros.    (70   C.    V.   A. 

76),    29. 
Hunker    v.    Stevens     (20    I'.d.     Rep. 

24.5-240),  400. 

Murckhardt  v.   Rurckhardt    (J2()liio 
St.    474),    240.    252. 
v.    Hurckhardt    (.3ti  (Hiio  St.   201  i, 
24(i.    2.'.0. 

Rurfield  V.  Rouch    (31   Reavan.  241l, 
227. 


HiirCid 


'i'.Mii.i':  ()!■'  c;asks. 


xxvn 


lirfiTcnrrs   nrr   In   ixn/i 


l{iir^(-.s    v.    I5ur;;f>s    (17    Mn;;.    I.-    A 
Ki\.  2:)7),  l.v.». 
V.   Bur<,M'HH  (.-{  I)c(i.  M.  c^  C.  H()(l), 

171.    172,   174.   177. 
V.    Ilat.'ly     (2(i    Hniv.     2l!»i.     44U, 

4!)(l.    4!t2. 
V.    Hills     (2H    15.a\aM.    244 1 .    204, 
.•{24,   400,  401,  402. 
Uiirkv  V.  Cassiii    (  1.',  Cal.  4(;7  ) ,    110. 

0.37. 
Hiirkiianlt  v.  Burklianlt Co.  (4()lii<> 

N.  r.  :$.">«),  2S,  :n,  -m;. 

Hurlaiul    v.  Jlruxlivirn  Oil  Co.    (ti    U. 

1".    ('.    482,    4S0|,    i;{."). 
Hurnott  V.  Hahn   (88  F.-d.  it.]..  W4), 

4:}0,  448,  440. 
V.   Li'uchars    (i:5  L.  T.  N.  S.  40.-)), 

401. 
V.    IMialon      (li.      (21      How.     I'r. 

100),  457. 
V.   I'halon     (.'}    Kcyi's,    .")04 ) ,     US. 

1.37. 
V.  Phalon    (9  Bos.    102),  .32;-). 
liurrow  V.  Marceau    ( 100   X.   Y.  St. 

105),   128. 
Murrowi's   v.    Carrom-Arclian-na   Co. 

(100    F.hI.    Kcp.    2041,  202. 
r.urt  V.  Smith    (71   Fed.   Rep.    Kil), 

286,   200,   3.34,   342,  303. 
V.  Tucker    (178    Mass.    403),    70, 

124,  211,  213. 
Burton   v.    Stratton     ( 12    Fed.    Rep. 

GO(J),  28,  70,  88,   131,   134,   140, 

l.-.O,  101,  214,  342. 
Burton    Med.    Co.    v.    United    Drui,' 

Co.    (170   O.   G.   288),   .-)()S. 
Busch  V.  Gross    (71   X.  J.   E^\.  805), 

355. 
Bush  V.  Gross   (X.  .J.  Ch.),  (04  Atl. 

Rep.  7.54),   125. 
Busaard   v.   Catalino    (2    Crai\eh    C. 

C.   421),  485. 
Butler  V.  Alter   (1.30  N.  Y.  S.  882), 

240. 
V.  Burleson   (10  Vt.  170),  225. 


\.    FayiTNMuthi  T     (01      Fid.      ili-p. 

4.".H),   474,   47<S. 
V.    State     (.50    S      K.     It,p.     KiOO), 
OCl. 
Bury    V.    Brdforil     (  1     1)..(;.    .1.    &,    S. 

:i.".2,,  :!!,  :;4,   3ii. 
Hu/.liy  V.   l)a\i.-,   (150  Fed.  j{(|).  275), 

124. 
V.    Davi.s    (80    C.    (;.    A.    103),  04. 
Hyaiii     V.     BnllanI     (1    Curt.     100), 

400. 
ByasH  V.  Sullivan   (21   How.  Fr.  .50), 

472. 
J5yron     v.     .lolinstoii     (2    .Mcr.    20  j, 

.50. 


Cady    V.    Sehult/     (10     R.    1.     193), 

5.    ll:!,   320. 
Cadarelli    Bros.    v.    Western    (Jrocer 

Co.     (127     S.    \V.     Rep.     1018), 

110. 
Calm  V.  Gottsehalk    (2  X.   Y.  .Supp. 

13),   107,   168,  328. 
V.       HofFman    House     (28    X.     Y. 

Supp.    388),    107. 
California    Fif,'    Syrup    Co.    v.    Im- 
proved  Fijj  f^^yrup  Co.    (01   (^ff. 

(iaz.  155),  403. 
V.    Improved    Fi^    Syrup    Co.     (51 

Fed.  Rep.  290),  100,  150. 
V.  Putnam     (10    C.    C.    A.    376), 

100. 
V.   Putnam     (0()     Fed.    Rep.    7.")0), 

100,    1.50. 
V.  \Yorden     (80    Fed.     Rep.    212), 

100,   150. 
V.  Worden     (2),     (05     Fed.     Rep. 

132),  78.  150. 
California    Fruit    Canners   Assn.    v. 

Foster,  Caldarera  &  Co.   (C.  D., 

1011,    p.    11),   573. 
V.   Myer    (104   Fed.   R<'p.  82),  102, 

100. 
V.  RadclifT-Sanders      Grocer      Co. 

(C.  D.,  1000,  p.   100),  572. 


XXVlll 


TAMl.K    OF    CASES. 


I'al  I  iiv 


(.'aliforniu     Svrup    of     KipH    Co.    v. 
SttarnH     {\\.     (•'•"     I"''"'      '^'P 
lOOSl.  19,   100.    l.')0. 
V.  StoaniH     (il.     <"•<     •■•■''•     '^''l'- 
K12).   70. 

laniplKlI   Printing  Pn-BS  Co.  v.  Man- 
hattan    H.    Co.     (40     K..1.    U.p. 

o:io '.':?'J  1 .  4.">4. 
Canady    v.    Knox     (4:»    Wash.    .'.CT  i , 

24  S. 
Canal   Co.    v.   Clark    (  Ki    Wall.    311 
322).  04.   i:V2. 
04,   132. 
Cand.'f  V.  Di-iT.-  (.'.4  HI.  App.  430), 

107.   l."»0.  172,  281.  3.^.0. 
Canham  v.   .fon.-8   (2  V.  &    H.  21S), 

2r)3. 
Cantri'll  &  Codirani'  v.  Butltr   (124 

¥ii\.  U«p.  200).  304. 
Cantn-ll  &   Cochranr.   Ltd.  v.  Wittc- 
man    (100   K.-d.    U.-p-   *^-'-    -"^• 
4.V2. 
Capewell   Hors.-  Nail  Co.  v.  Moonoy 
(1«7    Ft'd.    r)7.")),   203,   r»(i3. 
V.  Mooni-y    (172    F.-d.    82(i ) ,   203. 
V.   Putnam     Nail    Co.     (  14t»    Fed. 
Hop.   070),   202. 
Car    AdviTtiflinji   Co.    v.    New   York 
City   Car  Advi-rtisin^'  Co.    ( 107 
N.  Y.  S.  547  I,   100. 
CarlKdic  Soap  Co.  v.  Thompson    (25 
1-Vd.    Rt-p.    025).    101,   280,   404. 
C«rcy    V.    Niw    Home    Scwin;,'    Ma- 
chine Co.    (101    <»ir.   <:a/..    44S(. 
380. 
Carmcd    Win*-   Co.    v.    PaloHtinc   lit- 
lirew   Wine  Co.    (101    Fi-d.   Ut'p. 
0.54),  4.53,  470,   488. 
Carmlchacl    v.    T.atim<r    (11    R.    T. 

305),   .30,   150,   174.   213.   401. 
Carnrirk  v.  Morson   (U  .T.  N.  of  C. 

(18771.    p.    71).    32S. 
Carrinjfton    v.    Libhy     (14    lUatchf. 
128),  &08. 


Utfinnriti  arc  to  imijis. 

Carndl     v.     Dulutli     ."^upfrior     Mill. 

Co,    (232    Vid.    K.]..    (175,    OHl). 

3(;7. 

\.   Kthiihr     (I     F.'d.     U.p.    088), 

125,   308,    430.  442,    444. 

(  arrton  v.   Ury    (30  Ffd.    U»i».   777  i. 

47.  03.  200.  Sti7. 
(  artcr  Med.  Co.  v,  Hiinlay   (30  .\\i\). 

1).    C.    123),    ..70. 
Cartiir  v.  Carlih-   (31  H.avan.  202  i , 
204.    340.    342. 
\.   May    (Seh.   200).   340. 
V.   May    (Cox.    Manual.    No.  200), 

475. 
V.  Westh.ad    ( S.-l..    100),  340. 
(  aruncho    v.     Stephrnson     (25    Sol. 

.).  020),    144. 
Carver   v.   Bowker    iSeh.   581),   330. 
V.   Pinto  Leite   ( L.   Pv.  7  Ch.   App. 
00).   3.30.  405. 
(  asc    V.    Murphcy     (31    App.    1>.    C. 
245),   120. 
V.  Quirk     (130    0\\.    C.az.     1.531  i. 
3!tO. 
Case   Hro.s.  V.  Murphcy  &  Co.    (C.   D., 

1008,   p.    100),  552. 
Cassidy  v.  Metoalf  (  1   Mo.  Ap|».  .503- 
0(il),  234.  241. 
V.  Metcalf    (05  Mo.   519),   241. 
Cantle    v.    Sie-fri.d    (103   Cnl.    71). 

130.    037. 
Castner  V.  Coflnian   (  17S  T\  S.  108), 

100. 
Castroville     Co-o|M'rative     Creamery 
Co.   V.    Cid    (0   Cal.    App.    533). 
440. 
Caswell    V.     Davis     (58    N.    Y.    223 
233  1.  S.   103.    137.    13S. 
V.   Hazard    (121    N.    Y.   484),   31. 
Cauirman  v.   Seliuhr    (123  Fed.  Rep. 

205),  307. 
Cave    v.    Myers     (S.ton     (4th    Kd.) 
238 ^   200.    311. 
v.   Mvers   (Seton    (.5th  Kd.)    5.39), 


85. 


Cav-Cha 


TAHI.K    OF    CASKS. 
UcfvrtnccH  arc,   to  pages. 


XXJX 


Cavendish     v.     f  I  raves      (24      Beav. 

16.'}),  4  .'{4. 
Cellular  Clotliinf,'  Co.  v.  Maxton   ( L. 

R.,    18!)9,   A.    C.    326).    l-<.    H><>. 

ir.2,    ir)3,  473. 
Celluloid  Mf;,'.  Co.  v.  Cellonite  Mfg. 

Co.   (32  Fed.  Rep.  04),  117,  185, 

187,    18!),    214,    32."),    43!),    443, 

451. 
V.  Read    (47  Fed.  Rep.  712),   117, 

43n,  408. 
Centaur  Co.  v.  Ileinsfurter   (84  Fed. 

Rep.  955),  89. 
V.  Hufihes     Bros.    Mfp.     Co.     (91 

Fed.  Rep.  !)»)!),  89,  13(5,   151. 
V.  Huphes  Bros.   Mi},'.   Co.    (34  C. 

C.  A.    127),   100. 
V.  Killenher<rer      (87      Fed.      Rep. 

725),  88,   151,  297,  444. 
V.  Link    (02  N.   J.  Eq.    147),  91, 

100. 
v.  Marshall    (97   Fed.    Rep.   785), 

89. 
V.  Marshall    (38    C.    C.    A.    413), 

294. 
v.  Marshall     (92    Fed.    Rep.   605), 

89. 
v.  Neathery    (91    Fed.   Rep.   891), 

89,    136,    151. 
V.  Neathery    (34    C.    C.    A.    118). 

100. 
V.  Reinecke  (34  C.  C.  A.  684),  89. 
V.  Robinson    (91    Fed.   Rep.   889), 

78,  89,   100,  136,   151. 
Central  Transportation  Co.  v.   Pull- 
man's Palace  Car  Co.    (139   U. 

8.    24),   253. 
C.    F.   Simmons  Med.    Co.   v.    Mans- 
field  Dru},'  Co.    (93   Tenn.   84), 

294. 
V.  Simmons    (81    Fed.    Rep.    162), 

52. 
Chadron      Opera      House      Co.      v. 

Loomer    (71   Nebr.    785),   356. 
Chadwick  v.  Covell  (151  Mass.  190), 

28,   174. 


ClmlmefH  Knitting  Co.  v.  Columbia 

Mesh    Knitting    Co.     (160    Fed. 

Rep.    1013),    335. 
Chambers  V.  Baldwirt    (!)1   Ky.   121), 

365. 
Champion  Spark   Plug  Co.   v.   A.   R. 

Mosler    &    Co.     (233    Fed.    Rep. 

112,   115),  371,  460,  495. 
Ciiamplin  v.  Stoddart  (30  Ilun,  300- 

.302),  253. 
Clianoe    v.    Gulden     (165    Fed.    Rep. 

624),   11!),  333. 
Chancellor  of  Oxford   University   v. 

Wilmore-Andrews       Pub.       Co. 

(101    Fed.    Rep.    443),   127. 
Channell  Chem.   Co.  v.   E.  W.   Hay- 
den   Co.     (222    Fed.    Rep.    162), 

447. 
CJhapin-Sacks    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Hendler 

Creamery    Co.    (231    Fed.    Rep. 

550),  96,   136,  489. 
Chapleau  v.  Laporte   ( 16  Rap.  Jud. 

Que.   C.   S.    189),  423. 
Cliappell    v.    Davidson    (2    K.    &    J. 

123),  302,  444,  490. 
Charles  E.  Hires  Co.  v.  Consumers' 

Co.     (100    Fed.    Rep.    809-813), 

290,  312,   463,  465. 
V.  Consumers'    Co.    (41    C.    C.    A. 

71),  279,  451. 
V.   Simpkins(179    Fed.  Rep.  1012) , 

429. 
v.  Xepapas    (180   Fed.   Rep.  952), 

317. 
Charles  R.  De  Bevoise  Co.  v.  H.  & 

W.  Co.   (60  Atl.  Rep.  407).  100, 

148. 
Chas.   Dennehy  «S:  Co.   v.   Robertson, 

Sanderson   &   Co.    (32  App.  D. 

C.   355),   107. 
Chase    v.    Mays    (121    Mass.    343), 

532. 
Chattanooga    Foundry  &  Pipe  Works 

v.    Atlanta     (203    U.    S.    390), 

376. 


x.\x 


TAHl.K    OK    CASKS. 


r'>aCk 


Rifrnnrv-s   air    t<>   ixii/rs 

I  huttan«M>;.'ii    M>'«lii'iiH'    I'o.    v.   Tlu'd- 

ford  t  n  .  4!>  l'.-.l.  K.'I'.  !M".t.  il.Vi  I . 

3*>. 
V.  Tlu'ilfonl     (2 1.    :>s     I'.'.l.     i;.|.. 

:u7).  3'>. 
V.  Tludford     (14    C.    C    A.     101  ». 

3r.. 

rh«<avin  v.  Walk.r    (I-.   H.   '>  Cli     '>• 

850),    S4. 
CluH'SC  (."uttiT  Co.  V.   l)\nm    (4.)    hid. 

App.  20),   119. 
Chemical   Co.   v.   M.y.r    (HO   U.   S. 

r)40).    103. 
Chica^'o  Board  of  Trado  v.  ChristU' 
Grain   &    Stock   Co.    (lUS  U.    S. 
23(51,  3(m. 
Chicajro    T.andlord's    Protect ivf    Bu- 
reau   V.    Koehel    (112    111.    App. 
21),   328. 
Chickorinp    v.    Cluckerin<r    &     Sons 
(131  C.  C.  A.  538,  542),   169. 
V.  Chickerin^i    &    Sons    (120    Fed. 
He]).    (••»).    177,    405. 
Chissuni  v.  Dewes  (5  Russ.  29),  223. 
Chittenden    v.     \Vitl>eek     (50     Mich. 

401-421).  229. 
Choynski    v.    Cohen    (39    Cal.    501), 

r.7,  98,   (iOO,   037. 
Christy    v.    .Murphy     (12    TTow.    Pr. 

77),    173,  180,  210. 
Chuld.    V.    Criinthw    (35   Beav.    127 1, 

441,  490. 
Church    V.  Krc'sncr    (49   \.   Y.   Sup. 
742),   312. 
V.    Proctor     (tlti     V'rd.     K.p.     240- 
245),  70. 
(  hurch    &    Dwi^iht  Co.    v.    Ruhh    (9!) 
Fed.  Uel».  270-2781,  40.  51.  2!I5, 
310.  I 

C'hurton    v.    I)ouf;laH    (.lolmnon,    174 

188).  28.  30.    IKl.  219,  230. 
Cij;armakerH'     Inlernattoiial     T'nion 
of  Americ'U  v.  (;oIill>erK'   (57  Atl. 

i:.  J.    nil,  02,  730. 


(  i;:ar    Makers"    I'roteetive    rnioii    v. 
i/mdner    ( .{   OJiio  St.    Dec.   244), 
02. 
Ci;;ar     Makers'    I'nion     v.    Coiihaini 

(40    Minn.   72tl),    5,   02. 
CitizenK*    Li;;lit.    Heat   &    Power   Co. 
V.    .Mont;ioniery    l.ijiiit    &    Water 
IV)Wer  Co.    (171    Fed.   Kt-p.  553), 
;tc.4.  .•{»•)(•.. 
City   Brewery  Co.   v.   PoWidl    (L.   R. 
(1S!)7).    App.    Caa.    710,    716), 
210. 
City    of    Carlshad    v.    Kutnow     (08 
"  Fed.    Rep.    794),    100,  449,   473. 
V.   Kutnow     (71    Fed.     Rep.     107), 

01,    104. 
V.   Schult/.     (78     Fed.     Rep.     409). 

01,    100,    104,    170,    4(i2. 
V.  Tliackeray    (57    Fed.    Rep.    18), 

108. 
V.  Tihbetts     ^51     Fed.    Hep.    8.52). 
.52. 
Clark  V.    Adna   Imn  Works    (44    111. 
App.  510).    ISI). 
V.  Clark    (25  Barl).  70 1.   174,  177. 
V.   Freeman    (11   H.avan,   112).  53, 

430. 
V.  Tns.  Co.    (7    Mo.    App.   71).  2!». 
V.   Leach    (32    Beav.    14),    29. 
(lark   Thread    Co.    v.    Armitafje    (21 
C.   C.    A.    178),    179.   325. 
V.    .-Vrmita;.;!-    ((17    Fed.    Rep.    800), 

325. 
V.  Win.  Clark  Co.    (1),   (55  N.  .1. 

Va[.   0.58),   448. 
V.  William  Clark    (2),    (50   N.   .1. 
K<i.    730).  4.55. 
(lay   V.    Klin.-    (  1 49   Fe.l.   K.p.   912). 

29(1. 
Clayton     \.     Stmic     (2     I'aiMc.     38-2- 

3J»2),   200. 
Clemens    V.    Beiford    (  1  1     1"<«1.    Itep. 
728 1,    190.    201. 
X,    B.lford    (  11    Biss.  4.5!t),  508. 


Cle-Col 


TAllLE   OF    CASEfc. 


References  arc  to  pagca. 


Clement   v.   Maddick    (1    GifT.    08), 
1!)8,   444. 
V.  Maddick    (f)   Jur.    N.   S.    55)2), 
202. 
Cleveland   Stone  Co.  v.  Wallace    (r)2 
I'Vd.     Kep.     4:51-4;<0),    M,    28t!, 
442. 
Clinton   E.   Worden  &    Co.   v.    Cali- 
fornia Fi<^   Syrup   Co.    ( 1S7    U. 
S.    510),   80.    150. 
V.  California   Fi;>:   Syrup   Co.    (42 
C.  C.  A.  383),  150. 
Clinton  Metallic   Paint  Co.   v.   New- 
York  Metallic  Paint  Co.   (50  N. 
Y.  Supp.  437),  107,   150,  412. 
Clip  Bar  Mf-?.  Co.  v.  Steel  Protected 
Concrete    Co.     (200    F.d.     Itcp. 
874),  374. 
Close    V.    Flesher    (50    X.    Y.    State 

Rep.   283),  240. 
Clotworthy  v.  Scliepp   (42  Fed.  Rep. 

02),   70,    100,   127,   334. 
Coats  V.  Cliadwick    (L.   R..  1804,    I 
Ch.  D.  347),   474. 
V.  llolbrook    (2    Sandf.   Ch.    586), 
22,  68,  302,   404,   442,  443,  400, 
402. 
V.  Merrick    Tliread    Co.     (140    U. 

S.   562),   172,   103,  342. 
V.  Merrick   Thread    Co.     (36    Fed. 

Rep.  324),  89,  286,  301. 
V.  Platt    (17  Leg.   Int.  213),   174. 
C.  0.  Burns  Co.  v.  W.  F.  Burns  Co. 

(118  Fed.  Rep.  944),  207. 
Coca-Cola  Co.  v.  Branham   (216  Fed. 
Rep.  204),  333. 
V.  Butler     (220     Fed.    Rep.     224, 

232),    156,   038. 
V.  Deacon     Brown     Bottling     Co. 

(200    Fed.    Rep.    105),    564. 
V.  Gay-Ola    Co.     (200    Fed.    Rep. 

720),   287,  370. 
V.  Nashville  Syrup  Co.    (200  Fed- 
Rep.   153),  504. 


Coe    V.    Bradley     (0    0(T.   Ch/.    .-,41), 

38. 
V.   l{radlcy    (Fed.  CaHe  No.  2041  i. 

:t25. 
('dclirani'    v.    MacNish    &    Son     (13 

i;.    I'.    (".    100),   447. 
V.       Macnisli        (I*.       C,       I,.       II. 

IH06,   A.   C.    225).    118. 
Cocks   V.   ('liandh'rH    ( L.    IL    11    K(|. 

447),    151,   436. 
(  (iirt'cn  V.  Hrunton  (4  McLean,  516) , 

68,    118,   421,    005. 
V.  Brunton    ( 2 ) ,   (5  McLean,  256 ) , 

305,   338.  442. 
Coll'nian    v.   Castiicr    ( S?    l'"i(l.    Rep. 

457),    100. 
Colien   V.   Nagle    (100   :\Iass.   4),   72, 

217. 
V.  Nagle     (73    N.     K.     Ucp.    276), 

124. 
Colin    V.    P.-oplc    (140    111.    4S6l,   62. 

668. 
Cole    V.    Cole's    Many-u.se    Oil    Co. 

(147    Fed.    Rep.   030),   402. 
Cole  Co.  V.  American  Cement  &  Oil 

Co.    (65  C.  C.   A.   105),  294. 
Coleman    v.    Flavel     (40    Fed.    Rep. 

8.-)4),   347. 
Coleman  &  Co.,  Ltd.  v.  Jno.  Brown 

&   Co.    (16  R.   P.   C.   610),   334. 
Colgan   V.   Danheiscr    (35   Fed.    Rep. 

150),    112. 

Colgate    V.    Adams     (88    Fed.    Rep. 

85)0),  117,  325. 
V.  Compagnie  Francaise    (23   Fed. 

Rep.   82),  472. 
Colley   V.    Hart    (7    R.    P.    C.    101), 

54. 
Collier    v.    Jones     (120    N.    Y.    St. 

001),   122. 
Collins  V.   Cowen    (3   K.   &   J.  428), 

68. 
Collins  V.   Reynolds   Card  Mfg.   Co. 

(7    Abb.    N.    C.    17),    332,    330. 


xxxu 


TAULi:    OK    CASES. 


Col-(.oo 


Rcfcrvncts  arc   to  pages 

(.'ollinH  Clu'inical  Co.  v.  Capitol  City 

Mfj;.    Co.     (42    KihI.    Kt|).    04), 

4Ut.  4(i7. 
I'olliiis    (.'().    V.     Aim-s     (20     HIalrlif. 

r)42).    43!t. 

V.   Brown    (.{   K.   A    .1.    42.1 1 ,   22. 

08. 
V.  Cohen    (3   K.   &   .1.  428 1 ,  22. 
V.  Olivt-r    Ames    &    Soiih    Corpora- 

ti«)n     (18    Fi'd.    U»p.    aOl-.")?!), 

308,  4r.ri. 
V.  RiH'ves    (28   L.   J.   Ch.  ilO),  22, 

08. 
V.  Walk.r     (7     W.     H.    222).    22. 

08,   4!)0,   402. 
CoUinsplatt   v.    Finlayaon    (88   Fod. 

Rep.    0tt3),    101,    102,    283,   307, 

344,   430. 
Colloday    v.    Baird    (4    Pliila.    130), 

130. 
Colman  v.  Crump    (70  N.   Y.   .')73;, 

203,    208,    200,    300,    308,    443, 

440. 
Colton  V.  Tliomas    (2  Brewat.   308), 

004. 
Columbia   Mill    Co.   v.   Alcorn    (1.10 

U.    S.    400),    04,    00,    1;'7,    150, 

103. 
V.  Alcorn     (40    Fed.     Rep.     070), 

408. 
Columbian    Enp.    Works    v.    'Mallory 

(7.')  Or.  r)42),  31.'). 
Com.    V.    K.    1).    &    W.    Co.     (110    S. 

\V.    It.-j).    70),   00. 
(•(.mer   V.    Stat.-    (103   C.a.   00 1 ,   0C)1. 
Commercial      Advertiner      Assn.      v. 

HayneB    (40    N.    Y.    Supj).    038- 

042),    201,   202. 
Commonwealth     v.     Anwlvieh     (18(1 

.MaBH.    370),    003. 
V.    Ho/.en     (  17<;     MiiHH.     120),    03, 

003,    004. 


Compania  de  TohacoH  v.   Rehder    (."» 

R.    V.  C.   01),   30.->. 
Com])aiiia    (Jeneral     dc    'rol>aet>B     v. 

Rehder    l")   R.   1'.  C.   01),  301. 
Comjuitin},'    Scale    Co.    v.    Standard 

Comimtinj;  Scale  Co.    (r>5  C.   C. 

A.    4.-)0).   101,    101,    103. 
ComBtoek    v.    Wiiite     (18    How.     I'r. 

421),  123,   174,  2.13.  44.). 
Condy   v.    Mitchell    (37    L.   T.   X.  S. 

208),    31,   34,    2.-)3. 
Congress,  etc.,   Spring   Co.   v.    Hit^h 

Rock    ConfireBs   Spring'   Co.    (iil 

Barl).   r)20),  28,    110. 
Coiij,'ress    &     Kmpire    Sprinj;    Co.    v. 

llif,'h   Rock  Con<,'re8s  Spring  Co. 

(4.>  N.  Y.  201),   10,  01. 
V.  High  Rock  Congress  Spring  Co. 

(4   Am.   L.  T.   108),   100. 
Connell    v.    Reed     (128    :Masa.    477). 

70. 
Conrad  v.  Brewing  Co.    (8  Mo.  App. 

277,  28.-)),  422. 
Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.  v.  Dorf- 

linger     (Fed.    Case    No.    3129), 

82. 
V.  Tiiomas     (Cox,    OOf)),    200. 

Consolidated  Tee  Co.  v.  Ilygeia  Dis- 
tilled Water  Co.   (151  Fed.  Rej). 

10,    12),    51. 
V.  Hygeia  Distilled  Water  Co.  (80 

C.  C.  A.  500),  22,  123,  450. 
Consumers'    Co.    v.    Ilydrox    Chem. 

Co.    (182   ().   (J.   721),  507. 
Continental    Ins.     Co.    v.     Board    of 

Fire     Underwriters      (07      Fed. 

Kej).  310),  373. 
V.   Continental      Fire     Asan.      (00 

Fed.    R.p.    840,    840),    101,    ISO. 

3.Vi. 
Continental  Tohacco  Co.  v.  Larua  & 

Bro.  Co.  (00  C.  C.  A.  557), 

2H4. 


Compagnie     Laferme      \.     TI.  ndrick       (  ....k  &   Bernlieimer  Co.  v.  Robb    (73 


(Seh.    512,,    400. 


Fe<l.    Rep.    203),    287. 


Coo-Cub 


TABLE  OP  CASES. 


XXXlll 


Ucfrrinrvfi  <ir 

Cook  &  Col)l)   Co.    V.   Miller    (tif)   N. 

Y.    Supp.    730;,     W.\. 
Cook  V.  Starkweather    ( i:}   Al)l).    I'r. 

N.   S.   :1J)2),  442,  467,  508. 
Cooper   V.    Hood    (20    Reavan,    2J):} ) , 

28,   228. 
Cope  V.  Evans    ( L.   R.    18  Eq.   138), 

144,    408. 
Corbin   v.    E.    Taussig    &   Co.     (1:52 

Fed.  Kep.  ()()2),  441. 
V.  Gould    (133  U.   S.  308),   112. 
Corliss    V.    E.    W.    Walker   Co.    (.l? 

Fed.    Rep.    434),    273. 
V.  E.    W.    Walker   Co.     (04    Fed. 

Rep.  280-282).   2;-)!),  274. 
Corninf»    Class    Works    v.    Corning 

Cut  Glass  Co.   (107  N.  Y.  173), 

367. 
Corwin   v.    Daly     (7    Bos.    222)    27, 

101. 
Cory    V.    Gertcken     (2    Madd.    40), 

490. 
Costello  V.   Eddy    (12   N.   Y.  Rupp. 

236),   222,   234. 
V.  Eddy   (128  N.  Y.  OoO),  231. 
Cotton  V.  Gillard  (44  L.  J.  Ch.  90), 

26,  28,  31,   124,  265. 
Cottrell    V.    Babcock    Mfg.    Co.     (TA 

Conn.    138),   231,   232,  230. 
Coulston    V.    Francke    Steel    Kange 

Co.    (221    Fed.   Rep.    069),   434. 
Counts    V.    Medley     (163    :Mo.    App. 

546),   231. 

Covert    V.    Bernat     (1.16    Mo.    App. 

687),   28. 
Covvie  Bros.    &.   Co.   v.    Herbert    ( 14 

R.  P.  C.  436),   141. 
Cravenette    Co.    v.    Benjamin     (105 

Fed.  Rep.  621),  294. 
Graver's    Sons    v.    Conklin    &    Sons 

(165  O.   G.   241),  559. 
Crawford  v.   Lans    (60  X.  Y.   Supp. 

387),    328. 


•«•   tit  jtagcH. 

Crawshay   v.   Thompson    (4  Mi.n.   & 

(!.   357),  293,  305,  .340,  415. 
Crc'seent    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Wilson     (23.! 

Fed.    Rep.    282),    15.5. 
(  roeker-Wheeler  Co.  v.  Bullock  (134 

Fed.    Rep.    241,   245),    205. 
Croft   V.   Day    (7    Beavan,    84),    3.3. 

42,  47,   171,   401. 
V.   Day     (2),     (Cox,    Manual,    Xn. 

77),  475. 
Cropper       Minerva      Machines      Co. 

( Ltd. )    V.   Cropper,   Charlton   & 

Co.     (23    R.     P.    C.     388,    394). 

447. 
Cross  V.   Howe    (02  L.   .1.   Ch.   342), 

436. 
Crowder   v.   Allen-West  Commission 

Co.    (213   Fed.    Rep.   177),  469. 
Cruess    v.    Fessler    (39    Cal.    336), 

250. 
Cruttwell  V.  Lye   (17  Yes.  335),  50. 

219,   223. 
Cuervo    v.    Jacob    Ilenkcll    Co.     (60 

Off.  Gaz.  440),  298. 
V.  Jacob    Henkell    Co.     (50    Fed. 

Rep.   471 1,  443. 
v.  Landauer   (63  Fed.  Rep.  1003), 

448. 
v.  Owl    Cigar    Co.     (OS    Fed.    Rep. 

541),   279,   303,  454. 
(^illinan    v.    Dwight     (100     X.     Y. 

Supp.    896),    265. 
Cuml)erland    Glass  ^Ifg.    Co.    v.    De- 
Witt    (120  Md.  381),  365. 
Curtis  V.  Bryan    (2  Daly,  212),  7!) 

147. 
V.   Bryan    (36   How.  Pr.  33).  44.-). 
V.  Gokey    (68  X.   Y.   300),  223. 
V.  Pape    (5    R.    P.    C.    146),    1.52. 
V.   Phelps      (D.     C),      (209     Fed. 

261),   435. 
Cushing    V.    Drew     (07    !Mass.    445  K 

248. 
Cusimano   &.   Co.  v.   Olive   Oil   Inij'. 

Co.   (38  So.  Rep.  200),  324. 


XXX IV 


TAllLK    OF    CAShX. 


lilt   l»il 


Cutt.r    V    CiiiiltlirtMl    HroH.    Co.    (2). 
(tU   N.   Y.   Supp.   22.'»l.  :».'». 
V.  r.u«l«l>ro(l   HroH.  Co.    (Cut   N.   Y. 

Siiiip.  2!>si.  ;»:{S. 


D 


Daclirrian   v.  (Julliftn    ( TH   Tel.    R<|'. 

7H4  1,   47.".. 
Datlirrinn   v,   Viuuliian    (iti.  '."H  K.d. 

H.'p.    S72i.    147. 
V.   Vaoul.ian      ( :{7      N.     V.     Siipp. 

Oil).    140. 
V.  Yaculiian    (2i.     ('•»•    l"<'l     K''I> 

812).    107.    140. 
V.   Yarul)ian    (72  F«-(l.   U«p.    H'lOi, 

107.    14(1. 
V.  Yaculiian     (OS    Fi-d.    Wry.    S72- 

87«»).   7.'>. 
Dakin     v.     \Villiani>     (17     W  .ii'l.ll, 

447  1 ,    24ti. 
Dalev.  Smithson   (12  Ahli.  I'r.  2:57  i . 

182. 
Daniel   v.   Wliit.lKius.-    (1.'.   R.   P.  <". 

1.341,   217. 
Daniel  O'Donm-ll  v.   Riscal  Mf;:.  Co. 

228    Fed.    R.-p-    127.    i:J«»i.   :{2!>. 

406. 
Dant  V.   Mead    (!•(!  Ky.  2.'>:.  i .  2S. 
Daufrherty  v.  Van  Nostrand   (  1  Uo\X. 

111.    (N.    Y.)    «}8),    22!i. 
DauKman  &    Drummond   Tobacco  Co. 

V.      RufTner      M'-.l       (as..      N... 

.^.-iSfj).  281. 
Davey    v.    Bentinck     (lS'.i;{i,     (1    (}. 

B.    IS.-.).   4:j.-.. 
V.    Dav.y     (.'.(I    N.    Y.    Supp.    Kil  i, 

:.4. 

David   K.    Font/.   Co.    v.    S.    A.    Font/. 

St.H-k   FiM.d  Co.    (  !(;:<  Frd.   R«'|i. 

408  1.   121.    188 
DavidH    Co.    V.    DavidH    (2:1.1    V.    S. 

4(11.  471).  i!»:«.  r,a:i. 

David^.n     v.      Munwy      (2{»     I'tali, 
181).  477. 


Kcfcrt-m^-i  arr  to  pngis. 

Dnviea     v.     IIo«lp»on      (2.'.     R.avan. 

177),    22:i.    230. 
DavicH     County      Distilling'     Co.     v. 

.Martiiioni    (  117    F.-d,   It.-j..   1H«), 

IOC. 
DaviH  V.  A.   B«.otli  i   Co.    (tJf>  C.  C. 

A.  2«mi.  2;i8. 

V.    DaviH    (27    Fed.   Rep.  4»0,  402), 
7.    i:»'.t.    142.   270.  281.  4r.2.  .'.08, 

r.:i8. 

V.    Kendall     (2     I!      i.     .VUi  i .    2.".:l. 

:i()o. 

V.    Kennedy    (111   Craiit.    I'p.    Can. 

Cli.    .-.2:n,    (50.    127. 
\.  .^triholt    (.V.)   L.  T.  N.  S.  854), 
14(i,    144. 
Dawes  v.   Davies    (S.-l..   42(1).  304. 
Dawson   v.   BeeHon    (  L.   R.  24   Cli.  D. 

r.()4).   244. 
Day    V.    New    Kn;.'land    Car    Spring 
Co.     (3    Blateli.    1.-.4-1.-.0 ) .    476. 
V.   Wehster   (40  X.  Y.  Supp.  314 1, 

440. 
V.   Woodwortli      (.'.4      U.      S.      (13 
Howard).    3(i3,   371).    41H.    421. 
Dayton     v.     Wilkes     (17    How.     Pr. 

.-.l(i),  221.  231. 
Dean    v.    Emerson    (102   Mass.   480). 

222. 
Decker  V.  Decker   (.V2  How.  I'r.  218) , 

174.    US,    .".0? 
Deerin;,'    Harvester    Co.    v.   \Vliitman 
A    Barn.'s    Mf^'.    Co.     (86    Fed. 
Kep.    7(54),    18. 
\.   Wliitman    &     Barnes    Mf^.    Co. 
(33  C.  C.  A.   -..-.8  I.   18.  1.-.7,  158, 
31.-.. 
De    Flore/.  V.    Rayixddrt    (14    Hlateiif. 

50.-.),   4(50. 
Deister   Concentrator   Co.    v.    Doister 
Maeli.    Co.     (Ind.     App. ) .     (112 
.\.    K.    R.p.   000 1.    175,   311. 
Deitsch   v.  Geo.   G.  Gil.win  Co.    (155 
Fed.    Rej..  3S3).   217.  385. 
V.   Loon.-n     (141    ( XT.    Gaz.    11(51), 
.300. 


t>»k-Dix 


TAItl.i;    OK    CASKS. 
{{efcrcncvH  arc  to  pages. 


xxxv 


l)c    KiiyiMT    V.    W  ittciiiiui     (23    F«'(l. 

Rt'p.    871),    2!>8,    2)M>,    4:{(). 
Dclawan'    &     HihIhou    Caniil    Co.    V. 

Clark    (l:t   Wall.   .U  1  i.  !t4,   100, 

1:54,    142,    l.')?,    l.V.t,    lti4. 
DiliOiifj  V.   \MA)nti  Hook  &.  Kyc  (-'o. 

(74   Oir.  (la/..   80!)  I.    177. 
])»•  Loiij;  Hook  &    Kyc  Co.   v.   l-'raiKis 

Hook    &     Eye    Co.     (US     K.d. 

Rop.  038),  281. 
V.  Francis   Hook    &    Eyo   Co.    (7.'> 

C.   C.   A.   484),  2n(i. 
V.   Francis   Hook   &    Kyc  Co.    (2), 

(13!)    Fed.    Kcp.    14(i),    2!)(). 
V.  Francis  Hook  &   Kyc  Co.  Si  F. 

Co.    (I(i8    Fed.    Hep.   8!)8),   4.-)8. 
V.  Francis    Hook    &    Eye    Si    Fas- 
tener Co.    (l.V.t    Fed.    IJep.  2!)2), 

4r)7. 
Del  Valle  v.  Mayer  (Seton  (4tli  K.l.) 

23«i),   405. 
Deinpsey   v.   Dohson    (174   I'a.    122), 

25!). 
Dcnce  v.  IJrand  (W.  N.,  1S81,  ji.  31). 

404. 
V.  Mason    (41   L.   T.   N.    S.    573), 

29. 
Dennison   Mfp.  Co.   v.  Tliomas  Mfj^c- 

Co.     (04    Fed.     Rep.     ().")l-0.'.8) , 

340. 
Dennison    Mfjj;.    Co.    v.    SeliarlV   Tajr. 

Label  &   Box  Co.    (tiS  C.   C.   A. 

2(53),  338. 
V.  Thomas  Mfg.  Co.   (04  Fed.  Rep. 

651,   ().-)0),   4,    18,  44,    114,    133, 

158. 
Dent  V.  Turpin    (30  L.  .T.  Ch.  40.-)  i , 

31,   48,   401. 
Denver  Chem.  Co.  v.  Lilley    (133  C. 

C.  A.  73).  322. 
Denver    Railway  v.   Harris    (122  I'. 

S.  .V.)7.  000).  421. 
Deposit  Bank  v.  Frankfort    (101  U. 

S.    510).   488. 
Derby  Dry   Plate  Co.  v.  Pollard    (2 

Times  L.   R.   276 ),   32(i. 


Derinj,'    v.    Earl    of    WinclieJHeH     (  1 

Cox,   CJi.   318,    310),   445. 
I)errin-4cr    v.    IMate    (2!»    Cal.    2!»2 1 , 

5,    18,   22,    70.    11  !t.    (;37. 
l)e    Sands    v.    .\.    \'.    1  lira  Id    ( KH    N. 

Y.  App.    l)i\.    I!t2i,  27ti. 
Detroit  V.  Detroit  City   Ity.  Co.    (55 

Fed.     Hep.    .5(ifl),    578. 
Detroit     Creamery     Co.     v.      Velvet 

Brand    Ice    (nam    Co.     (Midii, 

( 15;{  X.  W.   itep.  t;(;4).  24. 
Devlin    V.    Devlin     (tiO    N.    Y.    212), 

177,  474,   404. 
V.   .McKcod    (  135    Fed.    Hep.    104 1, 

51,   112. 
DeVoe   SnufT    Co.    v.    Wollf    (124    C. 

C.    A.    302).    IS,    2!t5,    310,   304, 

440,    454. 
Dewitt   v.    .Matlicy    I  IS    Ky.    K.    Hep. 

257),   61,   213. 
l)eYounf,'S  v.  Junj,'   (27   N.  Y.   Supj). 

370),  312. 
Diamond   Crystal    Salt  Co.    v.    Wor- 
cester   Salt   Co.    (137   C.    C.    A. 

16,   17),   447. 
Diamond  Match  Co.  v.  Roeber    ( loii 

N.    Y.    473-484),    235. 
v.  Safe   Harbor    Match    Co.     ( 10!» 

Fed.    Rep.    154),   476. 
V.  Saginaw   Match  Co.    (74   C.   C. 

A.  50),  140,  282,  314,  370. 
Dietz  V.  Horton  Mfg.  Co.    (170   Fed. 

Rep.  865),  73,  103. 
Dicks   V.    Yates    ( L.    H.    18    Ch.    D. 

76-88),   201. 
Dickson    V.    McMaster     (IS    Ir.    .lur. 

2021,  20,   401. 
Dittgen   v.    Racine  Paper  Goods   Co 

(164  Fed.   Rep.  85),  374. 
Dixon    Cnuil)h"    Co.    v.    Benham     (4 

Fed.    Hej).   527-530),  344. 
V.  Guggenheim      (3     Am.     L.     T. 

228),  70,  212. 
V.  Guggenheim         (2        Brewster, 

321),   20,   200. 


X  \  X  \  1 


TAHl.K    OK    CASKS. 


I>i\  Dun 


licit  II  nri  s   (II 
Dixon    V.     FuNxiu^     (:t     Kll      .V     l^l. 

:.;i7i.  2ui.  :i(U,  4i>«. 

V.   .?«rk«.<.n    (.2  Si-ot.   h.    K-p.    IS«). 
121» 

2:)0,  2:)l. 

Dnl.s«tn    V.    Craliani     (  »'.>    1"<«1.     K.)). 

17  >.  2.'>4.  472. 
l»o<lp-  Statitini-n   I  <>.  \.  Di>(i;.'r   (  1  »'> 

(."ill.   :{SOi.    17<>,    17'.t. 
DiKijff    Mfji-    <^"«>-    ^-    >^«'wall    A    Day 

2881.    i:i!>. 
Donn.ll       V.       Ih-rrinj,' Hall-MHrvin 
Safe  Co.    (2(»S  U.   S.   2ti7),    174. 
Dornan    v.    Kivf.-r     (4'.t     Vrd.     \Wy. 

4t52),  264. 
Dou^'las   V.    Stokos    (14!)    Ky.    r,0(! ) . 

277. 
Dov.T     Stampin},'     Co.     v.     F.llows 
(lt;:{  Mass.   l!Ui.  2.  S'.t.  ill,  2!Ml, 
ti04. 
l),.\v  V.  Kln-tric  Co.    (tl'.>   N.   H.  :H2i. 

2:)0. 
Dnwlinjr    ».    Livin-ston.-    ( UtS   Midi. 

.3211,   T):). 
Drake     v.      Dodswortli      (4      Kansas 

\:\:,\,  230,  231. 
Drakr     lldw.    Co.     v.     \\•rou^'llt-l  ron 
Kanj,'*-    C«>.     (7S     N.    Y.    Supp. 
1114),  373. 
J>raki'  Mfdicint'  Co.   v.   Clcsani-r    (08 

Ohio   St.    337),    J2(».    I»i8. 
l)ra,MT    V.    Sk.Tr.-tt    (!i4    l-Vd.    K.-p. 
!I12).   r)2. 
V.  Sk.nvtt     (21.    110    F.d.    R.p. 
206,  208),  48,   103,  3!I3. 
Dr.    A.    R»H'd    CuHhion    Shoe    Co.    \. 
Kr.w    {UVl   IV<1.    ll.-i-.  8S7.  881H. 
13,    IHl. 
V.    Knw    (l'>8   V,i\.    U«l>.    '>'>2i.    l-"«- 
Dr.   Dadirrian  i   Sohh  I  o.  v.  Ilau.n 
Ht4-in     (74    N.     Y.    Supp.    70'.t  l , 
107. 


•     III     plll/IS. 

Dr.    Da\i<i    Kriimdy    Corp.    v.    Kon- 
nt-tly     (.■>.'>    N.     N      Supp.    '.tl7). 
181. 
Dn\<t    Mf;,'.    *  o.    v.     Lii|iio/.oni*    I'o. 

(  122    <•.    <;.    3(tl4l.    .'>08. 
Drrwry    \    Son    \.    Wood    (127    Ffd. 

K.ji.  S87  1,  32S, 
l)rfy«lo])|ul     V.     \dnM;.'     (14     I'liila. 

22«h.  !•!•.    134. 
Dr.    I'l'ttT    H.    Fahrmy    &    Sohh    Co. 
V.    Unmiinr    ( H2   C.  C.   A.   021  ). 
2(17. 
V.    Kiiniintr    (  1.'.3    Fed.   U«p.  73.")), 
114. 
Drummond    Tolmi-i-o    Co.    v.    Handle 
(114    111.  412),   174,    1S3. 
V.  Tinsli'V    Toliacco    Co.     (.">2    Mo. 
App.     10,    2(S),     :ni.    3'.tS.    3!)!», 
4(57,  4(18. 
Dr.  \ViHianis  Mt-d.  Co.  v.  Al«-xandor, 
Capo   Cood    Hope    (27    S.    C.    R. 
r>8!)),   326. 
V.  Totliill,  Cape    Good    Hopi-    (20 
S.    C.    11.    483),   32(5. 
Dvi    Houlay   v.   Dii   Boiilay    ( L.    U.  2 

V.    C.    430-441).    171. 
Ducat    V.    Cliirajxo    (10    Wall.    410), 

414. 
Dudon  V.  Maloy   (03  F.d.  Mrv-  183), 

24."). 
Diicr    V.    Corliin    Caliiiift    l-ook    Co. 

(140    U.    S.    21(5.    2231.    17. 
Dukp  V.  Ch'»v,.r    (10  Tvx.  Civ.  App. 
218),  320. 
V.  Crct-n   (10  oir.  Cu/..  1004).  ')04, 
.-.1(1.   .'.3S. 
Dunl.ar  v.  Cl.-m.    (42  Wis.    llSi,  61, 

no.    l.V.l. 
Dunlap  V.  Scholirld    (1.V2  V.  S.  244, 
I  2481.   388. 

V.   WilU.randt    Surgical    Mfj,'.    <"«»• 

1  (SO  C.  C.   A.   57 .'>1,   40(5. 

I    Dunlap   &    Co.    \     Yoimt;    (74    N.    Y 

Supp.     184  1.    442. 

Dunnactiif    v.    Youn^'    \     Sons     (Ct. 

I  Sfss.   (as.   4tli   Srr.    X  874  i,  r.7. 


l)ii|i  i:i<; 


'Iauli:  ok  casks. 


XX.W  II 


Urfcn  nn  H  <tn-   In  ikiijch. 


Dii     Tout  l)i'    Nriiunirs     I'owdcr    Co. 

V.     Maslimd      CilC      K.'il.      1{.|). 

27  1  ) .  2(>(i. 
Diiryra     v.     Natiniiiil     Stanli     Mf^'. 

Co.    Ci.')  ('.  ('.  A.   1  :<!»),   17.'>. 
Duwfl     V.     Holini.T     (14     OIF.     Caz. 

270),  .".()(•). 
Dwifiiit    V.     IlaniiKnii     (ll.i     MasH. 

i7.">),  22r),  2:n.  iw. 

l)\vinncll-\Vri<:ht  Co.  v.  Co-oprra- 
tive  Supply  Co.  ( 148  Fed.  Rep. 
242),   1.31,  4:J8. 

Ihmnit  V.  Lewis  (Iowa),  (123  N. 
\V.    Kcp.  244),    128. 

E 

Kajjle    White    Lead    Co.    v.    Pflu},'h 

(180   Fed.   Rep.   r)7n,  583),  44!». 
K.  &   J.  Burke,  Ltd.  v.  Bishop    (75 

C.   C.   A.   (iOfi),   207. 
Earl  of  Lytton   v.   Devey    (54   L.   .1. 

Ch.    203),   260. 
Eastern   Extractiii}^    Co.    v.    (iroater 

New  York  Extracting  Co.    (110 

N.  Y.   S.   738),  257. 
Eastern  Outfitting  Co.   v.   Manlieim 

(50  Wash.  428),  14. 
Eastman  Co.  v.  Reiclienbach    (20  X. 

Y.  Supp.  110),  254,  250,  258. 
E.  B.  Estes  &  Sons  v.  George  Frost 

Co.     (170    Fed.    Rep.    338),    !)3, 

131,    300. 
Eckhart     v.      Consolidated     Milling 

Co.   (72  111.  App.  70),  313. 
Economist  Furnace  Co.  v.  Wrought- 

Iron    Range   Co.    (86    Fed.    Rep. 

1010),  373. 
Edelsten  v.   Edelston    (0   Jur.  N.   S. 

479),  301. 
V.  Edelston   (10  L.  T.  X.  S.  780), 

462. 
V.   Edelsten    (1   DeG.  J.  &  S.   185), 

115,    204,    301,    310,    338,    412, 

415,  442,  400. 
V.  Vick    (11    Hare,    78),    85. 


Edison  v.  Edison   I'oiyforni  Mfg.  Co. 
(07  Atl.   i{<-p.  3021,  270. 
V.   Ilawtliorne   (100   Fed.  I{ep.  172- 

174),   347. 
V.  Thomas  \.    Edison,  .Fr..   (  iicm- 
ical  Co.    (  128   Fed.    IJ.p.    1013 1, 
532. 
Kdisoii    .\ltg.    Co.    v.    (iladstoiM-     (58 

Atl.    Rep.    301),   318. 
Edmonds     v.     Benhow      (Setoii      (3rl 
Ed.)    905),  201. 
V.   Boston    MOM  Mass.  549),  229. 
]:dna    Smelting    &    Refining    Co.    v. 
Xatlian    Mfg.    Co.    (30    App.    D. 
C.   487),   126. 
Edwards  v.  Dennis   (30  Cli.  I).  454  r , 

63. 
Kgl>ert  V.  Citizens'  Ins.  Co.    (7   l'''d. 

Rep.  47),  485. 
Eggers  V.  Hink   (63  Cal.  445),    109. 

158,   159,  000.  637. 

i:.   H.  Taylor   &   Sons  Co.   v.  Ta\  lor 

(S5  S.  W.   Rep.  1085).  428.  457. 

Einstein    v.    Sawhill    (65    OfT.    Ga/.. 

1018),    60,   385,   395,    544. 

V.  Sawhill      (2),     (64     OfT.     Gaz. 

1533),  539. 
V.  Sawhill     (61     Off.    Gaz.     287), 
539. 
Eisel  V.  Hays   (141  Ind.  41),  252. 
Eiseman  v.  Schiffer   (157   Fed.   Rep. 

473),  69,  128,  575. 
Eisenstadt  :Mfg.  Co.  v.  J.  M.  Fisher 

Co.    (232  Fed.  Rep.  957),  370. 
Elaterite  Paint  &   INIfg.  Co.  v.  S.  E. 
Frost  Co.  (105  Minn.  239),  257. 
Electric  Renovator  "Nffg.  Co.  v.  Vac- 
uum Cleaner  C"o.   (180  Fid.  Hep. 
754),  375. 
Electro-Silicon     Co.     v.     Levy      (.'.9 
How.   Pr.  469),   320. 
V.  Hazard     ( 2!i     Ihiii,     309).     I -in. 

138. 
V.  Trask   (59   How.  Pr.  189),  138, 
326. 


.\  \  \  M 1 1 


•Alll.i;    (»K    CASF^. 


EK-i:»t 


lirft'itnris  nrr   lt>  jnttjis 

Kl.ftro     St.1'1     Co.     V.     Kiii(i«'nlH>r){ 

St.tl  Ci..    (  J:t   .\|.|.    1).  C.  -270), 

102. 
Klt:in    Hutt»T    Co.    v.    Kl^-in    (  r.nm 

try  Co.   (  l.'..'>  111.   l-'7i.  ISS. 
\.   ShiuIh   (  l.'i."!    ill.    127  I.  »')««. 
Klyin  NiitioiiHl  Watoh  Co.  v.  Illinoi!* 

Wiitili  (.'use  C«>.    {'2K  <  17!»  l".  S. 

00.-)  >.    S.    !».    Iti.'..    I'.i.t.    I'^A.    :tS(». 

r.:i2.  .")4:.. 

V.    Illinois    Wat.li    I  o.     (li.     (Sit 

l-vd.  Hi-ii.  4S7 1.  Iti").  :n2. 

V.   lA>v.lHiid     (132    Vrd.    i:.p.    41. 

47  I.   Ift3. 
Klliott    Mai-hinc  Co.   v.    Ci-iit«r    (227 

Krd.     K.)).    124).    !t:{S. 
Illliott    Varnish    Co.    \.    Scars.    Roi-- 

l.uck     &     Co.     (221     1m'<1.     Hrp. 

797).  m,    128.  330.  334. 
Kllis  •.  ZeiU-n    (42  Ca.  ".)1),  44."). 
i;i   Moili-Uo    Cijiar   Co.    v.    (Jato    (2.'> 

Kla.  SS«.  in.')).   422.   420. 
Kniack   v.    Kanr    ( :U    Fr.l.    K.p.    44  K 

374. 
i;.    Millliinnv's   Sons   v.   Now    Ihi-ria 

Co.    (133   OlT.  Cm/.,  it!).")),  3!>0. 
V.   Now  llMTia  K.vtrai't  of  Tabasco 

r.pp.T  Co.   f30  App.  I).  C.  337), 

1.30. 
KmiTson  v.   Ha(lt:<r    (  lol    Mass.  S2 1 . 

58. 
KnuTV    V.     Bradley     (SS     Me.    3.")7 ) , 

242. 
lOmpirc  Stt-am    Laundry    Co.    v.    Lo- 

ziir    (10.')   Calif.   0.")).   3(10. 
Kmpirc   Typt-wttin;,'  Macliint-  Co.   v. 

Linotype    Co.     (7M    L.    T.    N.    S. 

8),  r.4. 
r.m|)loy<'rs'    Lialiility    Assiir.    Corp., 

Ltd.     V.      Kni|iloytrs'     Lialiility 

Ihm.    Co.    (K;    N.    V.   Supp.    307, 

4(M»).   23. 
Kn;;lund    v.    N<-\v    York    Piilt.   Co.    (8 

Daly    37.')  I.     171. 
Kno    V.    Dunn    ( L.    U.    L)   Ajip.    (as. 

2.V2,  200).  .308,  4311. 


Lnocli    .Morpan's    ."<on8    Co.    v.    I'ld<r 
(Cox.    .Manual.    7 14 1.    444. 
V.    Ilunk.l..     (  10     t»ir.    Ca/.     1002, 

1003  I.   4.'»3. 
\.   Scliwai'liofi-r    (.')  .\l>li.    I'r.  N.  C. 

20.')),   3.30. 
V.   Trox.n     (80    N.    Y.    202 1 ,    270, 

2S0. 
\.    Will.!    I  1.".2  F.-d.  Ki-p.  000)..-)03. 
\.   Windov.r    (43    Kid.    Kip.   420 1. 

12S.   317. 
v.   Whittirr  ('ol)urn    Co.    (  lis  F.-d. 
Hep.  (•).')7),  3.30. 
I'.iiocli    Morjxan  &    Sons  Co.   v.    Ward 

(81  C.  C.   A.  010),   128,  330. 

Lntt-rprisc  Mfjr.  Co.  v.  Bi-nd.r    (148 

IVd.   H.'p.  313),  31'). 

V.   Landers,  Krary  &  Clark   ((>.')('. 

C.    A.   .')87).  202,   318.   3r,0.  371. 

K.  V.   Dutt«)n  &  Co.  V.  Cupples    (102 

N.   Y.   Supp.  .300),    108.  440. 
F.pp'-rson  &  Co.  v.  Blutlicntlial    (  140 

Ala.    12.")).  80. 
v..    Kefjcnshur;;    &    Soiis    v.    .Tiian    F. 
Portuondo   Ci^jar   Mf;,'.   Co.    (73 
C.  C.  A.  378),  270. 
V.  .luan  F.    Portuondo  Ci;;ar   Mf;;. 
Co.     (130    Fed.    Hep.    800,    800), 
270.  282. 
Frwin    v.    Ilayden     (Ti-xas),    (43    S. 

W.    Hep.    010 1.    2.")0. 
I'.SHidstyn      v.      Holmes      (42      Mmil. 

507 ),    It.o. 
Ksseylstyn  v.   Holmes    (111  I'ae.  Keji. 

118),   108,    1()0. 
Lsteourt    V.    The    Ksti-nurt    Hop    Ks- 
s.iiee  Co.    (.31    L.  T.   .\.   S.   .')07  I , 
70. 
KsteH    V.     Leslie     (1  ),    27     Fed,     Hep. 
22),    118.   202. 
v.    Leslie    (20    F.d.    Pep.    01  I.    1  IS. 

202,   32.'». 
v.    Williams    (21    Fed.    K.-p.    ISO). 

20.  20.  20. 
v.   Worth iufiton      (22      Fed.      Pep. 
822),  207.   4.)2. 


Est-Exp 


TAiiLK  OF  c;asks. 


XXXIX 


Rrfcnuccs  arc  to  jiagcH. 
KHtfs  V.  Wortliiii-itnii    (-2),   (:!(i   Fed.   I    V.k    parte   Barclay    L    Barclay-     (l.'U 


|{c|).    K;.')!,  40:(. 
V.   Worth  in;-!!!!!      (Ml      Im<1.      Il<|). 
i:.4|,   118,  202. 
!•:.  T.   I'liirlir.nUH  \  Cd.  \.  I)<>  Muiixs 
Scale  iV    Mf;r.   Co.    (!••)   Fed.    It.  p. 
it72l.   4:)1. 
Kur«'ka    I'iie     IIom'    Co.     v.     iMinka 
Kiil)l.er   Mf-r.   Co.    («!»   N.  .1.   K.i. 
1 .-)!»).   12(1. 
Kvans    v.    Smallconilie    (1..    K.    :!    11. 
L.   24it),  2()'.t. 
V.   Von   Laer    (:{2   F.-d.    Kep.    l.">:{). 
107,    1")!>,  200,  .-Ji:}. 
Kvenson  v.  Spaldiii;;   ( I.IO  Fed.  olTl, 

50. 
Everett    Piano  Co.    v.    H.nt    (CO    111. 
App.   372),   .-{74. 
V.  Mans    (200  Fed.   Uep.  7IS),  M. 
i:win<i  V.  Standard  Oil  Co.   (42  Ajip. 

I).    C.    321).   .■)7(). 
i;\chan<re    Bank    v.    Wichita    Cattle 

Co.    ((U   Fed.   Rep.   100),  472. 
E.v  parte  Adam  Both   Gro.  Co.    ((>2 
Ofr.    Gaz.   31."")),   .")37. 
Adriance,    Piatt    &    Co.     (20    Oil'. 

Gaz.    1820),    r.42. 
Alden    ( l.')  Off.  Gaz.  380),  r)07. 
American     Lead     Pencil    Co.     (01 

OIL   Gaz.   l.-)L),  .-)14. 
American  Optical  Co.   (C.  1).  1008. 

102),  .")61. 
American   Separator   Co.    ( 1 10   O. 

G.  330),  .184. 
American  Weavers' Assn.   (04  <»ir. 

Gaz.  580),  510. 
American  Wringer  Co.   { 134  0.  G. 

1803),    567. 
Atkins  &    Co.    (110   O.   G.   2230), 

554. 
Austin,  Nichols  k  Co.    (107  0.  G. 

981),    500. 
Auto  Grand  Piano  Co.    (155  O.  G. 

307),   560. 
Hall    (OS  OIL  Gaz.  236t>),  516. 


O.  G.   1502),  552. 
Marclay   &    Harclay    (C.    I).    1008, 

I5<  I.  5(1 1.  507. 
Miirnhart    HroK.    &    Spindler     (87 

oir.   Gaz.  2118,  2110),   510. 
HasHctt    (55   OIL   Gaz.    007),   533. 
nioeh   &    Co.    (40   OIL    Gaz.    443), 

.500.   541. 
I'.loeh    Bros.  Clotliing  Co.    (124  O. 

G.    1.521  ),   502. 
IJloomington    Canning    Co.      (110 

O.  G.  2235),  577,  578. 
Boston    Fountain     Pen    Co.     (110 

O.   G.   2531),   553. 
Brand    Stove    Co.     (02    OIL    Gaz. 

588),    102. 
Bronson   Co.    (87   OIL  Chiz.    1782), 

102. 
Brown    &    Co.     (143    O.    G.    561), 

560. 
Brigham    (20  OIT.  Gaz.  801),   110, 

502. 
lUiiralo    I'itts    Co.     (80    OfT.    Gaz. 

2060),   534,   535,    542,   548. 
Butler    (87  Off.   Gaz.    1781),    126. 
Capitol   City    Dairy   Co.    (03   Off. 

Gaz.  295),    109. 
Carborundum     Co.      (118     O.     G. 

2250),  5.53. 
Central    Consumers    Co.     (C.    D., 

1908,  p.    180),   562. 
C.  G.  Hainline  &  Co.  (.58  Off.  Gaz. 

947),  514. 
C.  H.  Alden  Co.   (131  O.  G.  2410). 

563. 
Cigar  Makers'  Assn.   (16  Off.  Gaz. 

9.58),  62,  509. 
Claire   (*15  OIL  Gaz.  248 ) ,  331,  509. 
Clark-Jewell-Wells     Co.     (83     Off. 

Gaz.  915),  537. 
Cluett,  Peabody  &  Co.    (120  O.  G. 

902),  567. 
Coats   (16  Off.  Gaz.  544),  .508. 
Col)b  Mfg.  Co.  (C.  D.,  1908,  p.  6), 

562. 


xl 


T.\m.K    OF    CA-^KS. 


Ilxp-I   \jl 


Ifefcnnnn  in 

Kx    parto    t'ohii    (li.    (  Ki   ' »!.    Car. 

(ISO).   111.  Ml. 
Cohn  (2)    (Kl  (MT.  Cn/.  (JSOi.  Mil. 

.'iOT. 
I'linrud    Sripji   Hnw.    l<>.    Ciuti   O. 

G.  8771.  .')«2. 
CunBolidHUMl    Fruit    .lar    I  o.     (1(5 

OtT.  Gar..  «71>).  r)04,  TilO. 
(\h>ii    (r>S  OIT.  Caz.  94J5I,  .")40.  r>4:». 
Ircfdmon-  C'artridj,'!-  t'o.    (">»  Off. 

(Ja/..  i:t:Kn.  r)42. 
Crisci-nt  Mfj:.  I'o.   (('.  1)..  I'tol.  j). 

100).  r>»il. 
Cross    (C.   1)..   r.l07.  p.    1'2.'»).    "><><>. 
Davids  &  Co.    (Ifi  Off.   Gaz.   !»4), 

.'iOl,  506.  r.08,   'y09. 
Dawes    &    Fanninj;    (1    oil".    (!a/.. 

27),  508. 
Dayton    Spic-    Mills     (l:J'>    O.    (J. 

80.3),  .")(Kl. 
Do   Long   Hook    &    Kyt-    Co.     (  128 

O.  G.  885),  560,  .Oei. 
Do  I.onp  Hook  &   Eyo  Co.    (C.  D., 

1007,  p.   I'M)),  562. 
Diamond      Laboratory      Co.      (44 

MSS.   Uvv.   10).  514. 
Dodg.-  Mf;.'.  Co.   (128  ().  C;.  2r);31  I, 

550. 
Dr.  Hartcr  .Med.  (.o.  (  lOti  Oil".  Gaz. 

1770).  sm;. 
Egyptian    Cigari'ttc    Co.     (85    Off. 

(Jaz.    1905),  124. 
Eldn'd;:c  Co.    (.-).-)  Off.  Gaz.  1278), 

514. 
Ervin   A.    Rici'   Co.    (s:{  Off    Caz. 

1207),  00. 

E.  WVrth.-im.T  &   Cit-   (i:<2  O.  (;. 
«70).  555. 

Fairchild   (21  Off.  (in/..  780).  510. 
FalkiiilM  rg   (115  O.  (J.  1065),  .562. 
Farnum  A:  Co.   (18  Off.  Caz.  412). 
IMt,   160,    .507. 

F.  II.    Gilw.n    Co.     (8:{    off.    Caz. 
1092),  5:14. 

Fink    (li:{  U.  S.  71:J),  480. 


••    to   iKUjrs. 

Kx   piirt.-   Kol.y  A    Co.    (87  <>n.   Ca/.. 
1057).   12(1.  .VM\,  550. 

FoKK  (2  1  )<•(;.  A.  .1.  2:j(I).  :u. 

Frcil>«-rg  &  Workum    (20OIV.  Caz. 

1164).  6.  542. 
(Jc'orgi'    H.    Iliird    A    (  o.     (.">0    Off. 

<;az.  i7t;:{  i ,  ,")4;r 

C.   !•'.   Il.iilil.iii  A  Co.    (S7  off.  (Jaz. 

170),  OH.  562. 
ColdlK-rg.  How.n  &  Co.   (182  O.  G. 

072 ) .  56.S. 
Ccddsmitii   &    Co.    (C.    I)..    1008.   p. 

104),  .561. 
(irand    Rapids    School     Furnituri- 

Co.   (87  Off.  Gaz.  1057),  138. 
Grossniitli    (100  O.  G.  2175),  560. 
(Jrovf  (67  Off.  Gaz.  1447),  541. 
Guontlur    Milling     Co.     (86     Off. 

Gaz.    1086),   104. 
Hi:lliday  Bros.  (16  off.  Claz.  .500), 

508. 
Hampden  Watcli  Co.   (81  Off.  Caz. 

1282),  125. 
Hance    Bros.    A     Wliitr     (87    off. 

Gaz.  608),  100. 
Harris   (117  O.  G.  003),  .554. 
Henderson   (85  Off.  Gaz.  453),  05, 

106. 
Hendley   (72  Off.  Gaz.  1654),  542. 
Heymun    (18  Off.  Gaz.  922),  123. 
H.    .1.    Heinz    Co.     (62    Off.    Gaz. 

1064),  514. 
Holopliane     Glass    Co.      (loO     Off. 

Caz.  450).  00. 
Ilorliek's    Food    Co.    ( S4    off.    Gaz. 

1870),  106. 
Hudson    (55  Off.   (Jaz.    1401).   5.{8. 
iiuteliins     (100    Off.    Gaz.     1330). 

336. 
Indiana  Bieyele  Co.    (72  Off    Caz. 

654),   131. 
.F.    I).    Hiehardrt   &    Sion     (51    M.SS. 

D.  4251.   .-i37. 
.r.    Knd    W  ilrox    Co.     (153    O.    C. 

.546),   550. 


i;x|i-K.\ji 


'I'AItl.K    OK    CASKS. 


xli 


lirjrrtnrvH  are 
V.\  partf  K<'«'t  \   Ivounlrtc  I).  <i.  Co. 

(li:>  ().  (!.  iK4!n.  ri«(2. 

Konyoii    (124  O.  C.  2!>(lli.  r.(12. 
KovHtoiic    lliaiiiois    Co.    (  Ktl    oir. 

Ca/..   MlOiti,  .{ItC, 
Kiii-i    (('.    1).,    lS7(t.    p.    l(l!ti,   .'.(U. 
Kinj;    (2),    (4()  OIF.  (!a/..  1  lit  I ,  r)0(;. 
Kin^iaii   I'aikinj,'  Assn.    Ml!>  O.  (!. 

22.'U),  r)r)4,  r)74. 

Kinm-y    (72  Oir.  Ca/.    l.U'.M.   12H, 

r)37,  r)4n. 

Kipling    (24  Oil'.   Caz.   S!)'.» ) ,   .")41. 
KirktT,   (Jrocr   &    ('".    (Ltd.)     (:{7 
MSS.  1).  :i!t2  I ,  .■)4(). 

Kiiapp   (If)  Oir.  (;a/..  ;U8),  r)()7. 

Konigliclics  Hofl)raiiam  &  Muncli- 

cn    (14«i  O.  G.  7201,  r^f,. 
Krusius     Bros.      (82     UlT.      Gaz. 

1(587),   !>!). 
Langdon    (f.l  OlF.  Gaz.  286),  r)02, 

533. 
Lawronei'   Bros.    (44  L.    T.   N.   S. 

!)8),  27.  3!)!). 
Lazarus    Scliwarz    &    Lippcr    •(()4 

Off.  Gaz.   13!)6),  537,  540. 
Lee     &    Shepard     (24     Ofl".     Gaz. 

1271),  543. 
Lewis  &  Co.    ((50  MSS.  Doc.  210). 

560. 
Loronz    (8!)  Off.   Gaz.   2067),   127. 
Lutz    (33  Off.  Gaz.    138!)),  502. 
Lyon,  Dupuy  &  Co.    (28  Off.  Gaz. 

mi),  66,  501,  542. 
Magazine  &  Book  Co.   (C.  D.,  1008, 

p.  163),  553,  562. 
Mahn  (82  Off.  Gaz.  1210),  510. 
Mark  Cross  Co.   (116  O.  G.  1733), 

584. 
Marsching  &   Coo.    (15   Off.   Gaz. 

204),   103,  507. 
Martin    (80   Off.    Gaz.   2258),   80, 

541. 
M.  Block  &  Co.  (40  Off.  Gaz.  443), 

536. 
McCal.c    (46  Fed.   Rep.   363),  467. 
MeClain  (C.  D.,  1002,  p.  185),  561. 


to  jiaiji'K. 

X   parte  Mcinnerney    (85  OIL  Gaz. 

140),  274,  550. 
Meyer  Bros.   CoJlee  &  S.  Co.    (  135 

(>.  G.  803),  560. 
.Moodie    (28  Off.   Cas.    1271),  502. 
Mt.  Cariion   Co.    (15(1   ().  G.   828), 

560. 
Muir    (87  Off.  Gaz.   357  i ,  537. 
Nave    &    MeCord    Mere.    Co.     (80 

Off.  (Jaz.    1985),   103. 
Neuman    (15!)  O.  G.  003),  560. 
Nicholaus    (161   O.   G.   268),   560. 
Olive    Wheel    Co.     (84    Off.    Gaz. 

1871),   108. 
Oliver    (18  Off.  Gaz.  023),   100. 
Orcutt  &    Son    (8  Off.   Gaz.   270), 

514. 
Pace,  Talhott  &  Co.    (l(i  Off.  Gaz. 

009),  509. 
Palmer   (58  Off.  Gaz.  383),  514. 
Parker   (13  Off.  Gaz.  323),  514. 
Parker,    Holmes    &    Co.     (85    Off. 

Gaz.  287),   104. 
I'earson  Tobacco  Co.   (85  Off.  Gaz. 

295),  80,   100. 
Peper    (16   Off.  Gaz.  078),  508. 
Phenix  Ins.  Co.    (118  U.   S.  610), 

479. 
Polar  Knitting   Mills    (154   O.  G. 

251),  563. 
Punnett    (L.   R.    10   Ch.   D.   226), 

229. 
Rail    (85  Off.  Gaz.  453),   108. 
Rat    Biscuit    Co.     (C.    1).,     1907, 

p.  241),  562. 
Roasted  Cereals  Co.    (57  MSS.  1). 

455),  533. 
R.    Steinecke   Co.     (122    Off.   Gaz. 

3011),  516. 
Roth    Grocery    Co.     (62    (XT.   Gaz. 

315),  540. 
Roy   (54  Off.  Gaz.  1267),  532,  538. 
Ruekstuhl  (56  Off.  Gaz.  927),  514. 
Sacks    (C.  D.,   1007,  p.   160),  562. 
Safety   Powder   Co.    (10   OIL   Gaz. 

136),   110,  507. 


xlii 


TABLE   OF    CASES. 


ICxp-Kxp 


Jxcfrrt  ncis   iirr   ti>   jidi/rs. 
V.\    part.-    Sftt/mnn    A    Fornmii    (l.'U        Kx    part.'    Taylor   i^    l'i>.    (114    ( ).   (J. 


o.  (',.  2J4ai,  :»o9. 

SchninohtrnlHT);    Hrnw.     (.'>!    MSS. 

I).  204 ».  541. 
Scholh-nlM-rpT     (Jt(5    V.    S.    a01»), 

414. 
Si-hiimadi.T   &    Kttlinpr    (I)     (10 

Otr.    Ca/..    7!U  I,    '.01. 
Sohuninolu'r   &    KttlinpT    (2)     (22 

Off.  r.HZ.    12nil.  M)2. 
Scott  Pnp.r  Co.   (137  O.  (J.  1482). 

.'>62. 
S»-acoRst  t'unniii;;  Co.    (\W   (t.   (!. 

(517).   AtVi. 
Slu-nklMT}:   C"o.    (1.S2   »).  (!.    1()7.S  i . 

.'i62. 

sid.'s  (\i:\  oir.  (;a/..  i.it;:}),  .iir.. 

Smith     (li      (ItJ    »>ir.    Caz.    (i7!> ) , 

ry09. 
Smith     (2(      (If.    OIT.    Ca/,.    r.7!t  i . 

107,  r)07. 
Smith     (3 1     (10    Off.    C.az.    7«>4). 

107,  50(5. 
Sodafoam  Bakiii;;  Powdtr  Co.    (!Mi 

Off.  C;az.   12:5!»),  3.S6. 
Spayd   (S(5  Off.  Gaz.  G31),   lOf). 
SpintuT     (3.")    MSS.    1).    If)),    r)32. 

.')33. 
Standard    Fawhion     Co.     (80    Off. 

(;az.    180).  r)37. 
.St.    Anthony    Millin;,'    &    Klcvator 

Co.    (  llil    <».   C.   1047  I,  .')(»:!. 
StokcH     (04    Off.    Caz.    437).    Ill, 

r)07. 
StraHl)urpr   &    Co.    (20    Off.   (Jaz. 

l.-..')i,    112.    r>02,    .'ill.    540,    .".41, 

.'■.43. 
StrauKK  (C.  I)..  I!t(l7,  p.  133),  022. 
Str.at<.r  M<-tal  ('(..    (130  Off.  (Jaz. 

14H3),  022. 
Stuhm.T    (80   Off.    Caz.    IHli.   !>.-., 

103,   148. 
Sullivan    t    Uurkr     (  K.    "Mr.    Caz. 

70.'.).  .'.00. 
Kutton    (108   Off.    (iaz.    201  i,   330. 


072).    M2. 
ThaddouH    Davidrt   A    C...     (If.   Off, 

(Jaz.  04).  r.l4. 
'Hu'  Anti-Adulteration  Lca^MU-  (8(5 

Off.  Gaz.    1803),  .533. 
Tlie    Bronson    Co.     (S7    off.    Gaz. 

1782).  .'■.34. 
Thompw.n.    Dcrliy  &    Co.    (If.   off. 

(Jaz.   137).   112.  .".07. 
Tii'tj^ms     iV      Kol.crtsi.n      (87     Off. 

(Jaz.  2117).   122.  .".41. 
Union    Carl.idc    Co.     (13.".    O.    (J. 

100),  r.oi. 
I'nitod    Roofinf;   A    Mf«.   Co.    (187 

O.  G.    1013).  .".03. 
United    States    Hrewin;^   Co.    (12.") 

O.  G.   3.V2),   ".02. 
United    States    IMayin;,'    Card    Co. 

(82   (m    Gaz.    1200),    1.30,   CArt, 

.-.10. 
\'.lvril     Co..    Ltd.     (S4    Off.    (Jaz. 

807  ) ,  00,  ".34. 
\'i-StJx   Products  C<..    (17.".   O.   (J. 

846),  5(58. 
Vo^'cl  &  S(.n   (00  O.  (J.  2321  ).  330. 

500. 
Waeferlin^'     (If.    otV.     Ga/..     7(>4 ) , 

1U4.   502,   507. 
W.    B.    Belknap    cS.    Co.     (105    Off. 

Gaz.    745),   330. 
Weil      (83    Off      Ga/       lS(l-2..     114, 

542. 
WeisiTt   Bros,    (li;  on.  Ga/..    08;)), 

510. 
Wiesel    (30  Off.  Gaz.  (580).  .502. 
Willard  Chen\.  Co.    (  107  Off.  (Jaz. 

1072),  330. 
W.df     (SO    Off.    Oa/.     12711.     104. 

54 1 . 
W.   Simpson  \    Sons    (10  OlF.  (Jaz. 

334  I.    511. 
Vale    A    Towne    Mf^'.    C<..    (81    (XT. 

<;az.   sol  I  ,    1  l.t. 


Exi)-Firt 


TAHLi;  OK  casj:s. 


xliii 


Ex  parte  Youri;,'  (S.I..  r,:M ) ,  31,  340. 
Zwiick  cV   Co.    (Tfi  (»tr.  Ca/..    IH.-)-)!, 

r)3r>. 


FalHT    V.    D'Utassi-y     (II     AIpI..     I'r. 

N.  S.   309),  310. 
'  V.  FalKT  (4!)  Barl).  ^'u  ) ,  121,  174. 
V.    Hovcy    (Codd.    Di;,'.    70,   242), 
12n. 
Fairbanks  v.  .lacolms  (Fed.  Case  No. 

4r)08),  8S,   102,   14!t,  270,  202. 
Fairfii'ld  v.  Lowry   (207  Mass.  3r)2i, 

232. 
F.  &  J.   Burke  v.  Bishop    (17.">   Fed. 

Rep.   167,   175),   447). 
Falk  V.  American  West  Indies  Trad- 
ing? Co.    (ISO  N.  Y.  445),  3S.      . 
Falkinlmr;,'   v.    Lucy    (35   Cal.    52), 

158,  ()37. 
Familton   v.  Bliss  Medieal   Co.    (135 

().  (!.    13.")0),  577. 
Farl)en-fal)riken  T.  M.   K.    (7   M.  P. 

C.  430),   111. 
Farina    v.    Cathery     (L.    J.    X.    C., 
1807,  p.   134).  404. 
V.    Silverlock    (6    DeG.,   M.    &    G. 
214,  217),  10,  208,  200,' 300. 
Farley    v.    Evening    Chronicle    Pub. 

Co.   (113  Mo.  App.  210),  276. 
Farmers'  Loan  &  Trust  Co.  v.  Farm- 
ers' Loan  &   Trust  Co.  of  Kan- 
sas (1  X.  Y.  Supp.  44),  185. 
Farmers'   Mfg.    Co.   v.   W.    R.    Har- 
rison &  Co.    ( •.>(•.  0\\.  Gaz.  20621, 
530. 
Farr  v.  Pearce   (3  Madd.  74).  225. 
Foatherstonliaugh    v.     Fenwick     (17 
Ves.  298),  222. 
V.  Turner   (25  Beav.  382),  230. 
Feder    v.     Benkert     (76     Fed.     litp. 
613).  006. 
V.    Bnulno    (5    Oiiio   X.    P.    275 1, 
125. 


Jfcfcrcncrs  arc  to  payat. 

Fels  V.  lledley   (20  Times  L.  R.  69), 

107. 
I'Vnnessy  v.   Pabbits   (56  L.  T.   138), 
455. 
V.    Clark     (I..    P.    37    Ch.    D.    1«4. 

187),  423. 
V.   Day   (55   L.  T.   N'.  S.   161),  443, 
402. 
Ferguson  v.   Davol   Mills    (2  Brewat. 

314),  6. 
Ft  rguson-McKinney    Dry   Goods   Co. 
V.  J.  A.   Seriven   Co.    (165   Fed. 
Rep.  655),  448. 
Fetridge    v.    Merchant    (4    Abii.    Pr. 
150),  70,  115. 
V.  Wells  (4  Aijb.  Pr.  144),  70,  158. 
Field    V.    Lewis     (Scton     (4th    Ed.) 
237  ) ,  443,  490. 
\.      Wagnel      Syndicate      (L.      R. 
(1000)    1    Ch.  651),   330. 
Filkins    v.     Blaekman     (13    Blachf. 

440).  20,  34.  35,  36,  241. 
Filley    v.    Chihl     (16    Blatchf.    376), 
88,    118. 
V.  Fassett   (44  Mo.  173),  118,  120, 
121,  270,  293,  301,  443,  467. 
Findlay  v.  Carson    (07   Iowa,   537). 

231. 
Finger  v.  Ilalin    (42  X.  .1.  Eq.  606), 

242,  248. 
Finley     Rulibt-r-Varnish     &    Enamel 
Co.  V.  Finley   (X.  J.  Ch.  32  Atl. 
Rep.  740),  203. 
Finney    Orchestra    v.     Finney's    Fa- 
mous    Orcliestra     (126    X.     W. 
Rep.   108),  121. 
Fischer   v.    Blank    (138   X.  Y.  244), 
00,  147,  286,  306. 
V.    Hayes     (6    Fed.     Rep.    63-68), 
474. 
Fisli  Bros.  Wagon  Co.  v.  Fish  Bros. 
Mfg.    Co.     (05    Fed.     Rep.     457, 
461  ).   16.  36,  401. 
V.    La     Belle    Wagon    Works     '82 
Wis.   .-)46),  36,  58,  232. 


•I'AllI.i:    OK    (A.^KS. 


Fi8-Ful 


/.'l/lF.  Itri  s     I 

I'ihIut  &  Co.  V.    riic  ApoUinariH  (.'i>. 

(I..    K.    10  Ch.    1).   207  2SMM.   r.:{. 
FinJur   V.   Ow.'n    (S    I".    I).,    p.    IJri.J ) , 

430. 
KiHk  V.  Mttlil.r   (:.»  F.tl.  K.p.  ;V28|, 

4:>4. 

rUf  V.    Dorman    (Trnn.^     ( .">7   S.   W. 

Ki'p.    12!»).   24.-.. 
Flajj;:     Mfj;.     Co.     v.     llolway      (  17S 

Mass.    S;n.    ISO,    27!t.    2!H.  :17(). 
Flavol  V.  Harrison    (  li»   Hare  4l>7), 

70.  82. 
Flcisohman  v.   Ralimstorf    (22ti  Fed. 

H.p.  443).  247. 
FIcii'chniunn     v.      Schuckmaiiii      ( ti2 

How.    I'r.   J»2).   ir.ti,   442. 
V.    Starkly     (2.")    Fed.    Rop.    127), 

279,  286. 
Fl.-minfr  v.  Let-   { 1!»()1 )    (2  Ch.  r.!)4  ) . 

434. 
V.  Newton    (L.  15.   1  H.  T..  C.  3(13 ) . 

53. 
l'"lor.-nci-    Mf<r.    Co.    v.     Dowtl     (171 

Fed.   H.p.   122),   10.-).  327. 
Follet  V.  Jeffreyes   ( 1  Sim.  N.  S.  1  i , 

254. 
Fontipia    Limited    v.    Bradley     (171 

Fed.    Rep.    (»:)1.    0r>9).  3(J9.    4riO. 
Ford  V.  Foster  (L.  R.  7  Ch.  I).  Oil). 

79.   82.    120.    143.  214.  2ir»,  443. 
Fordham    v.    Hieks    (224    Fed.    Rep. 

810).  433. 
I'ord  Motor  Co.  v.  Wil.son    (223  Fed. 

Rep.  808),  207.  3:)9. 
Forney    v.    Kn;:ineerin^'    News    Puli- 

Ii«hin;r  Co.    ( r»7   Hun,  r>88).  3(i7. 
I"oHH  V.   Rol.y    (191   Mass.   292,  297). 

22.'). 
Foster  V.   IM«>ud    Halm   Co.    (77    Ca. 

210),   ll.'>.  342. 
N.    Wel.Hter    Piano    (d.    (  l.t    N.    V. 

Supp.  338).  17.->.  331. 
F«ister-Miil>iirn    Co.    v.    Chinn     (  l.U 

Ky.  82»i,  277. 
Fotherin^ihiun     \.     l",\j>re8S    Co.     (.30 

K.<1.    Hep.   2.'.2.   2.'.3).   421. 


I    l<i  /itigra. 

Kowle  V.  Spear    (7    i'enn.  T,.  .T.   170), 
78.   131. 
V.   Park    (131    V.  S.   88).  2.-)3,  2.'.4. 
Fox  4  Co.  V.  (Jlynn   (  191  .Mass.  344), 

309. 
Fralieh   v.   l).s|.ar    (  IC..'.   Pa.  St.  24), 

2.->0. 
Franeis   v.    Klyiiii    (117    V.   S.   385), 

.^)0. 
Franck   v.    Kranck    Chieory    Co.     (95 

Fed.  Rep.   818-821),  280,  470. 
Frank  v.   Maewilliam    (117  OlT.  Ca/.. 

110.-)!,  310. 
V.    Sh-ei)er     (l.")(i    Mass.    .'i83 ) ,    29. 

340.  342. 
Frank    &    Cutmann    v.    MeW  illiam 

(114  ().  (J.  542).  5.-)3. 
Frankau  v.   Pope    (11   Cape  of  Uood 

Hope.  209).  342. 
Fra/.er     v.     P>a/er     Lubricator    Co. 

(121    111.   147),  29.   177.  24L 
Fra/.ier  v.   Dowlin;,'    (18  Ky.  L.   Rep. 

1109).  78.  44.'). 
French    v.    Alter    &   Julian    Co.    (74 

Fed.  Hep.  788).  452. 
French   Republic  v.   Saratoga  Vichy 

Co.    (191   r.  S.  427).  193. 
Fiese  V.   Bacliof    (13  OIL  Ca/..   035), 

104,  284,  448. 
Frobman    v.    Miller     (29    N.    Y.    S, 

1109).   117. 
V.    Morris    (123    .V.   V.    St.    1090), 

117. 
V.   Payton    (08   N.   Y.  Supp.  849), 

204. 
Frost    V.    Uindskopf     (42    Fed.    H.p. 

408),  332. 
Ft.    Stanwix    Canning    Co.    v.    \Vm. 

MeKiiiley    Canning    Co.     (03    N 

Y.   Sujip.    704  I.   379. 
Fiill.r   N.    iliiir    {W    Fe.l.    Hep.    439,, 

104,   l!t3,  311. 
Fiillwood    V.    Fullwood    (1)     (\V.    N., 

1873.    p.    93),  312. 
Fulton    V.    Sellers    (4    Hrewst.    42). 

2H.  29.  H\.   11...    110.    172. 


Fun-Ggw 


TAHLK    OK    CASKS, 


xlv 


Furikr    V.    Baldwin     (127    Off.    Oaz. 

:{<»2),  :{!»(),  r)77. 

V.  DrcyfuH   (:}4  La.  Ann.  HO),  lltl. 

6 

Gabriel  v.  Sioiliftn  Asphalt  Co.    {r>2 

N.  Y.    Supj).   722),    If)!*. 
V.   Sicilian    AHpliuit   Co.    (2)     (fjO 

N.  Y.  .Supp.  :J0),  15!). 
(Jage  V.  Canada   Pub.   Co.    (11  Can. 

Sup.  30G),  33,   110,   177,  442. 
Gage-Downs  Co.  v.  Fcatherbone  Cor- 
set Co.   (83  Fed.  Rep.  213  |,  IIH, 

167. 
Gail  V.  Wackcrharth    (28  Fed.   Rep. 

28«),  28(i,  407. 
Gaines  &   Co.   v.    Sroufe    (117    Fid. 

Rep.  9G5),  429. 
Galena  Signal  Oil  Co.  v.  W.  P.  Ful- 
ler &  Co.    (142  Fed.  Rep.    1002, 

1007),  204. 
Gaily    V.    Colt's    Patent   Fire    Arms 

Mfg.  Co.  (30  Fed.  Rep.  118),  80. 
Gamble  v.  Stephenson  ( 10  Mo.  App. 

581),  3r)5. 
G.  &  C.  Merriam  Co.  v.  Straus  (13G 

Fed.    Rep.    477),    441. 
V.   Ogilvie    (170    Fed.    Rep.    107), 

93. 
V.  Saalfield    (100  Fed.  Rep.  927), 

93. 
V.  Syndicate  Pub.  Co.   (237  U.  S. 

618),  466. 
V.   Syndicate   Pub.   Co.    (207   Fed. 

Rep.  515),  93. 

G.  &  J.  Tire  Co.  v.  G.  J.  G.  Motor 
Car  Co.  (39  App.  D.  C.  508), 
121. 

Gandy  Belting  Co.  v.  Victor-Balata 
Co.   (215  Fed.  Rep.  795),  291. 

Gannert  v.  Rupert  (127  Fed.  Rep. 
902  I.   US. 

Gannett  v.  Rupert  (62  C.  C.  A. 
594),  202. 


licfcrtnixs  arc  to  patjis. 

(Jardner    v.    Bailry    (Fed.    Case    N<. 

5221),  331. 
(Jurnier  v.  Rossman   (195  Frd.    !;■  p 

175),  114. 
(Jarretson  v.  Clark  (111  U.  S.   )J(»   . 

450. 
Garrett  v.  T.  II.  Garrett  &  Co.    (24 
C.  C.  A.  173),  74,  177,  179,  iss. 
337,  444. 
(iartside  V.  Qutram    (3  Jur.   X.  S.  i . 

254. 
Gebbie  v.  Stitt  (31  N.  Y.  Supp.  102   . 

159. 
(iee    V.    Pritchard    2    Swan.st.    402  > , 

53,  260. 
Geigcr  V.  Cawley    ( 146  Mich.   550  > . 

248. 
(!eo.  G.  Fox  Co.  V.  Glynn   (78  N.  K 
Rep.  89),  119. 
V.    Glynn    (191   Mass.    344),  325. 
(ieneral     Electric     Co.  "v.     Re-New 
Lamp  Co.   (128  Fed.  Rep.  154), 
315,  342,  450. 
V.    Re-Xe\v    Lamp    Co.    (121    Fed. 
Rep.   164),  315. 
(Jenessee    Salt    Co.    v.    Burnap     (20 
C.  C.  A.  27 ) ,  94. 
V.  Burnap  (07  Fed.  Rep.  534),  94. 
George  v.  Smith  (.52  Fed.  Rep.  830), 

70,  120,  308,  309,  443. 
George   Frost  Co.  v.   E.   B.   EsU-s  & 
Sons    (156   Fed.   Rep.  077),   92. 
George  T.   Stagg  Co.  v.  Taylor    (95 

Ky.  651 ) ,   126,  342,  347,  387. 
Georgia  Co.   v.   Bilfinger    (129   Fed. 

Rep.   131),  578. 
German-American     Button     Co.      v. 
Ileymsfeld,   Inc.    (156   X.   Y.    S. 
223),  451. 
Germer  Stove  Co.  v.  Art  Stove  Co. 

(80  C.  C.  A.  9),  46. 
Geron    v.    Gartner     (47     Fed.    Ri-p. 

407),  340. 
Gessler  v.  Grieb   (80  Wis.  21),   104. 
G.  G.  White  Co.  v.  Miller   (oO  Fed. 
Rep.  277  I,  19,  118,  328. 


xlvi 


TAIII.K    OF    CA^h-'<. 


Cihi*-CiiM> 


Krfm  net  s  <i 

(i     Htiltinan    lUiw.   Co.    v.    Indrpcn 

dint   Hnw.  lo.    (  I'.U    FkI.    K.p. 

4S!t>.  12({. 
Cil.lftt   V.    Il.uil    (!)   N!..<1.    J.V.ti,    :i:», 

i:u).  -101. 
(;ilf8  V.   I'axtMii    {M   IVil.    !{.|).   SS2, 

883).  484. 
(;ilka  V.   Milittlovitili    (:>()  Kid     U.p. 

427  t .  'HH't. 
<;illi'tt    V.    Lumsiliii     (4     <>nt.     l.uw 

Hi|).  ;«)()».  Ktl,  211. 
(;mitt»'   Safity    Razor,  Ltd..  v.   I'.l- 

htt.  Ltd.  (2(5  R.  r.  L\  588),  4«(). 
Cilli'V     V.    Unitid    Shoi-    Mach.    Co. 

l.-)2  Fod.  Ri'p.  72(1),  377. 
(;mi»  V.  Hall   (Cox,   ')!)(•)),  177. 
V.  Hall    (.{   BriwH.  ^O!) ) ,  173. 
V.   Hall    (.{    Hnwst.  ;i42 ) .  !»04. 
(Jillott     V.      Kstrrhrook      (47     Rarl>. 

4")5),    2()!>,    210,    :{:5S,    :{41,    442, 

904. 
V.  KstiTl.rook   (48  N.  Y.  374),  213. 
V.   Ki'ttU'   (3  Dii.r,  «>24),  31(5,  33H, 

341,  442. 
Cilman    v.    l)\vi;,'lit    (13   C]rav.   3.')(i  i , 

V.     Huniu'Wi'll     (122    Mass.     13!)). 

1(J,  101.  174,  2!)0,  30(1. 
C.int<'r  V.    Kinney    Tobacco  Co.    (12 

Ffd.   Rrp.  7H2).   7!),    111. 
(lira^roMian    v.    Chutjian    (1!)4    Mas.s. 

'.04  ) ,  4.">4. 
<;iron     V.     (lartnt-r     (47     Fid.     lujt. 

4r,7  1 ,   342. 
ClatMT    V.    St.    Klmo    Co.     (17.'>    Fi-d. 

lU-p.  27(5 ),  204. 
C.Irn   &   Hall    Mffj.  Co.   v.    Hall    (til 

N.  Y.  22(J),  213,  33<J. 
(Ilonoor  Sand  &.  Oravol  Co.  v.  Hud- 

w^n    (138   Mo.   43!)  I,  'MK,. 

Oh-n     Cove    Manuracturin^    Co.     v. 

Lud.man    (23  HIatc-hf.  40),  r)03. 

V     Liid.lin^;    (22    F.-d.    Ri-f.    823), 

12.'.,  37H,  385,  3!)2,  418,  428,  441, 

545,  540. 


»•»•    fo   jutijrs. 

Clcndon    Iron  Co.   v.   UhliT    (75  Pa. 

St.   407),   103.    15!». 
(Mrnny    v.    Smith    (2    l)r<\v.    &    Sm. 

470),  2!)3. 
(Mrnwood  Li^ht  &   W'atiT  Co.  v.  .Mu- 
tual Li^'lit  Co.    (23!)  U.  S.   121), 

3!t3. 
ClolM-Wcrnickr    Co.    v.    Hmwn     (121 

Fed.    i{i|).    1851.    120. 
V.    Rrown    &    Ri-sly     (57    C.    C.    A. 

344  ) ,  292. 
V.   Fri'd    Maciy   Co.    (50  C.   C.   A. 

304 ) ,  292. 
Clotin     V.    OHWald      (05     Fi<l.     Ui-p. 

151  I.   3!t2,  415. 
Cliukman    v.     Straiu-h      (ill     N.     Y. 

Supp.  223).  78. 
Codillot    V.    Amcriran    (Iroci-ry    Co. 

(71  Fi-d.  Ki'p.  873).  342. 
V.    Harris    (81    N.    Y.    203.    200), 

:i,  IS. 

N.     Hazard     (44     N.    Y.     Sup.    Ct. 

427).    0.   03. 
V.  Hazzard  (81  N.  Y.  203),  lO.'i. 
Coldcn  &   Co.   V.    Hi'itz   4   Co.    (125 

O.  G.  989),  572. 
Coldrtti'in  V.   Whilan    (02   Fed.   Rop. 

124),  120,  393,  451,  477. 
Coodfidlow  V.  .Tolly    (C.  D.,   1!I05.  p. 
105).   .-.72. 
V.    I'rim-.-    (L.    It.   35   Ch.  9).   378. 
C.oodlft  V.  Railroad   (122  V.  S.  .3!)1), 

414. 
Coodnian  v.  Rohls  (3  T.-x.  Civ.  App. 
1S3),   I.-.2. 
V.    Curtis     (  174     I'.d.     K.'p.    044), 

4(i!l. 
V.  H.iMi.rsori    (58  (^a.  507),  223. 
V.      Mcridiii      Itrittaiiia     Co.      (50 
Conn.    13!)  I.  27. 
^Joodwin    V.    Ivory    Soaji    Co.    23    R. 

V.  C.  38!)),  333. 
Coodyi-ar    RuMuT    Co.    v.    Day     (22 
F.d.    Ri-p.  44).  8S.    180.  4.V2. 
V.     (lOodyi-ar'H     Rul.l.cr    Mfjj.    Co. 
I  (21    F.«l.    H.'i>.   270 1,   184. 


G(K»-(jlul 


TAIJLK    (JK    CASES, 


xl\  ii 


Itcfrrinrcn  <irr  to  jiuf/rs. 


CJotxlytiir's  India   KhMht  filovc  Mf^. 

Co.     \.     (ioodyt'iir     IJiiUluT     ('(». 

(  lis    r.    S.    :.!tS),    A\,    47,    103, 

ISC. 
Cordon    \.    Knott    (IW.)    Muhh.    IT'l), 

Cordon    Dry   Cin  Co.  v.    Urilly    (l.">:5 

\.  V.  S.  22(5) ,  7r)<>. 
Cordrn    Hollow    Blast   (Jrate    Co.    v. 

Cordon     (142    Mich.    4H8  ( ,    74, 

174,    17H. 
Corhnm    Co.     v.     Wliiti'     (14    AVall. 

f)]!  I.  MM. 
Coriium    Mf*,'.    Co.     v.    Emcry-Bird- 

TliayiT  Co.    (43  C.  C.  A.   511), 

205. 
V.    Kmery-Bird-Tliaycr   Dry  Goods 

Co.     (02     Ft'd.     Kt'i).     774-77!>), 

437,  444,  474. 
V.     Wfintrauh      (170     Fed.     Ri'p. 

!)27),   72. 
Cormli'y  v.  Bunyan  (138  U.  S.  023), 

4()7,  485. 
Gouraud  v.  Trust  (3  Hun,  G27),  122, 

312. 
(M)ut  V.   Alfi)lo{,'lu    (G  Bcavan,  GO), 

147. 
Graham  v.  Tlato  (40  Cal.  593,  598), 

422,  456,  637. 
V.  St.  Charlos  St.  R.  Co.    (47  La. 

Ann.   214),  373. 
(; ravel   Roofers'   E.xehange  v.    Turn- 
hull   (64  Oir.  Gaz.  441),  400. 
(Jravely    v.    Gravely     (52    OH".    Gaz. 

1538),  392. 
V.    Gravely     (42    Fed.    Rep.    265), 

385,  415,  429.  547. 
Graves  v.  Gunder    (136  O.  G.  227), 

552,  578. 
Gray  v.   Taper-Sleeve   Pulley  Works 

16  Fed.  Rep.  436-443),  394,  442. 
(ireacen  v.  Bidl   (115  Fed.  Rep.  553, 

554),  3.5. 
(ireat  Atlantic  &  Pacific  Tea  Co.  v. 

Cream  of  Wheat  Co.    (224  Fed. 

Rep.  566),  156. 


Great     Tower     Stn'ct     Tea     Co.     v. 

Smith    (6   H.   P.  C.    172),  135. 
(Jreen  v.  Kooke  <\\.  N..  1H72,  p.  49), 

103. 
Greene   v.    W  Oodlionsr    ( ;!.S   (Ml.   Gaz. 

1K91),   151. 
Grei'iie,    'I'weed     &,    Co.     v.    .Maniifac- 

turer'H   Belt  Hook   Co.    (137   O. 

(J.  2221),  553,  569. 
V.   Manufactun-r'H   Belt    Hook   Co. 

1.32  ().  G.  680),  574. 
V.   Manufacturer's    H<'lt   Hook   Co. 

(1.58  Fed.    Rep.   640),    112,  446. 
('•n-tii:   V.    Bassett    (3    Ont.    L.    Rep. 

263),  28. 
(iregory  v.   Spieker    (110  Cal.    150). 

249,  250. 
(iropp    V.    Perkins    (148    Ky.     l.s:{  i , 

248. 
Grow   V.   Selifj^man    (47   Mich.    607 1 , 

181,  252. 
(irier    Bros.    Co.    v.    Baldwin     (219 

Fed.  Rep.  735),  282,  369,  371. 
(irigga.   Cooper   &   Co.   v.   Erie  Pre- 
serving    Co.      (131     Fed.     Rep. 

359 ) ,  23,  59,  327,  428. 
(irillon   V.  Guenin    (W.  X.    1877,  p. 

14),   130,   144,  444. 
(Jrimm  v.   Walker    (45  Iowa,    106 1, 

231. 
Grocer's    .Tournal    v.    Midland    Pul>. 

Co.    (127  Mo.  App.  366),  43. 
Grocers'     Supply     Co.     v.      Dupuia 
(Mass.)    (107  N.  E.  Rep.  .389), 

338. 
Grossman     v.     Griggs      (186     Mass. 

275),  68. 
Gruber    Almanack    Co.    v.    Swinghy 

(103  Md.  362),  446. 
Guilhon  v.  Lindo  (9  Bos.  605 1 ,  437. 
(Juinness   v.   Heap    (Seb.   617),   377. 
v.    Ullmer     (10    L.    T.    127 1 ,   279, 

298,  304. 
Gulden    v.    Chance     (163    Fed.    Rep. 

447),  119,  333. 


xlviii 


TAHLK    OF    CASKS. 


Gut-Har 


Rffrrtnct  s   nrr   ^^   jukjcs. 


(luth    V.    (lutli    ('li(H-()lat.-    Co.     (140 

l\  V.  A.  4l(M.   17!». 
(iutli    rhocolato    I'o.    V.    (;iith     (il.'i 

Ft-il.    Hop.   750).    17!>. 
(;.    W.   Cole   V.   CoK-'h  Oil    C...    (117 

Fill.  R.'p.  0.30),  4:iS. 
U.     W.     .1.     Murphy     Co.    v.     M-tiil 

Stampinjj   Co.     (^14    Frd.    Hep. 

382),  448. 

H 

TIapan    Jl    Dodd    Co.   v.   Righers    ( 1 

C.a.  App.   100),  41.3. 
Hajron  V.  Beth   (118  Cal.  330),  4.V2. 
Happ  V.  Dnrlpy    (47  L.  .1.  Ch.  507), 

250. 
Ilainipio     V.     Cyclops     Iron     Works 

lao  Calif.   35),  .32.">. 
Hall  V.  Barrows   (32  L.  J.  Cli.  54S  i , 

64. 
V.  BarrowH   (4  DeC.  .1.  &.  S.  150), 

10,  115,   109.  212,  223.  227,  305, 

307,  340,  342,  443. 
V.    Hall     (20    B.iiviin,     l.S'.h,    222, 

227. 
Hall  &  Riuki'l  V.  In-riim   (120  (>.  C 

750),  334. 
V.    Inpram     (28    App.    D.    C.   4.54), 

129. 
Hall    Mfp.    Co.    V.    WcBtern    St«(l    & 

Iron    Works     (227     Fed.     U.p. 

588.  .592),  235. 
Hall    Saf.-   &.    Lock    Co.    v.    H.-rrinp- 

Haii-Marvin  Saf.-  Co.    (74  C.  C. 

A.  301  I,   175. 
HalBcy  V.  Brothi-rliood    (45  L.  T.  N. 

R,  040),  54. 
Halatcad  v.  Houston   (111   F.-d.  R.p. 

370),  347,  370. 
Hamilton    Brown    Shoe   Co.    v.    W«df 

Bros.    &    Co.    (240    V.    S.    25!  i, 

{•H,   114.  .324.  4.'.0. 
Hamilton    Mfp.    Co.    v.    Tul.lm    Mfp. 

Co.    (210    F.-d,    K.p.    401),   25S, 

201,  200,   334. 


Hammond   v.    Bniiikcr    (9    R.    V.   C. 

301).   31,  215. 
V.    Douplas    (5   Ves.  .530),  223. 
Handy  v.   Commander    (49   La.   .Ann. 

1119),  424.  440. 
Hanford  v.  Westcott    (Fed.  Case  No. 

0022  I.  544. 
V.   W.stcott    (  10   OIL   Caz.    USD. 

122.  510. 
Hanks     Dental      .Xsun.     v.     Interna- 
tional   Tooth    Crown    Co.     (194 

r.  S.  303).  480. 
Hanley   v.   Fi<l(lity   Ins.  T.  i   S.  Co. 

(8   I 'a.   Dist.   l{.  207),  2ti3. 
Hanna    v.    Andrews     (.50     la.    402), 

225,  231. 
Hanover   Star   Millinp  Co.    v.    Allen 

208   Fed.   Rep.   513),  307. 
V.    Allen    &    Wheeler   Co.    (125    C. 

C.  A.   515),    109. 
V.  Metcnlf   (240  U.   S.  403).  04. 
Hansen     v.     Inland     Typi-     Foundry 

(134  ().  (J.  775).  .509. 
V.     Siepel-Cooper     Co.      (2)       (100 

Fed.    Hep.    091),    123,    307,  327, 

471, 
Hardy   v.   Cutter    (3   OfT.   fJaz.    408), 

lOS,    174,  305. 
Harpraves  v.  Smith    (Seh.  3.38),  41.5. 
Harj)er    v.    Holman     (84    Fed.     Hep. 

222),  400. 
V.   Lan-    (93    Fed.    Hep.  989),   3.3.5. 
V.    F.'ar.son    (3    L.    T.   N.    S.    .547), 

401. 
Harper  &   Bros.  v.  Lare  (43  C.  C.  A. 

182),  335. 
Harrinpton  v.   Lil>l>y    (Fed.  Case  No. 

0107).  140,   141. 
V.  Lihhy   (14  Blatchf.  128),  270. 
Harris  v.  Brown    (202  Pa.   10),  183. 
Harrison    v.    Taylor    (11    .lur.    .V.    S. 

408),   29  J. 
Harryman    v.    Harryman     (  IM    I'ae. 

Hep.  202),    1.5. 
Harsehltarper   v.    Fliy    (Idaho)     (150 

Par     I!,  p.    019  1,   249. 


Ilur  ilie 


TAHM';    OK    CASKS. 


xlix 


UrfircnccN  arc  to  jxnjiH. 


HarH(.n  v.   Ilalkvanl    (22  II.  I.   102), 

174,    17.'). 
Hart  V.  ("<>ll.-y    (7  U.   I'.  C  '.•:»!,  -Wi . 

V.   Siiiilh    (  l.'.lt    hid.    1H2).  22U. 
llHrtcIl    V.    X'iiicv     (     Fed.    Case   No. 

(;i.".si ,  1(1(1. 
Hartslioni      v.      F'liill.rick      (C.      D., 

1!>02.  J).  427),  r).")l. 
Hatcliard  v.  Mi-f;.-  (I..  1!.  IH  Q.  H.  1). 

771),  :">.-),  401. 
Havana  ('(Hiiincrcinl   Co.   v.    XicholH 

(!;-);->    Fed.    Rep.    302),    124,   207, 

•A21. 
Hawlcy  v.   Dniin.lly    («   I'aigc,  415), 

47('». 
Hay    &    'I'odd    Mfjr.    Co.    v.    Querns 

lirotlicrs    (,St;    Off.    Gaz.    132.'}  I, 

10,  i");}!!.  ;■)")!. 
Hazard  v.  Caswell    (  .'m    How.   I'r.   li, 

V.   Caswell    {0:5    X.    Y.   ^2'^'^,   202), 
31.  401. 
Hazelton  Boiler  Co.  v.  Hazelton  Tri- 
pod   Boiler   Co.    (142    111.   404), 
«;-),    187,    ISO. 
V.    Tripod    Boiler    Co.     (142    111. 
404),  ;").-)  1. 
Hazlett  V.   Pollack   Stojrie  Co.    (11.") 

C.  C.  A.  30),  447. 
Uazzopulo  V.  Kaufmann    (23  Sol.  .T. 

810),  378. 
H.  B.  \Vip<,Mns  Sons'  Co.   v.  Cott-A- 
Lap   Co.    (ICO    Fed.    Rep.    150), 
257. 
Heath    v.    American    Book    Co.     (07 
Fed.  Rep.  533),  364. 
V.   Wright    (3   Wall.    .Jr.,    1),   7S, 
124. 
Hecht  V.    Porter    (0    Pac.    C.    L.    .T. 

569),  123,  308,  430. 
Hepeman   v.   He<,'eman    ( 8  Daly,   1 ) , 
28.  30. 
V.    O'Byrne     (0    Daly.    264),    442, 
443. 
Heide  v.   Wallace  &    Co.    (120   Fed. 
Rep.  640.  650).  48,  314. 


Heinz  V.  Lilt/.    (116  Pa.  502/,  .305. 
Heller   &    Merz   Co.    V.    Shaver    (102 

Fed.   Rep.   882),  216. 
Helinhold  V.  Helmhr)ld   'SU^.  Co.    (53 

How.   Pr.  4.53),  81,   104. 
HenneHHV  &  Co.  v.   Dompe    (  10  K.  P. 
C.  3.33,  .3.30),  460. 
V.  Keating  (2.'>  R.  P.  C.  125,  361  i, 
460. 
Hennes.sy      v.      HraiiMs<"liweiper      (80 
Fed.  Rej..  664).  10,  66.  217.  385. 
3!I2,  420.  532.  535,  .545,  546,  .547. 
V.  Budde   (82  Fed.   Rep.  .541),  474, 

404. 
V.  Herrmann    (8!»  Fed.  Rep.  060 1 , 
20.5,    208,    302,    .303,    415,     430, 
546,  800. 
V.    Ho{,'an    (6   W.    W.    i:    AB.    i;<|. 

225),  316,  442. 
V.    Kennett    (Seh.    556),  437,   442. 
V.    Wheeler    (51    How.    Pr.    4.57), 

445. 
V.  Wheeler   (60  X.  Y.  271),  70. 
V.    White    (6    W.    W.    &    A'B.    E(j. 

216),  316,  442. 
V.     Wilmerdin;,'-Loewe     Co.      ( 103 
Fed.   Rep.   90),  4.30,  461. 
Henning    v.    Boyle     (112    Fed.    Rep. 

397),  484,  485. 
Henry  v.  Cherry  &   Wel.b    (30  R.   1. 

13),  277. 
Herbert    v.    Dupaty     (42    La.    Ann. 

343),  222,  234,   230. 
Herring-Hall-Marvin     Safe     Co.     v. 
Hall's  Safe  Co.    (208  U.  S.  v,M, 
560),  30,   193. 
Herz  V.  Lowcnstein    (40  App.   D.  C. 

277),  550. 
Hetterman  v.  Powers  (102  Ky.  133), 

62,  670. 
Heiihlein   v.   Adams    (125   Fed.    Rep. 

782),  26.  65,  72.  118. 
Hickman    v.    Link     (IK;    Mo.    12.?  i, 

216. 
Hier  v.  Abrahams    (82   X.   Y.    510 1 . 
127,    141,    142.   320,  442. 


TAIU.K    t»F    CAShLS. 


Hig-Ilol 


HiUjriiiH  V     D.ikin    fn:t    N.    V.    Supi.. 
HJK)).  7^ti. 
V.   K.ulT.l    (l«(i   r.   S.   4-2S),  -)1:j, 

r.M.  r.m. 

HiK'jrinH    Co.     V.    HiK'K'inH    Snap    Co. 


h'tfrrrntys  an'  to  pagm. 

IliiHt  V.  Di'tiham  (  K.  U.  U  K.j.  :.4'2), 
124.   12r>.   12!>. 

II.  MiH'llir  Mffj.  To.  V.  .\.  V.  MoDon- 
aly  &  Mtininon  Mfj;.  Co.  (  132 
ImmI.  K.-|).  ."»S.-.,  :.8H).  4:)2. 


(144    N.  Y.  4(52  I.   177.    17".    IX"'.   ,        ^     A.  V.  M<l)onnly  &  Morrison  Mfjt 


181). 
Hildroth  v.   M.Caul    (71   N.  V.  Supp. 

I07.">i.  47 1». 
V.   MtUonal.l    (ItU  MasH.   l(l).21>0. 
V.  Sj.arks  Mf^.  Co.    (!•!»   K.-<1.  R.>p. 

4S4  1 .  2!tS.  40."),  4.')S. 
Hill     V.     LiKkwood     (:12    Ft-tl.     Ki'p. 

389).  .37.  rtl,  KU.  402. 
Hillman  v.  Star  Vuh.  Co.    ((',4  Wash. 

«ni>.   27(5. 
llillsidi-    Chcmioal     Co.     v.     MiinKoii 

(14r>   Fed.  Hop.   1".>S).  300. 
Hilwn    V.    LiMn-y    (44    N.    Y.    Supr. 

Ct.  12),  60. 
Hilson  Co.   V.    Fo.ster    (SO    l'.«l.    Hop- 

81)6-85»7 ) .  43. 


Co.  (If. J  1-vd.  ir.-p.  loon.  122. 

2!»3. 
Iloanlainl    v.    S.-;.-ur    ( :<.S    N.   .1.    Law. 

237).  242. 
Ilobb.s    V.     Kraiiiais     (10     ll«)\v.     Pr. 

.".(57 ) .  7'.>. 
Hoir  V.  Tarrant  &  Co.    (71    V>-d.  Ui'P- 

103).  2!). 
Hopp  V.  Kirhy  ( 8  Vi-s.  21.-)),  1!I8. 
Hohner  V.  (!rat/.  (.12  F«k1.  Rep.  871), 
177. 
V.  (;rat/.    (.".0  Fed.   \U]K  3«50 ) ,  449, 
473. 
lloll.r(.ok  V.  Nesl.itt   (  1113  Mass.  120), 
231,  230.  244. 
V.  Tolu-v   (ti<5  Ml-.  410  1.248. 


nil,.'    V.    Lart     (10    .Tur.    ll»(5).    120.   |    i|„i,,pr„„f  Hosiery  Co.  v.  Fitts    (167 


147.  400 
Hiririclis   v.   lifrndt's    [Vox.    Manual. 

-.04).  .-.3. 
llippravf  V.  Case    ( L.    U.    28   Cli.   U. 

3.".6).  2.->l. 

Hiram    Molt   Co.    v.   Wadswortli    (41 

Ftd.   K<'|).   34).  8!).  03.  12.-).  328. 

Hiram    Riikcr  &    Sons   v.    Leifili    (77 

N.  Y.  Supi".  .-.40).  313. 

'  Hiram   Walker  i    Sons    v.   Cnil.niiui 

(224    F<'d.  Ri-p-   72.".).    1(57.  3.-.8. 

V.   Crubman    (222    IVd.    R«'p.   478, 

470),  287.  370. 
V.  Hookstaedi-r  (8.".  F.d.  K.p.  77<5), 

280.  324. 
V.    Mikolas     (70    F.-d.    K-'p.    0."..".  i 
108. 
Hirt'H  V.   Hires    (0   I'a.   Dis.    1'..   ■2><:y) 

280. 
Hirwh  V.  .Iona«   (  L.   I:.  3  CI..  I).  .".«4 

580 ) .  02. 
Hitchcock  V.  Cok.-r    (0  .\<l.  A   K.  428 
4rA),  220. 


IVd.  Hfji.  378).  327. 
v.    Riclimonil    Hosiery    Mills    (167 

Fed.  Hep.  3S1).  432. 
\.    Walhuh    Urn-.     (  172    Fed.    Hep. 

•s.",!)),  4(54. 
V.    NVallaeh    Bros.    (112    C.   C.    A. 

(>."..-.).  4154. 
v.    Wallacli    Hros.    (  1(57    Fed.    Rep. 

373).  4(54. 
V.    Wallaeh    Bros.    (  100    F^^l.    Hep. 
(iO()).   122. 
Hollis  V.  SbalTer   (HS  Kas.  402).  234. 
llolloway     V.     lloiloway      (13     Reav. 

200),    171,    177.  44.".. 
Holmes,  Rootli  i   TTaydena  v.  Hobnes 
llootii    &    Atwoo<l    .Mfj,'.   Co.    (37 
C.mn.  278).  177.  181.  180.203. 
Holt  V.  Men.-ndez   (23  F.-d.  H.-p.  8(50. 

871  ),  440. 
ll.»l/.ai>f<-rK  Composition  Co.  v.  RaM- 
jen'-.  Anieriean  C.)n\p.)silion  Co. 
,  iv:t  r   s.  1,  s»,  S3.  447. 


Hoo-Hum 


TAHM':    t)K    CASKS. 


11 


Rcfvrtnri-H  iin:  to  jiaycH. 
IIiK)sicr    Drill   Co.    v.    Iiij;tis    (11    Id.    I    HoiicIich.h  v.    iloiiclicns    (It.")  .Md.  37), 


7S.-.),  ilO'i.  :>!(). 
lloj.kiiis  V.  ,HitcliofK-k  (11  C.  H.  N.  S. 

d.".),  ;}4I>,  :J4ii. 
Uojikiiis  Atiiuscmi'tit  ('(•.  v.  I'rolimnii 

CiO'i   111.  .'.41  ),  '204. 
lliirlick's  Food  Co.  v.  EI<jin  Milkinc 

Co.   (r)«  C.  C.  A.  r)44),  KKi. 
H(trnl«)stcl  V.  Kinney  (110  N.  Y.  04  I , 

130. 
Ilorton  Mfj,'.  Co.  v.  llorton  Mlt,'.  Co. 

IS   Im-(1.  Itop.  SKi),  :}(l.  243,  244. 

Tlorwicli   V.    \\'alkor-(Jord()Ti    I.,alx>ra- 

tory  Co.    (20.-)  111.  407),  MiH. 
Hostcttor   V.    Adams    (10    Fed.   Ri'p. 

838),  2Sfi,  200,  337,  344,  345. 
V.  Adams  (20  Blatchf.  326),  100. 
V.  Anderson   ( 1  \V.  W.  &  A'R.  Eq. 

7),  313,  337. 
V.  Becker   (73  Fed.  Rej).  207),  327. 
V.  Bower     ( 74     Fed.     Rep.    235 ) , 

314,   4t;8. 
V.    Bnu'jigeniiui-Ri'iiiai-t    Distilliuj^ 

Co.  (46  Fed.  Rep.  188),  313. 
V.  Brunn  (107  Fed.  Rep.  707),  437. 
V.  Comerford   (07  Fed.  Rep.  585), 

314,  460. 
V.    Conron     (111    Fed.    Rep.    737), 

313. 
V.  E.  CJ.  Lyons  Co.    (00   Fed.   i\v\). 

734),  441. 
V.  Fries    (17    Fed.    Rep.   620),    6, 

313. 
V.  Gallajrlier  Stores  (142  Fed.  Rep. 

208),  313. 
V.  Martinoiii   (110  Fed.  Wt-p.  524), 

314. 
V.   Sommers    (84    Fed.   Rep.   333), 

313. 
V.  Van  Vorst    (62  Fed.  Rep.  600), 

318,  402. 
V.  Vowinkle  (  Fed.  Case  No.  6714) . 

327.  444.  456,  470. 
V.  Wm.   Schneider    Co.    ( 107    Fed. 

Rep.  705),  313. 


445. 
IIov.ikIiii  v.  I.ioyd    (  IS  W  .  |{.   1132), 

33. 
Howard  \.  iliMiirpicH  (  3  San<if.  725  ) , 

355. 
\.   TaNlor    (110    Ala.    241-244).   241. 

240. 
Howard  l)ustl<'-<>  Diihtcr  Co.  v.  Carle- 
ton    (210    Fed.    Rep.    013,    016). 

345. 
Howe    V.    Howe    Sewiiijr   Mucliine   Co. 

(50  Barb.  236),    172. 
V.  McKernon    (30   lieav.   547),  68. 

471,  472. 
v.  Searing'   (  lo  .Mil).   I'l.  264),  20, 

231. 
Howe  Scale  C'o.  v.  WyekolF,  Seaman-. 

cV    Benedict  (108  U.  S.   118),  66, 

175,  176,   187. 
llo.vie    V.   Chancy    (143    Mass.    502), 

20,    30,    70,    115.    ISl,    227,    230. 

232. 
Iloyt  V.  Tlolly  (30  Conn.  326),  225. 
V.    Iloyt    (  143   I'a.   St.   623).   5.    17. 

21. 
v.  J.  T.  Lovett  Co.    (71    Ft-d.   lU-p. 

173),  104. 
Mubhack  v.  Wilkinson.  1800  (1  Q.  B. 

00,  01),  r^-K  433. 
Hubbard  v.  Miller  (27  Mich  15).  235. 

242. 
Hudson  V.  Osborne  (30  L.  J.  Ch.  70), 

31,  212,  213.  222. 
V.  Osborne    (21   L.  T.  N.  S.   386). 

355. 
HulT  V.  Wallace    (X.  T.  Ch..  03   Atl. 

Rep.  702),  116. 
Hughes  V.  Alfred  H.  Smith  Co.   (205 

Fed.  Rep.  311  ).  SO.  .564. 
V.    Northern    Pacific    Ry.    Co.    (  18 

Fed.  Rep.  106.  110).  43(i. 
Humphreys'    Homeopathic    Medicine 

Co.    V.    Hilton     (60    Fed.      Rcji. 

756),  330. 


lii 


TAHLK    OK    CAShX. 


Hum  lilt 


Rcfrrttui n   til 

JIum|»hn'\  k'     SjH'cilif     Mi-il.     Co.     v. 

Wt'nr.  (14  Vci\.  Hi'i>.  2:.i»).  tl.  V.K 

lU.-i.  327.  IVMK 

Hunt  V.  Manirn-  ( :U  H.av.  i:.7i.40.-). 

V.    New     York     (.'ottt»n     Kxclianjjf 

(2o:.  r.  s.  ;i2-2,  :j.j.hi.  .wm. 

Hiirricatu-     I'nli-iit     l.Hntfrn     Co.     v. 

Miil.T   cr.  iinw.  I'r.  2:u),  3:i:J. 

lIutoliiDMiii    V.    niiiinluT^    (.")1     Kf«l. 
Hep.  S2!»).    12n.   44S.  4!>2. 
V.  Cov.Tt    (.-.1    I".-.l.   I5.-J1.  S;{2),  12!t. 

331. 
V.  Na.v  (  1S7  Ma<s.  2«V2  1 .  22.".. 
llutchinxni.    I'itrcc   &    Co.    v.    L<H'\vy 

(217  I'.  S.  4.")7).  4««.  :)S1. 
Huwcr   V.    Daiiiu'ulioirrr     ( S2    N.    V. 

4'J!>),   31.  401. 
II.  \V.   .lolins-Manvilh'  Co.  v.  Aim-r- 
ican    S.    P.    Co.    (33   App.    I).   C. 
224  I .  o67. 
Ilyams    v.    Old    Dominion    Co.     (204 

Kod.  Rep.  6S1).  433. 
Hypeia   Distilled   Water  Co.   v.   Con- 
solidate«l  Ic-e  Co.   (144  Fed.   Hej). 
13!l».   22.    123. 
V.    Hyp'ia    Ice   Co.     (40    Atl.    .■):U. 

5401,  8. 
V.    Ilypeia    lee   Co.    (1)     (70    I'onn. 

516 ).    123. 
V.    Hypeia    Ice    Co.     (2)     72    Conn. 
fi46l.   123. 
Ilypienic    Fleeced    Underwear   Co.    v. 
Way  (70  C.  C.  A.  .VVl ) ,  107,  12(5, 
33.-.. 
V.  Way    (133   Fed.  Rep.  24.".),  441. 
]I>-man    v.   Solis  Cipar   Co.    (4    Colo. 
App.  47.-)  I,  64,  70. 


IllinoiH  Hydraulic  Cement  Mfp.   Co. 

V.    rti<-u    Hydraulic-  Cement    Co. 

(  120  (».  (•.  2.')02),  r.77. 
Illinoin     Wateh     Co.     v.     F.Ipin     Nat. 

Watch   Co.    (04   Fed.   Hep.   667), 

52,    102,   It;.-.,  3H0,  305,  532. 


f    I'l    inlijfs. 

hnan     v      Ink8t<r     (00     Neli.     704 1 , 

221. 
lmprove<l    Fip  Syriip  Co.   v.  Califor 

nia   Fip  Syrup  Co.    (4   C.   C.    A. 

2tl4l.    100,    1,'.0. 
V.   California    Fip    Syrup   Co.    (54 

Fed.    Rep.    175).  442. 
Independent    Hakinp    Pi.wder   Co.    v. 

Hcorman    (  l.tit    Fed.    Rep.    726), 

4.'"»0. 
V.    RiMirman     (175    Fed.    448),    68. 
India    Rul>l.er    Coml.    Co.    v.    Rubber 

Com';  Co.    (45  N.   Y.  Super.  Ct. 

R.   258).    177. 
V.   .Jewelry  Co.    (45  N.   V.  Sup.  ft. 

2.".S),  330. 
Indurated     Fil.re    Cn.    v.    Amonkeap 

lndurate<l    Fibre    \Vare   Co.    (."{7 

Fed.   Rep.  ti05i,  105,   137. 
Industrial     Mutual     Deposit    Co.    v. 

Central      Mutual     Deposit     Co. 

(112    Ky.   0.37).  18,5. 
Industrial   Press  v.   W.   R.  C.   Smith 

Pub.   Co.    (H54    Fed.    Rep.    842). 

420. 
Inpersoll    v.    Goldstein     (X.    J.    Ch., 

03  Atl.  Rep.  103).  7.36. 
Inpram   v.   StilT    (5  .lur.  N.   S.  047). 

202. 
Insurance  Oil  Tank  Co.  v.  Scott   (33 

La.  Ann.  040),  61,  123. 
International   CIuh-sc  Co.   v.    Phenix 

Cheese    Ct..     (  103     N.     V.    Supp. 

.3ti2),    162. 
International     Food     Co.     v.     Price 

Hakinp    P<>\\(l«r    In.     (3.'!    App. 

1).   C.    137  I.    110. 
1ntt>rnationaI    Silver    Co.    v.    Ropers 

(71    N.   .1.    Ivj.   560),    176. 
V.    Ropers     (72    \.     .1.     i:<|.     033), 

176. 
V.   Ropers    Urns.   Cutlery  ('«..    (13(5 

Ted.    Rep.    1010),    182.   330. 
V.   Ropers   Corp'n.    (66    N.    J.    E<i. 

110),    176,    193. 


Int-Inr 


TABLE   OF    CASUS. 


liil 


References  nr 

liitcnialioiial    Silver    Co.    v.    Simcoii 

L.  &  George  H.  Rogers  Co.  (110 

K(<1.   Hep.  95;-.),   177.  -401. 
V.  \Vm.  G.   Rogers  C<>.    (ll.J    Im<1. 

Rep.   520),    J77. 
Intermitioiial    Society     v.      liitcnia- 

tional  Society    (.'.!)  N.   ^'.  Siipj). 

78-)),  :n2. 
V.   Wm.    II.    Rogers  Corp.    (<i7    N. 

J.    Eq.    0415),   170. 
Investor  Pub.   Co.   v.   DoMnson    (72 

Fed.   Rep.   003),   184,   18."). 
V.    Dohinson     (82    Fed.    Rep.    50), 

52,    174,  307. 
Iowa  Seed  Co.  v.  Dorr   (70  la.  481), 

175,  223. 
Iowa  Washing   Mach.   Co.   v.   Mont- 
gomery Ward  &  Co.    (227   Fed. 

Rep.    1007),    478. 
Irish    Industrial    Assn.    v.    Barrett 

(180  0.  G.  797),  570. 
Iron   Ox.   Co.  V.  Co-op.   Society    (24 

R.   r.   C.   425),   327. 
V.  Leeds    (24   R.    P.  C.  434),   327. 
Italian     Swiss     Colony     v.     Italian 

Vineyard    Co.     (158    Cal.    252). 

112,    148. 
V.  Italian  Vineyard  Co.    (158  Cal. 

252),  5. 
Jn  re  Adams'  Trademarks    (!)   R.   P. 

C.   174),  85. 
Adriance,    Piatt    &    Co.     (Comm. 

Decis.,  1881,  p.  52),  537. 
Alden    (15  Off.  Gaz.   380),   102. 
American   Circular  Loom  Co.    (28 

App.  1).   C.   450),   101. 
American   Circular  Loom  Co.    (C. 

D.,   1901,  p.   481),   502. 
American  Lubricating  Oil  Co.    (9 

Off.  Gaz.  087),  129,  509. 
American  Sardine  Co.  (3  Off.  Gaz. 

495),  98,  507,   541. 
American  Saw   Co.    (58   Off.   Gaz. 

521),  541. 
Ames   (23  Off.  Gaz.  344),  541. 


c  to  pages. 

In    re    Anglo-SwisR   Condensed   Milk 

Co.    (2(1  l{.  P.  C.  509),   130. 
.\iiti-Cori-Zin<'    Chemical    Co.    (.U 

Ap|..  1).  C.  191),  103. 
AiImm/.  (  L.  R.,  35  Ch.  I>.  248),  214. 
Armstrong    &    Co.     (20    MSS.     I). 

200),   538. 
Artesian    Mfg.    Co.     (37    Apj».    I). 

C.   113).  503. 
Atkins  Filter  Co.    (3    P.    P..    104), 

110. 
A  u  s  t  r  a  1  i  a  n     \\  iiic     Imjiorti-rs 

Ltd.     (41    Ch.    1).    278-281),    <i, 

02. 
Bagots,    Ilutton    &    Co.,   Ltd.    (32 

R.   P.   C.   333,  347),    13.5. 
Baldwin    (30  L.   T.   354),  130. 
Barker's  Trademark   (53  L.  T.  X. 

S.  23),  323. 
Barrett  Mfg.  Co.   (107  O.  G.  513), 

559. 
Barrows     (L.    R.    5    Ch.    D.    353), 

340,   342. 
Baschiera'.s  Trademark    (33    S.   .1. 

409),  321. 
Blakeslee    &.    Co.     (Comm.    Decis., 

1871,  p.  284),  508. 
Block   &   Co.    (14   Off.   Gaz.   235), 

504,  509. 
Boehm     &     Co.      (Comm.     Decis., 

1875,  p.  103),  537. 
Boehm  &   Co.    (8  Off.   Gaz.    319), 

503. 
Bogardus    (50   MSS.    D.    2),   540. 
Bole  Bros.  ( 12  Off.  Gaz.  939;,  507. 
Bovril  (L.  R.,  1896,  2  Ch.  D.  600), 

117. 
Bowe   (50  MSS.  D.   168),  540. 
Brand    Stove    Co.     (02    Off.    Gaz. 

588),  507. 
Brandreth    (L.  R.  9   Ch.   I).  018), 

98. 
Brandreth       (59        N".    Y.      Supp. 

1092),  203. 


liv 


TMU.I      "T 
A'c  h  i<  ti'  '  ^    'III 


(•A>l..v. 


h.    /.././..v. 


liir  liir 


In  n-  nri^hnm   (Conim    Dccis.,  ISSl, 

p.  :«Si.  ."lOT. 
Hriiu-nt    {2:u  K.-.l.  \\,\,.  Sll.  SKii. 

4(M». 
Hriiniolclrrv    in.     (Newton,    I>i)». 

liiOi.    1:J7. 
IJnH.k     ('Jd    \\  .    i;.    T'.U  I.    .•{«(». 
Hurp.yiir    ((!   I{.   r.   C.  227),   HA. 
Hiisli    A:    Co.    (10    DIT.    Gar..    104), 

117.    :)0!». 
luhii.   H.'lt  A   ("o.    (27  App.  1).  C. 

17;»i,   .')(>4. 
California    Kij;    Syrup   Co.    ( L.    H. 

40  Ch.   1).  020 1.    100. 
Carl       Lind.><tro»  m       Akticnm-scll- 

soliaft    (:U    K.    1'.   C.   2(ir)»,    142. 
CharU'H  Narcisw  Ki-rrc   (Cert.  No. 

S!i:}!t|.   lUi. 
Clu-twood     (l(i.')    U.     S.    443-4(i2i, 

47(5. 
Ciiic-lii-st.r   Chcniioil   Co.    (r)2   OlT. 

Caz.    lOCil  ).  ;'.41. 
CliriHtians.n   (:{  R.  P.  C.  r)4),  .'?01, 

4r.8. 
Coj,'j;in.     Kidder    &     Co.     (11     OIT. 

(Ja/..    1100 1,    r)00. 
ConHolidatcd    Fruit   Jar    Co.     (14 

Id.  2(.!>).  r)0!»,  r>io. 
(•irnwall    (  12  (MT.  Caz.   l.SS),    12!i, 

-ilo,   ."•41. 
Cornwall     &     Co.      (12     Oir.     <;a/. 

:ii2i.  120,  r.07,  r)ii). 

Cn-cdmorf  Cartrid^''  <^o.    (.")('»    id. 

i:i:<:h,  mm. 
Cn-wcnt    'l'yp<'writ<r    Supply    «<>. 

(.'JO   App.    I).   C.   .•{24  I,    lOS,  .-)iil. 

r.»J2. 
DaviH     Tra<JcmarkK      (22     'I'rad.'- 

mark   l{<-c<ird,   .')0),    IIH. 
D.-nHluim    (L.    11..    isn.'.,   2    Cli     I). 

1701.    144. 
Dihid.-     MfK.    Co.     (IH     MSS.     !). 

42Ki.   .^'17. 
Dick    A    Co.     (0    <»ir.    (Ml/..    :u\H), 

112,  508. 


in  n-  Dole  l.roH.    (12  (MT.  (la/.  0;M)  i , 

102.   .'ilO. 
DutclitT  'irmplf   (  n.    ((  (inir.    !)«•<•., 

1S71,    p.   24Hi.   (i4. 
Kanh-    I'rnril    Co.     (10    <  Mr.     Ca/. 

OSl  ,.    .{41,    .'.(Kl.    .'lOfi. 
I'.astmiin     ( W.    N.,    IHHO,   p.    128), 

124. 
Kdinliurj;    Corrtspondent  NrWHpa- 

p«r  (Ct.  of  St'HK.  CaH.  IbI.  bit.  I, 

n.w  cd..  407  n.l,  201. 
Knt,'lisli       (Conini.      DeciH.,      1S70, 

142  I,    .'.0:5. 
K.xoidsior     Sprinj.;     Co.      (Newton, 

DiK.    1.^)3),    137. 
Kairchild   (21   Off.  (Ja/..  780),  r)42. 
i'arl.tn-faiirik.n  T.   M.   K.    (L.   K., 

1S04.    1    Ch.    1).    04.''>),    143. 
Tarina    (2!t    W.    K.    .391),   399. 
i'arina    (27    \V.    R.   406),  200. 
iarinu     (44    I..    T.    N.   S.    00),    33. 
Fariiuni    i;     Co.     (Coinin.     Dci-ia., 

ISSO,  p.   l.').')i.  .-):{7. 
Kinlayson.     nousflfld     &,    Co.     (01 

Off.  Ca/..  1.V2),  r.;{o. 

Fit/patriek.  Davis  &  Co.    ( IS  MSS. 

D.    278),   r)37. 
I'raiicis  &    Mallon    (Comm.  Dccis., 

is:  I,  p.   283),  .-)07. 
Fnund   HroH.    <t   Co.    (.{7    App.   D. 

C.    lOiM,    107. 
C lines   (S  Oir.  Car.  43.'>),  129. 
Codillot    (0    Oir.    (;a/..    041),    SOI. 
(loodall    (42  Ch.   D.   0(50),   13(5. 
Coodyear  Ruhher  Co.  (11  Olf.  (Jaz. 

10021,    101,    .M)7. 
Cordon    (12    Oil.    f5az.    r.l7),   r>08. 
(;<irliam    Mf^'.   Co.    (U    App.    D.  C 

203),   r>81. 

Cralunn     (2    (MT.    Caz.    018 1,    107. 
Creen    (8  Oir.  Caz.  729),  M)7. 
CroHsuiitli    (00   I,,    r.    N.    S.   012), 

120. 
C.roMBiuitli    (0    R.    r.  C.    180),  211. 


liir  Inr 


TAIJIJ;    OF    CA.SE.S. 
UcftnnciH  arc   to  ixujcu. 


Iv 


111  re  rirovc   ((17  oir.  (J«/.  1147),  1:57,        In    !■•    lolm   <•    Dow.l   &   Co.    (C.    I)., 

litds.  p.  i;t4i,  -,r.n. 
.loiiiiHoii   (-1  otr.  Cii/..  :n."»),  m.'.. 

lOH. 
.Fours    (:..!    L.    T.    I  1.   :{2. 
.loniiiii    (J!)    Kcd.    Kcp.    2:18),  4»I7. 
Kiimpf.-   Hnm.    (")«  MSS.   I).  .'{(Xi), 

Kiuir    &    Co.     (!»    (Xr.    Caz.     lOfn, 

270,   r)()8. 
K.asl..-y   &   Mattison   Co.    (100  U. 

S.  221),  3!)3,  394,  3'.)5,  415. 
Kimi)all    (Comm.    DceiH.,    1S87,  p. 

54),    538. 
Kimhall   (11  U(T.  Oaz.   llOit).  504. 
\\\\\il)\t   (38  MSS.  1).  341),  537. 
Kuhn  &   Co.'s  Trademark    (53    L. 

J.  Ch.   238),    136,   443,   4!»0. 
i.a    Soci^t^    Anonymo   des    Verre- 

ric8   dp    I'Estoilf    (10    R.    P.    C. 

436),   321. 
Lawrence    &    Co.     (10    OfT.    Caz. 

163),  148,  507. 
Leonard   &    Ellis'   Trademark    (2«5 

("h.  D.  288),  88. 
Lisner    (13  Off.  Gaz.  455),  503. 
Lisner     (Comm.    Decis.,    1878,    p. 

46),  537. 
Magnolia  Metal  Company's  Trade- 
marks   (14   K.   r.  C.   621,   627). 

165. 
Maignen's  Ap])lieation    (2S   \V.  R. 

759),   121. 
Manny  &  Co.    (17  :M.SS.   D.   155), 

537. 
Manske  &  Co.    (64  Off.  Gaz.  858), 

535. 
Mark  Cross  Co.   (116  ().  (J.  2534), 

584. 
Maw,  Son  &   Tliompsoii    (22  MSS. 

D.   403),  537. 
McMulltMi's  Estate    (157   N.  Y.   S. 

655),   249. 
Meyer    Bros.    Cofft-e    &    Spice    Co. 
(32   App.    1).   C.   277),   98,    563. 


507.    541. 
llaggennuicliir  (60     ( )ff.  ( laz.  438  ) . 

536. 
Hall    (  i;t  Oir.  Ca/.  22'.l).  211,  507. 
HatikinsoM    (S    oil".  Gaz.    SO  i ,    .'-)03, 

532,    53S. 
Hanson's   Trademark    (5   I  J.   P.   C. 

130).    2S7. 
Harden     Fire    K.\tin;.',uislier    Co.'s 

Trademark    (.'.-)   L.   .).   Cli.   596), 

104. 
Hautiiaway    (I),    (Ctmim.    Deeis.. 

1S71,   p.   97),   507. 
Hautiiaway     (2).    ((oinm.    Deeis., 

1871,  p.  284),   507. 
Hayward    &    Sons    (54    L.    .1.    Ch. 

1003),   136. 
Heaton's    Trademark     ( L.     It.    27 

Ch.  D.  570),  79. 
Ilendl.-y   (72  Off.  Gaz.   1654),  541. 
Holt    &    Co.'s    Trademark,    C.    A. 

(L.    R.,   1891,    1   Ch.   711),   130. 
Hopkins    (29    App.    D.    C.    118), 

108,  561,  562. 
Horshurgh     (53    L.    .7.    Ch.    237 1 , 

113,   131,   301. 
Ilorton     (45   Law    T.,   N.S.,    541), 

242. 
Hudson's  Trademark    (3  M.   V.   C. 

155),    63. 
Hyde  &  Co.    (7   Ch.  D.   724),   136. 
Imhs   (10  Off.  Gaz.  463),  510. 
India    Ruhber   Comh    Co.    (8    Off. 

Gaz.  905),  509,   510. 
India  Ruhher  Comtt  Co.    (KiMSS. 

D.   38),   537. 
Indian   Portland   Cement   Co.    (30 

App.  D.   C.   463),   559. 
Jackson      Companys     Trademark 

(6   R.   P.  C.   80),    145. 
Jclley,  Son  &  Jones  (51  L.  J.  Ch. 

639),   307,   467. 
J.  :Marsching  &  Co.    (15  Off.  Gaz. 

294),   541. 


Ivi 


TAHl.i:    t)K    CASKS. 


[nrliir 


licfriiiirtx   arc   /<»   puijrs. 


In  r.'  M.'v.-r  Hros.  ColT.-.'  A  Spitv  lo.        In  r.'  Uiiilton   ('2.-)  MSS.  I).  :»21  ),  r)41. 


(:»S    App.    1).   l".    .ViOi.    11-2. 

MrytTsUMii  (7  j:.  1'.  I'.  n»i.  iin. 

MilU-r    (:>4   L.    .1.   CU.   20:.  i,   4;{ti. 
Mitihi'll    (L.    U.   2S  cli.   1).   m»h, 

399. 
Mitdu'll     (L.     K.    7    (li.     I).    :5C.). 

340. 
Moot    &    I'liiinaon     (IS     MSS.     I). 

2r)9),  535, 
National  Candy   (.o.    (:!.')  App.    D. 

C.   351),    12(!. 
National    Cht-niical    Co.     (  l:?4     iK 

G.    1298),   575. 
National   IMionojrrapli   Co.    (C.   1)., 

1907.   p.    5.">0),   5()1. 
National      Phonofjrapli     Co.      (29 

App.    D.    C.    142).    111. 
New  South  Brewory  &  let-  Co.   (;52 

App.  D.  C.  591),  101. 
O'Donnell   (Fed.  Case  No.   I04:{4i, 

531. 
PalmiT    (24    (  h.    1).    504 1 .   91.    !>9, 

136. 
PalmtT     (L.     15.    21    Cli.     U.    47  i , 

418. 
Park    (12   OIT.   Gaz.  2),  502,  SOS. 
Parker    (13    otF.    Gaz.    323),    501, 

508. 
Perry    Davis   &    Son    (58   L.   T.    N. 

S.   095),  9. 
Pierce   (23  MSS.  D.   10),  .'.37. 
Porter   Blancliard'H  Sons    (Comni. 

Decis.,  1871,  p.  97  1 ,  507,  509. 
Pratt    &    Farmer     (10    nir.    Gaz. 

800),  507. 
Price's   Patent   Candle   Co.    ( L.    K. 

27   Cli.    I).  OKI),    107. 
Proctor,  .Ir.    (51   oil".    (Jaz.    1785i, 

541. 
Ralione    (Sel..    042  i ,    307. 
Hader     (13     <  HF.    Gaz.     590 1 ,     105, 

.508. 
Uadrr  &i  Co.    (Connn.  D.iis.,   IH7S, 
p.    07),    507. 


Hailton    (Newton.   Dij;.  213).    147. 
Randall's    Estate    (8    N.    V.    Siij.p. 

0.V2).   222.    240. 
Kieiiardson    (3  Oil.  Gaz.  120  i,  109, 

.507. 
lliviere's    Trademark     (I..     \\.     20 

Cli.   1).   53  1.  437. 
Itivierc   (53  I..  T.   N.  S.  237),  402. 
lloaeli     (  10    ttir.    Gaz.    333 1 ,     lOl. 

.".07. 
Roberts  (ll.   (Comm.   Deeis.   113i, 

509. 
IJol.erts  (2i,   (Comm.   Deeis.   100), 

.509. 
Kol.erts    (3),    (Comm.  D.eirt.  101), 

509. 
Kol.erts    (4,.    (Comm.  Deeis.  100) , 

.507. 
Rohland    (10  GIL  Gaz.  !t80),  120, 

507. 
Rotherham    (29   W.  R.  503),   144. 
Rothschild    (7  OtF.  (Jaz.  220),  502, 

539. 
Rul.l.er  Clothinj;  Co.    (10  OIT.  (Jaz. 

Ill),  510. 
Rust    (29  \V.   R.  393,,  399. 
Rowe    &    Post    (9   Oir.    (Jaz.    490), 

509. 
Safety    Remedy    C(..     (35    Ap[..    D. 

C.    353),  9!). 
Sanitas    Co.     (4     1{.     P.    C.    533). 

143. 
Saunion     &     Co.      (Co.\,     Manual, 

No.  625),  79,  98. 
S.    C.    Herl.st   Importiuf^   Co.    (30 

App.   D.   C.   297),    118,  .559. 
Schmidt    (53  MSS.   D.  7 ) ,  535. 
Simpson     &     Sons     (10    Off.     Gaz. 

3.33),   501. 
Snook    (2    Hilt,    500),    171. 
Societe     Anonyme     Duhonnet     (31 

R.    P.   C.    453,   408),    141. 
Speer's    'i'rademark     (4     R.     P.    G. 
521),  321. 


Jnr-Jur 


TABLE   OP    CASES. 
Itefcrcnccn  nrc  to  patjf^s. 


Ivii 


In  re   Stiindard  Un<l«'rt,Tf>u"<l   ('a'>l<' 
Co.    (-27  App.   I).  C.  :{2()),  nr.'i. 
Swczt-y    («»2  How.   I'r.  215),  :{1. 
Sykes    (4.S    l>.    T.    N.   S.   (i2()),  O:?. 
Talbot   (8   K.   T.  C.   14<)|,   102. 
Tampa  SuI)Ui1jum   K.   Co.    (1(>S  V. 

S.   r)83),   4()r.. 
Thayer  (r)4  OIF.  (Jaz.  1)57),  5:50. 
The    Australian    Wine    Importers 

Ltd.     (I..     K.    41    Ch.     D.    278, 

281).  5. 
llii-wlia    &     Hlakey's    Trademark 

(10   IJ.   r.  C.  309),  323,  332. 
Tliomas    (14   OIT.  Gaz.  821),   50(5, 

508. 
Tliomaa    (35  Fed.   Rep.  337),  485. 
Tolle    (2  OJr.  Gaz.  415),  15!»,  418, 

507. 
\'idvard   &    Sheehan    (8    OfT.   Gaz. 

143),    503,    505. 
Volta  Belt  Co.   (8  Oil.  Gaz.  144), 

504,  537. 

Walden    Bros.    Clothinj,'   Co.    (109 

Fed.   Rep.  315),  4()9. 
Warburg    (13   Oil.   Gaz.   44),   100, 

507. 
Watson    (10   MSS.    D.    407),    538. 
Weaver     (10    Off.    Gaz.     1),    125, 

505,  540. 

Weisman      (Xewton,     Dig.      119), 

147. 
Welch    (137  X.  Y.  S.  941),  249. 
Wellcome    (L.   R.  32  Ch.  D.  213), 

27,  30. 
Western    Electric    Co.     (39    App. 

1).  C.  420),  105. 
Whitaker     (Newton's    Dig.     130), 

279. 
Whiteley    (43    L.    T.    X.    S.    027), 

307. 
Whyto     (Comm.    Decis.,     1871,    p. 

304),   501. 
Worthington's  Trademark    (L.   R. 
14  Ch.  D.  8),  287,  323,  408. 


In  re  Wriglit  &  Taylor   (33  App.  1). 
C.   510),  503. 
Wright,    CroHhIey    &    Co.'h    Appli- 
cation   (17   R.  P.  C.  386),  217. 


Jackson    v.    Aahton     (8    Pet.     148), 

414. 

V.   Byrnes    (103    Tenn.    098;,    231. 

V.  Morgan     (49    Ind.    App.    370), 

305. 

.Jacobs  V.  Beecliam    (221    U.  S.  203). 

82. 
Jacoby   &   Co.    v.    Lopez   &   Co.    (23 

Off.  Gaz.  342),  511,  545. 
.lacoway   v.   Young    (228    Fed.    Rep. 

030),  120,  200,  395. 
.Jaeger's   Sanitary   W.    S.   Co.   v.   Le 
Boutillier    (47    Hun,   521),    20. 
.Jaffe  V.  Evans  &  Sons,  Ltd.    (75  X. 

Y.  Supp.  257),  137. 
.James  v.  .Tames   (L.  R.  13  Eq.  421), 
100,  177.  253,  430. 
V.   Parry    (3   R.   P.   C.   340),   141. 
.lames  B.  Sipe  Co.  v.  Cohimbia  Re- 
fining Co.    (171  Fed.  Rep.  295), 
200. 
.Jameson    v.    Dublin    Distillers'    Co. 

1900    (Ir.    Ch.   43),    170. 
.James  Van  Dyk  Co.  v.  F.  V.  Reilly 

Co.    (130X.   Y.'S.  755),  221. 
Janney      v.      Pan-Coast     Ventilator 
Mfg.   Co.    (128   Fed.   Rep.    121), 
217,  329. 
V.  Pan-Coast    Ventilator    &    ?klfg. 
Co.    (2),    (131   Fed.   Rep.    143 1 , 
476. 
,].  &  P.   Baltz  Brew.  Co.  v.  Kaiser- 
l.rauerei.  Beck  &  Co.    (20  C.  C. 
A.  402),  10.5. 
,T.  &  P.  Coats  V.  .John  C:oates  Thread 
Co.    (135   Fed.    Rep.    177,    179), 
188. 
.J.  &   R.   Carr  v.   Schollhorn  Co.    (C. 
D.,   1912,   p.   222),   572. 


iviii 


TAlil.i;    (IF    CASKS. 


Jur-.Iim 


I'rfrrrncts   iii 

.laros   rntliTWi-ar   Co.    v.    Fli-ccc    I'li 

dirwcar     I'o.      (•>()      Fed.      Kcp. 

i\l-2<.   HI"),  4(>.'>. 
Jnros    llycit'iiir    I'lult  rwciir    Co.     v. 

KK'i'ci"   H_v;,'iriiio   l'n(l»T\v«-nr   Co. 

(Of)  F.d.   Kip.  424),  440. 
V.  Simons     (4'.l     Fod.     Ilrji.    27(>  i , 

r>2. 
,F.  A.  Scrivrn  Co.  v.  (Jinirci  Co.   (  1 10 

Fi'd.    n.'p.   H»4l.  :12(). 
V.   Morris     (l.')4     F.-d.     Urp.     '.114, 

JUS),    1:J!». 
V.  Towlrs   Mfg.   Co.    (32    App.    D 

C.   :J21t.   r)70. 
.Jay  V.  Lndl.T  (ti  M.  \\  C.  l.Mi),  ir)2. 

307. 
J.    C.    Hul)in;,'fr    Hros.    Co.    v.    I'.ddy 

(74   Fi'd.   Rep.   T).-)!),  440. 
Jefferson  v.   Markit    (112  (Ju.   4!)S), 

242. 
Jonninps   v.   Johnson    (37   Ftd.    Urp. 

364),   20,    ir)2. 
Jrromi'  V.  Jolinson    (.")n  N.  Y.  Supji. 

S.Mh,   .303,    323. 
Jewelers*  Mercantile  Agency  v.  Jew- 
elers' Pul).  Co.   (IT)-)  N.  Y.  241), 

261. 
Jewish    Colonization    Assn.    v.    Solo- 
mon   (2 1,    (ir)4  Fed.  Rep.   157), 

1(52. 
V.   Solomon     (  12.'>    Fed.    l!.p.    !t!>4, 

995),  400. 
V.  Solomon     «Sc    Germansky      (l.")4 

Fed.   Rep.    ir.7),   11^^,    128. 
,1.     F.     Rowley    Co.     V.     I'owley      (l.')4 

Fed.    Rep.    744 1.    12S.    178. 
J.    O.    Mattingly    Co.    v.    Mattingly 

(9(5  Ky.  4.30),  2H,  29,  .39. 
V.  Mattingly   (17   Ky.   L.   It.p.   li. 

39. 
J.    I.   Caw  Works   v.   J.   I.    (use  Co. 

(162  Wis.  1H.^>),  354. 
lol)    Printers*   Union   of   C  lii«-ago    v. 

Kinsley     (107     III      App.     654), 

301. 


.Inlin   IJatt  \  Co.  V.    Diiim.lt    ( L.    R., 

1S99,    A.    C.    42S),    2ti. 
.lohn  .Jameson  v^  Son  v.   Reilly    (  153 

N.    V.    S.    225),   756. 
.lol.n     r.     Dyer     Co.     v.     Sehuylkill 
Stone  Co.    (185  Fed.    Rep.  557), 
99. 
.lolin  T.   Lewis  Co.  v.   IMioenix  Paint 

Co.    (  134   (>.  C.    1049),   .572. 
.lolins-.Manville   Co.    v.    .Vmerican    S. 
P.    Co.     (33    App.    1).    C.    224), 
570. 
Johnson     &     Jolinson     v.     Bauer     &, 
Black    (27   C.    C.   A.   374),  286, 
321,  323,  470. 
V.   Seahury   &    Johnson    (71    N.   J. 

Kq.   750 ) ,   445, 
V.   Seahnry    &    Jolinson     ((>!     Atl. 
Rep.    5),    72,   44(i. 
Johnson    Educator   Food  Co.   v.   Syl- 
vanus  Smith   &    Co.    (174   O.   G. 
1027),    567. 
Johnson    v.    Brandau     (32    App.    D. 
C.    348),  99. 
V.    Brandau    (134  O.  G.  2.57),  568, 

56!). 
V.   Brunor     (107    Fed.    Rep.    466), 

286. 
V.   Friediioir      (27     N.     Y.     Supp. 

982),  249. 
V.   Hitchcock    (.!   N.  Y.  Supp.  680), 

312,   319. 
V.   Moss    (45   Cal.    515),   234. 
V.  (»rr    Fwing    (7    App.   Cas.    219, 

228),    17,  43,   337. 
V.   Sclieiick    (Fed.   (.'as.    No.   7412), 

8. 
V.   S«'anian    (  los    Fed.    Rep.    951), 
93. 
.(olinson     .'^teil     Street     Rail    Co.    v. 
Nortli     Branch     Stetd     Co.     (48 
Fed.    Rep.    191),  263. 
.lones    V.    Andrews    (10   Wall.    327), 
414. 
V.   G«M)de    (28   Oliio    Cir.    Ct.    Rep. 
475),  264. 


Jon-Kid 


TAIU-K    OK    CASIiS. 


lix 


h'rfcn  nccH 

Jones  V.   KiiowlcH    (1   (  raiidi   ('.  ('. 

523),  4H.-). 
Joseph      I5aiii;iaii      l!uM»r     Co.      v. 

Blo(.iiiiii<,'<lal<-      (Sit      oir.      (Jaz. 

1()7(}),   114,  r,{\. 
Joseph   J)ixon   C'ruciiilf   Co.    v.    lU-n- 

liam   (4  Fi'd.   Rep.  .■)27  ( ,  4ti7. 
Josc'pli  V.  Macowsky    (06  Cal.  518), 

79. 
Joseph  y.  Baum  Merc.  Co.  v.  Levin 

(Mo.    App.),    (174    S.    VV.    Rep. 

442),   717. 
Josselyn  v.  Swezey  &.   Dart    (  1')  OH'. 

Gaz.  702),  510. 
J.  R.  Watkins  Medical  Co.  v.  Sands 

(83  Minn.  32li),  ()4,  253. 
Juan  F.  Portuondo   Ciyar   Mfg.   Co. 

V.     Vincente     Portuondo     Cif,'ar 

Mfg.   Co.     (70    Atl.    Rep.    008), 

127. 
Judson    V.    Malloy     (40    Cal.    200), 

21G. 
Julian  V.  Hoosier  Drill  Co.   (78  Tnd. 

408),  70,  122,  213. 
Julious  Kessler  &  Co.  v.  Goldstrom 

(177    Fed.   Kep.  392,   394),  454. 
Jurgensen    v.    Alexander    (24    How. 

Pr.  269 ) ,  490,  905. 


Kahn  v.  W.  A.  Gaines  &  Co.    (161 

Fed.  Rep.  495),  38,  446. 
Kaiserhrauerie  v.  Baltz  Brewing  Co. 

(71   Fed.    Rep.   695),    105,    124. 
Kann    v.    Diamond    Steel    Co.     (80 

Fed.   Rep.   706),  204,   321,   323, 

332,  337. 
Kaasel   v.    Jeuda    (70   N.   Y.    Supp. 

480),  286. 
Kathreiner'a    Malz    Kaffee    Fab.    v. 

Pastor    Kneipp    Med.    Co.     (27 

C.   C.   A.   351),   26. 
Kaufraann    v.    Kaufmann    (230   Pa. 

42),  221. 


(I If    to   jKitjrs. 

KcaHhcy       V.       lirooklyn       (  licmieal 

Works     (142     N.     V.     4tiV476), 

138,    105. 
V.   Brooklyn    Cheniieal   Works    (37 

N.   K.    Rep.   476),   117. 
Keashey    Co.    v.     Portland    Ccment- 

fabrik    (133   O.   G.    1936),    560. 
Keller   v.   B.    F.   Goodrich   Co.    (117 

Ind.   556) ,  450. 
Kellog  V.   Totten    (16   Abb.   IV.   35), 

228. 
Kelly   V.  Byles    (40  L.  T.  623),   109. 
Kilso  V.  Rtid    (145  Pa.  (i06 ) ,  248. 
Kiinnedy     v.     Dr.     David     Kennedy 

Corp.     (66    X.    Y.    Supp.     225- 

229),   353. 

Kennedy   Corp.   v.    Kennedy    (55  N". 

Y.  Supp.  017),  3.33. 
Kenny    v.   Gillet    (70   Md.    574),   79. 
Kentucky   Distilleries  &   Warehouse 

Co.  V.  Old  Lexington  Club  Dist. 

Co.    (31   App.   D.   C.  223),   108. 

560,  563. 
V.  Wathen     (110    Fed.    Rep.    041- 

644),   327. 
Kerry    v.    Toupin     (60    Fed.     Rep. 

272),  130,  286,  200. 
Keuffel  &  Esscr  Co.  v.  H.  S.  Crocker 

Co.    (118   Fed.    Rep.    187),    324, 

325,   326,    327,    329,    331. 
Key    West    Cigar    Mfrs.    Assn.     v. 

Rosenbloom      (171      Fed.     Rep. 

Rep.   296),    167. 
Keystone  Oil   &   ^ffg.  Co.   v.   Buzby 

(135   C.   C.    A.    185),    183. 
Keystone    Type    Foundry    v.    Port- 
land  Pub.   Co.     (186    Fed.   Rep. 

690),  357. 
V.   Portland    Pub.    Co.     ( 180    Fed. 

Rep.   301).  357,  454. 
V.  Portland   Pub.   Co.    (108  C.  C. 

A.  .508),   370. 
Kidd  V.  Horry    (28  Fed.  Rep.  773), 

273. 


li 


TAHLK    OF    CASh>^. 


Kid-Lai 


ItffrrtnaK  ore  to  pages. 


Kidd  V.  Johnson   ( 100  T.  S.  f.lT  ) ,  22, 
20.    :U.    -MK    r.R,    12.).    ISl,    213, 

22:{.   :»»o. 

Kidd  &  Co.   V.    MIIIh.  .loliiison  <1   Co. 

(.'•  Itir.   (inz.   :\M).    12."..  :{!•!». 
Kinahan  v.   Holton    (  Ifi   Ir.  Cli.  7.'>), 

:»40.  .ui,  :ws. 

V.   Kinnlian    (15   Ir.  Cli.   7;")),  204. 
Kinpsloy  v.  .Jnoohy   (20  N.  Y.  .'^upp. 

44  ) ,  :j.'>u. 
Kinnov    v.    Allm     (1    Thi<.,'li(H    loti). 

33!».   508. 
V.   Basch   (Soil.  542),  30,  130,  341. 
V.  Uascli    ( 10    Am.    Law    Hog.    N. 

S.   596),   320. 
Kinney  Tol).  Co.  v.  MalK-r   (53  Hiin, 

340),    130. 
Kipling:     v.    Ci.    P.     Putnam's    S<ins 

(120  Fod.    Rep.   031  i,   8,    108. 
Kirkpatrick    v.    Pope    Mfg.   Co.    (Gl 

Fed.   Rep.  4G),  472. 
Kirstein  Sons  &  Co.  v.  Colien   Hros. 

P  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  280),  334. 
Klotz  V.  Hocht    (73  Fed.   Rep.   822 1 , 

52,    167. 
Knabe  Bros.  Co.  v.  American  Piano 

Co.    (220    Fed.    Rep.    23),    176, 

495. 
Knickerbocker      Chocolate      Co.      v. 

Grifrmg    (144    Fed.    Rep.    316 1, 

314. 
Knw'dler  v.  Boussod    (47    Fed.    Rep. 

4651,  210,  223,  231,  240. 
V.   Glaeii/er     (55    Fed.     Hep.    805), 

210,   223,  230,  231,  232,   240. 
Knott    V.    Morgan     (2    Keen.    213), 

50. 
Knowles    v.    .Jones    (182    Ala.    187), 

248. 
Knox  V.  Columbia  Liberty  Iron  ("•>. 

(42    Fed.    Rep.    3781,    467. 
Koelx'I    V.    Chicago   Landlord's   Pro- 
tective Bureau    (210   Ills.    176), 

328. 
Kohler   V.    .Sanders    (122   N.   Y.   65), 

79,    10.-.. 


Kohler    Mfg.    Co.    V.    Beeshorc    (2), 

(50   Fi-d.   Rep.  572-574),  27,  254, 

334.    386. 
V.   B.'esliore     (8    C.     C.     A.     215), 

217,   386. 
V.   Beeshore     (1),     (53     Fed.    Rep. 

262-264),  386,   537. 
Kostering     v.     Seattle     Brewing     & 

Malting  Co.    (.54   C.   C.   A.  76), 

lis.   .307.   345. 
Kramer  v.  Old    (110  N.  C.   I),  242, 

24S. 
Krauss  v.  Jos.  R.  Pt-ebles'  Sons  Co. 

(58    Fed.     Rep.    585),    77,    316, 

417,  442. 
Kroegher    v.     McConway    &    For  ley 

Co.    ( 149  Pa.  St.  444-457  ) ,  265. 
Krontlial     Waters     v.     Becker     (137 

Fed.    Rep.   640,  6.'.2 1 ,   30. 
Kroppf  V.  Furst   (04   Fed.  Rep.  150). 

51,  52. 
Kutroff  V.   Cassella  Color   Co.    (12!» 

O.    (;.    3150),   569. 
Kyle     V.     Perfection     Mattress     Co. 

(127   Ala.  30),   127. 


L.   &   B.  Mfg.  Co.  V.   Barthcla   Mfg. 

Co.    (221    Fed.    Rep.    456,    450), 

8. 
La))OUchere    v.     Dawson     ( L.     R.     1.3 

i:<|.   322),  240. 
Laclaiuha    Battery    Co.    v.    Western 

Electric     Co.      (21      Fed.      Rep. 

538),  451. 
Lacroix    v.    Kscobal     (37    La.    .Vnn. 

5331,   .503,   .530. 
I.H     Croix    V.    May     (15     Fed.     Rej). 

236),    66,   68,   .547. 
V.  Sarrazzin    (15   Fed.   Rep.  480), 

407. 
Lafayette    Ins.    Co.    v.    French     ( 18 

ilow.  404),  414. 
Laird  V.  Wilder  (2  Bush,  Ky.,  131), 

70. 


Lai -Lea 


TADLK   OF    CASES. 


Ixi 


liefcrcnccs  or 

Lalanct'  &,  GroHJcmi  Mf;,'.  C"().  v.  Nu- 

iionul    Miuirnt'liiij,'    &    Siiinij)!!!;^ 

Co.    (100    Fi'd.    Hep.    ini),   2H(i. 
Laral)  V.  EvanH    ( L.   K.,   1802,  :{  Ch. 

4(i2),  2.".H,  2(51. 
Lamlx-rt    Pharmucal    di.    v.    IJolton 

Chem.    Corp.     (210     Kcd.     K.p. 

IVirt),    12;-),    .{28. 
V.  Kalish     IMiannacy     (21!t     l-'id. 

Hep.  :i2;j ) ,  12.->,  :<28. 
Lamont  v.  Leedy   (8H  Fed.  Rep.  72), 

101,  430. 
Lamont,   Corliss    &    Co.    v.    Ilershey 

(140    Fed.    Hep.    7G3),   5:$,    205. 
Lampert    v.    Judf^e    &    Dolpli    Druj^ 

Co.    (110    Mo.   App.    003),   3 IS, 

410,  420. 
V.  JudiiQ  &   Dolpli   Drug  Co.    (238 

Mo.  400),  318,  410,   420. 
Lamplough  v.  Balnicr    (\V.  N.,  1807, 

p.  203),  82. 
Lanahan  v.  John  Kiasel  &  Son    ( 13;! 

Fed.    Rep.    800),    122,    440. 
Lendreth  v.  Landreth   (22  Fed.  Rep. 

41),  174,  177,  28(5. 
Lane  v.  Smythe    (40  X.  J.  Ec].  443- 

454),  222. 
Lang  V.   Creen    River   Dist.  Co.    (33 

App.  D.  C.  .300),  122,  560,  570. 

Lantz  Bros.  &.  Co.  v.   Schnltz  &  Co. 

(0   Off.  Gaz.  701),  510. 
Lare   v.    Harper    &    Bros.    (80    Fed. 

Rep.    481),    4.V2,    470. 

La    Republique    Francaise    v.    .'"^ara- 

toga  Vichy  Springs  Co.  (00  Fed. 

Rep.  733),  473. 
V.    Saratoga  Vichy  Spring  Co.  (101 

U.  S.  427,  435),  102. 
V.    Saratoga  Mch,v  Springs  Co.  (40 

C.  C.  A.  418),   103. 
V.  Sehultz     (42,   C.    C.    A.    233), 

206. 
V.    Sehultz     (4).     (115    Fed.    Rep. 

106),   35. 


•c   to  jiayis. 

Lu  Hepuhli(jue   Franeaiae  v.  Sehultz 

(57  Fed.  Rep.  37),  8,  160. 
V.  Sehultz     (04     Fed.     Rep.    .500), 

52. 
I.arkin    Co.    v.    Pacific  Coant   Borax 

Co.    (132  O.   <;.   670),  .571,  .573. 
Larral)ee    v.    Lewin     (67    Ga.    561  i, 

6,    111. 
LaHhus    V.    CliamlM-rlain     (6    I'tali, 

385),  223,  240. 
Lauferty    v.    Wheel.-r    (  1 1    Ahh.    X. 

C.   220),   86,    114,    lOti. 
Laughman's    Ajjpeal     (128    Pa.     1), 

30. 
Lavanburg    v.     PfeilFcr     (06     N.    Y. 

Supj).  30),  318. 
V.   Pfeifler    (52  N.  V.  Supp.  801), 

318. 
Lavergne   v.    Hooper    ( Ind.    L.    R.    8 

Mad.    140),   210,   402,   417. 
Lawlor    v.    Charles    H.     Merritt    & 

Son   (78  Conn.  630),  63. 
V.  Merritt    (70  Conn.  .309),  63. 
Lawrence  v.  Times  Printing  Co.   (90 

Fed.  Rep.   24-26),  252. 
Lawrence   Mfg.   Co.  v.   Lowell    ( 120 

Mass.   325),  339,  341. 
V.  Tennessee    Mfg.    Co.     (31    Fed. 

Rep.   776),  418. 
V.  Tennessee  Mfg.  Co.    (138  U.   S. 

537),  42,    47,   51,  04,    1.34,    149, 

157.     172,     103,    214,    294,    20.5, 

.-)37. 
l.awson  V.  Bank   of   London    (18   C. 

B.    84),   41,5. 
Lazenhy    v.    White     (41    L.    J.    Ch. 

3.-)4i,   104,  213,  214. 
Lea     V.     Deakin      (Fed.     Case     Xo. 

8154),  113,  159,  214. 
V.  Millar   (Seb.  513),  213,  214. 
V.  Wolff    (15    AbT).    Pr.   X.    S.    1 ) , 

108.    442. 
V.   Wolff   ( 13  Abl).  Pr.  X.  S.  389 ) , 

1.59. 
I..ahy  V.  Clover    (10  R.  P.  C.   141), 

443,   469. 


Ixii 


TABLE   OP   CASES. 


Lea-Lie 


Lean    v.    Flominp    (0(>    V.    S.    24;')), 

174. 
I.<»athor    Clotli    Case    (11    II.    L.   C. 

r>23),   11,  33,  42,   182,  304. 
Lt-ather     Cloth     Co.     v.     AmiTican 
Loath.T  Clotli  Co.    (4  IM!.  .1.  <*^ 
S.    \M.    141  I.    Iti.   2(1.    27,    ICS, 
424. 
V.  American     LriitluT    Cloth    Co. 

(3;*)  L.  .1.  Cli.  Un,  4. 

V.  AmiTican     Leather     Cloth    Co. 

(11    .Tur.    N.    S.    r)13),    7!>,    83, 

213. 

V.  llirschfeld    (1    X.    K.   T).")!),   85. 

V.  Hirselifekl     (2i,     (1    H.    &    M. 

29.-)),  471. 
V.   Lorsont     (L.     K.    !t    Eq.    34.-)), 
82. 
Leclancha    Battery    Co.    v.   Western 
Electric     Co.      (21     Fed.     Rep. 
.')38),  452,  476. 
V.  Western    Klec.    Co.     (23     Fed. 
Rep.  276),   13!). 
Lee  V.  Haley  (•")  Ch.  App.  Cas.  l.')")), 
202,   442. 
V.  Haley    (22    L.    T.    X.   S.   251), 

206. 
V.  Haley    (21    L.    T.    X.    S.    546), 
39,   312. 
L«-hif;h  Valley  Coal  Co.  v.  nanil)len 
(23    Fed.    Rep.   225,   226),    187. 
Leidersdorf  v.    Flint    (8  Bias.  327), 
r>,    378,    .501. 
V.  Flint  (2),   (50  Wis.  401),  422. 
Lemke  v.  Dietz   (121   Wis.   102),  30. 
Lemoine  v.  dauton    (2  E.  D.  Sniitli, 

343),  22,  68,  213,  423. 
Leonard  v.   W.lls    ( L.   R.  26  Ch.   D. 
288),    131. 
V.  White's  Golden    Lnl)rieatc)r   Co. 
(38  Fed.  Rep.  022),  131,  442. 
Lc  Pa^e  Co.  v.  Russian  Cement  Co. 
(2  C.  C.  A.   555),  20,  417,  421, 
423. 
V.   Russia    Ccniciit    (K.     (51     Fed. 
Rep.  941),    176. 


References  arc  to  pages. 

Lepou   V.    Kottler    (100  X'.   V.   Supp. 

779),    32. 
l.i  prince  v.    Her   &   Morris    (02   (XT. 

Oaz.  189),  539. 
Lester    H.    Greene    Co.    v.    Scott    & 

Bowne   (159  O.  G.  242),  563. 
L.v.r    \.    B.-dinjrfield    (80    L.   T.    X. 
S.    KtO),    50,    152. 
V.  Goodwin    (4  K.   P.  C.  492-.506), 
152. 
Lever    Bros.    v.     Pasfudd     (88    Fed. 

Rep.    484),    130,    331,   469. 
Lever  Bros.,  Ltd.,  Boston  Works  v. 
Smith      (112     Fed.     Rep.    908), 
332. 
Levy    V.    Waitt    (li.    (.56   Fed.    Rep. 
10161,   26,  62,    ir6. 
V.  Waitt    (2),    (10  C.  C.  A.  227  i . 

70,  72. 
V.  Waitt    (21    U.    S.    App.    294), 

17. 
V.  Waitt      (61     Fed.     Rep.     1008- 

1011),  26,   62.   64. 
V.  Walker   (L.  R.  10  Ch.  D.  463), 
29. 
Levy  &   Co.   v.  Uri    (31   App.   D.   C. 

441),    .561. 
Levyeau    v.     Clements     (175    Mass. 

376).   260. 
L.  E.  Waterman  Co.  v.  Modern  Pen 

Co.    (235  U.  S.  88),   176. 
Lewis   v.   Bloede    (202    Fed.    Rep.    7, 
24),   364. 
V.  Chapman      (3      Beavan,     133 1, 

148. 
V.  Goodwin     (36    Ch.    D.    1),    457. 
v.   Klapprotli    (11    Viet.    L.    R.,  E, 

214).   418. 
V.  Lanjrdon  (7  Sim.  421),  20,244. 
Lewis    &    Xelson's    Appeal     (67    Pa. 

1.53,   166),  445. 
L.    H.    Harris    Dm;,'    Co.    v.    Stueky 
(46    Fed.     Pep.    624),    19,    101, 
387,  5.32.  536,  510. 
Lichtenstein   v.   Goldsmitli    (37   Fed. 
Rep.   359),   120,  216. 


Lie-Lud 


TABLE   OP   CASES. 


Ixiii 


References 

Liebig'a    Extract    Co.    v.    Ilanlmry 

(17  L.  T.  N.  S.  208),  100,  214. 
Liebig's  Extract  of  Meat  Co.  v.  Lib- 

by,  McNeill  &  Libby    ( 103  Fed. 

Rep.    87),    106. 
V.  Liebig   Extract   Co.    (172   Fed. 

Rep.   158),  180. 
V.  Walker    (11.")    Fed.    Rep.    822), 

106,   385. 
Liggett  &  Myers  Tob.  Co.  v.   Finzer 

(128  U.  S.   182),  311,  335,  346. 
V.  Hynes   (20  Fed.  Rep.  883),   10, 

120,    279,    294,    302,    321,    345, 

467,  508. 
V.  Sam    Reid    Tob.    Co.    (104   Mo. 

53),   129,  311,  424. 
hilienthal    v.    Drucklieb     (84     Fed. 

Rep.  918),  251. 
Linde  v.  Bensel    (22  Hun,  20  N.  Y. 

Sup.  Ct.,   601),  398. 
Linoleum  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Nairn    (L.  R. 

7    Cb.    D.    834),    88,    100,    137, 

171. 
Linton    v.    First   National   Bank    of 

Kittanning    (10  Fed.   Rep.  804- 

897),    171. 
Lippincott    v.    Hubbard     (28    Pitts. 

L.  J.   303),  28,  31. 
Lippman   v.   People    (175   111.    101). 

608. 
Listmail   Mill  Co.   v.   Wm.   Listman 

Mill  Co.    (88   Wis.  334),  28. 
V.  William    Listman    Milling    Co. 

(60  N.  W.  Rep.  201),  125. 
Little    V.    Callus    (38   N.    Y.    Supp. 

487),  254,  256,  202. 
V.  Kellam    (100    Fed.    Rep.    353), 

331. 
Little jobn  v.  Mulligan   (3  New  Zea- 
land Rep.  446),  458. 
Livermore  v.  White    (74  Me.  452), 

216. 
Llewellyn   v.   Rutherford    (L.   R.    10 

C.   P.   456),  220. 
Lockport    Canning   Co.    v.    Pusateri 
(139  N.  Y.  S.  640),  125. 


are  to  pages. 

Lockwood  V.  Bostwick  (2  Daly, 
521),   116,  324. 

Lciewe    V.     Lawlor     (130    Fed.     Rep. 
0.33),   370. 
V.  Lawlor    (208   U.   S.   274),   370. 

Longman  v.  Tripp   (2  Bos.  &  P.  N. 
R.  67),  31. 
V.   Winchester    (16   Ves.  260),  100. 

Lord  V.  Whiteliead  &  Atherton  Ma- 
chine Co.  (24  I"\-d.  Rep.  801), 
420,    472. 

Lorillard    v.    Pride     (28    Fed.    Rep. 
434),  89,  279,  281,  508,  538. 
V.  Wight     (15     Fed.     Rep.    383), 
281,  280,  508. 

Louis  Bergdoll  Brew.  Co.  v.  Berg- 
doll  Brew.  Co.  (218  Fed.  Rep. 
131,  132),   19,  581. 

liuuise  &.  Co.,  Ltd.  V.  Gainsborough 
(20  R.  P.  C.  61),  217. 

Love  V.  Rtidliam  (18  App.  D.  C. 
300),  242. 

Lovell-McConnell  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Amer- 
ican Ever-Ready  Co.  ( 195  Fed. 
Rep.  931),  371. 

Loven  v.  People  (158  Ills.  159), 
301. 

Low    V.     Fels     (35    Fed.     Rep.    301- 
303),  4,54. 
V.  Hall   (47  N.  Y.    104),  750. 
v.  Hart   (90  N.  Y.  457),  404,  443. 

Lowe  Bros.  Co.  v.  Toledo  Varnish 
Co.  (108  Fed.  Rep.  027),  122, 
441. 

Lowell    Manufacturing   Co.    v.    Ear- 
ned  (Fed.  Case  No.  8570),  508. 
V.  Earned      (Cox,      Manual,     No. 
428),   65. 

Lucker  v.  Phoenix  Assurance  Co. 
(07  Fed.  Rep.   18),  472. 

Luddington  Novelty  Co.  v.  Leonard 
(119  Fed.  Rep.  937. 

Lndington    Novelty    Co.   v.    Leonard 
(127   Fed.  Rep.   155",   157),  454. 
V.  Leonard     (62    C.    C.    A.    269), 
457. 


Ixiv 


TAMLK    i»F    CASE!?. 


LudMar 


h'tfintiiis  tire  to  pages. 


Ludlow  N'lilvf   Mf;;.  Cu.  V.  rittsliurp  |    Major    llrotlicr^    v.    l-riuiklin     (  i'.tdS, 


Mf;:.    Co.     (  If.C.     1".(1.     i;.']).    -Jf.. 

25ti.  44. 
Luml.-y   V.   Cyc    (2    Kl.   \    HI    I'lih. 

:Ui4. 
I.iimpkiii    V.    Fol»v     (lilM    Kid.    Ivcp. 

3721,  4»i'.t. 
l.uU'n  V.  Cump  (Jil   l".d.  H.p.  424  i . 

488. 
Lux   V.    Ila^K'"     ("'•'    *''il-    2r.r>-2(>n), 

208. 
Luytics    V.    Ilolhndcr     (27    lilati-lif. 

413),  38;"),  31»2.  4L'i. 
V.  HolU'iidrr     (1).    21     F.d.     K.p. 

281  1.    37!l,    42!>,    r)47. 
V.   Holh'iidiT     (2 1,    30    bVd.    Ri-p. 

C32),   10.-),  393,  047. 
Lyman  v.  Burns   (47  OIL  V.a/..  OGO  i , 

127. 
I..yncli    V.    .lohn    Single    PaptT    Co. 

(101   X.    V.   Supp.   824),  63. 
Lysney     v.     Selby      (2     Ld.     Kaym. 

1118),  251. 


M 

Macl)eth-Evan8  Glass  Co.  v.  General 

Electric  Co.  (231  Fed.  Rep.  1S3). 

3.-)S. 
V.    Sclinelltacii    (23!t    l>a.   7(11.   2r)7, 

261,  267. 
Macdonald    v.    Hidiardsoii     (1     Ciir. 

81).  222. 
Macinalian  Pliannacal  Co.  v.  Denver 

Chemical    Mf;;.    Co.     (113    Fed. 

Rep.  468),  26,  72. 
Madanif  Irene  v.  Schweinhury  (C.  D., 

lit  12,  p.  114),  ;-)73. 
Magee  Furnace  Co.  v.  LcHanoii  (  127 

Mas-s.  ll.l).  3 1."). 
Magic  Curler  Co.  v.   Torter    (  12H  (). 

G.  2088),  r,n. 

Ma^rnoiia  Metal  Co.'h  Trudeinarks 
(66  L.  J.  Ch.  N.  S.  312).  106.  . 

Mahler  v.  S^lnche  (223  Ills.  136), 
471. 


1  K.  R.  7121.  !>. 
Mandcville  v.  Ilarnum  (42  N.  .J.  Kq. 

ISa),  22.'-). 
.Manhattan    Medicine    Co.    v.    Wood 

(  lOS  I'.  S.  2181.  2n.  76,  77.  HI, 

1.32,    16.-),   214.   27!>. 
V.   Wood     (F«'d.    Cam-    No.    J)026), 

20,  .'i8,  34.-). 
-Manitowoe  Mailing  Co.  v.  .Miiwauktv 

Maitin;;  Co.   (  11<»  Wis.  r)43),  4!t. 

.■)1.  27!>.  311. 
-Manitowoc    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Dickerman 

(-)7    OfT.    Gaz.    17211.    60.    380, 

.■.44.  .-.4.-.. 
.Manitowoc    Pea-Packing  Co.   v.   Wil- 
liam  Numsen   tS:    Sons    (03    F^ed. 

Kep.  I!t6).  168. 
Manufacturing  Co.   v.   Trainer    (101 

U.  S.  .'Jl-64),  302. 
Marconi    Wireless    Tel.    Co.     v.    Na- 
tional  Elcc.  Signaling  Co.    (206 

Fed.  Rep.  2!t-)),  431. 
Marcovitdi    v.    Rrami.Ie.    Wilkins    & 

Co.     (Cox,    Manual,    No.    oO.t), 

474. 
Marcus     v      AlcFariand      (110     Md. 

260),  233. 
Marcus    Ward    &    Co.    v.    Ward     (40 

N.  Y.  State  Rep.  702),  23!l. 
V.    Ward    (1;-)    N.    Y.    Supp.   013), 

174. 
.Margarete  StcilT  v.   Hing   (124  C.  C. 

A.  .^O),  201. 
Margarete    SteifT.    Inc.    v.    Ring,    1). 

C.,    (21.-.    Fed.    K.p.    2041,    201, 

371. 
Market   Co.    v.    llciVinaii    (  101    C.   S. 

112).  303. 
Marks  v.  .latfa  (26  N.  V.  Supp.  008), 

271. 
Marlin  I'irc  .Anns  Co.  v.  .^^liields  (171 

N.  V.  3S4  ).  .-.6. 
Marsh   V.   Hillings    (7   Gushing,  322, 

332),   310,   3.').-.,   422. 
V.  Warnn    (  14   Hlatclif.  263),  .')14. 


Mar-Mcl 


TAULK   OF    CASES. 


Ixv 


RrfcrvnrcH 

MarHli,  ct  al.,  v.  Wuricn,  ct  al.    (14 

O.    G.    «7H),    r)lfi. 
Marshall  v.  Hawkins   (4  N.  V..  \..  K. 
Sup.  Ct.  59),  301. 
V.    Pinkliam    (.-)2    Wis.    Tu'l) ,    100, 

214,  41H. 
V.  Ross  (L.  R.  8  Eq.  C.ll),  80,  XW. 
Mareliall   Enj,'ine   Co.    v.    Now   Mar- 
shall   En<,nne    Co.     (8!)    N.    E. 
Rep.   548),   106. 
V.  New  Marshall  Engine  Co.    (203 
Mass.  410,  42-2),  232. 
Martell  v.  St.  Francis  Motel  Co.   (51 

Wash.  375),  183. 
Martha  Wa.shinpton  Creamery   But- 
tered Flour  Co.  V.  Martien   (44 
Fed.  Rep.  473),  5!),  440. 
Martin  v.  Bowker   (103  Mass.  401), 
604. 
V.  Martin  &  Bowne  Co.    (27   App. 

D.  C.  59 ) ,  565. 
V.   Murphy    (129    Tnd.   464).    22."), 

246,  247,  248. 
V.  Wright   (6  Sim.  207),  53. 
Marvel  v.  Jonah   (81  N.  J.  Eq.  369), 

248. 
Marvel  Co.  v.  Pearl   (133  Fed.  Rep. 
160,  162),  113. 
V.  Pearl  (00  C.  C.  A.  220),  292. 
V.  Tullar  Co.   (125  Fed.  Rep.  829), 
292. 

Mass,    Ratcliff    &   Gretton,    Ltd.,   v. 

Feigenspan    (96  Fed.  Rep.  200), 

540, 
Massam  v.   Cattle   Food   Co.    (L.   R. 

14  Cii.  D.  748),  27. 
Matsell  V.  Flanagan    (2  Abb.  Pr.  X. 

S.  459 ) ,  200,  202. 
Matter  of  ITondayer  (MO  N.  Y.  37), 

220. 
Matthews    v.    Murcliisoii     (  17    Fed. 

Rep.  700-700),  20S. 
Maxwell  v.  Hogg  (L.  R.  2,  Ch.  307), 

70,  430. 


iiri'  to  pagm. 

Ma,\we]l  Stfcl  \'aiill  (.'o.  v.  National 

Casket  Co.   (205  F.-d.  Rep.  515), 

428,  435. 
Mayer    v.    Flanagan     (12    T«'X.    Civ. 

App.  405),  29. 
Maytr  Fertilizer  &  Junk  Co.  v.  Vir- 
ginia-Carolina   Chem.    Co.     (35 

App.  D.  C.  425),  71,  222. 
McAndrew   v.  Bass<'tt    (4  DeG.  J.  & 

S.    380-386),    26,    04.    114,    490, 

492. 
MeAulifTe  v.  Vaughan  (  135  Ga.  8.52), 

248. 
McCall    v.    Theal     (28    Grant,    Up. 

Can.,  Ch.  48),  99. 
v.  Wright  (198  N.  Y.  143),  257. 
McCann   v.    Anthony    (21    Mo.   App, 

83),  280,  306,  337,  399,  444. 
McCardel  v.  Peck  (28  How.  Pr.  120), 

209,  355. 
McCaw,    Stevenson    &    Orr,    Ltd.    v. 

Lee  Bros.   (23  R.  P.  C.  1),  333. 
v.  Nickols   (21  R.  P.  C.  15),  330. 
McCord  v.  Williams  (96  Pa.  St.  78), 

242. 
McCurry-  v.  Gibson    (108  Ala.  451), 

248. 
McElwee  v.  Blackwell   (15  Off.  Gaz. 

658),  502,  .505,  512. 
McGowan  v.  McGowan   (22  Ohio  St. 

370),  230,  243,  244. 
McGraw  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.  v.  Grif- 
fith  (198  Fed.  Rep.  566),  123. 
McGrew   Coal   Co.    v.   Menefee    ( 162 

Mo.  App.  209),  43. 
V.  Menefee   (144  S.  W.  Rep.  869 1 , 

102. 
Mcllhenny    v.    New    Iberia    Co.     (30 

App.  D.  C.  337),  577. 
V.  New  Iberia  Extract  of  Tabasco 

Pepi>er  Co.  (34  App.  D.  C.  430), 

112. 
McLean  v.  Fleming   (90  U.  S.  245). 

4,  9,  29,  31,  42,  50,  132,  177,  182. 

184,  200,  293,  294,  303,  304.  340. 

424.  428,  442,  448,  451,  490,  494, 

872. 


Lwi 


TAHLK    OF    CASUS. 


Mel-Mil 


Hffrnnris  nrr  to  /niijis. 

Mil-oiiiian   V.    Hailroad   Co.    ('12  Fc»l. 

Htp.   11»S),  4S4. 
MoMiirtrii-     v.    (Juili-r     (  1S3     Muos. 

4:)n,  4:.4),  23!». 
MoVi'Ufili     V.    VHliMiciii     (ijiar     l'a«'- 

tory     (:^2    Oir.    C.i/..     llJli.    JT. 
McVey     v.     Urcnd.l      (lU     Pa.     St. 

23.->),  C2. 
MoiUciiH-    Co.    V.    Wood     (  l(tS    I'.    S. 

2 IS.   222).    132. 
Mcillar   <i    llolinos   S!io«'  Co.    v.    Drl- 

.•inrte    Mf^'.    Co.     ( N.    J.    Kq.    4«i 

Atl.   Hop.    H)S!>),    lilt. 
Mi'iklo  V.   Williamson    (27    K.    1*.   C. 

7 7.-) I.  :r.ni. 

Mi'lHclrriiio    v.    Melacliriiio   Cijian-tti' 

Co.    (4   R.  P.  C.  2.1-.-)  1.   172.   17!l. 

215,  444. 
Mi'llor.sh    V.    K.in     (28    B»-av.    4.-):J), 

2:M\  24!I. 
Mfllin  V.  Whlti',  L.  H.    (  18itr),  A.  C. 

1541,  5-J- 
Mollwood   Dist.  Co.   v.   llari)er    ( 107 

Yvd.   Hep.  38!)),  125.  328. 

Meni4)Md    Kt'doy    InstitiUi'    v.    T.o>- 

)i.-  E.   K("<?K'y  Co.    (84  C.  C.    A. 

112),  441. 
V.  I^slic  K.  Keeley  Co.    (75  C.  C. 

A.  430),  465. 
M«iiio.'ly  V    Mciicfly    ((52  N.  Y.  427  1, 

172. 
\.   M<-ii('«-ly    (  1    Hun,  3ti7),   174. 
Mi-nendfz  v.   Holt    (128   U.   S.   514  i, 

!»,  20,  28,  35,  02,   121.   124,   133. 

144,  210,  211.  21!t,  222.  245.  2<14. 

442. 
Morchants'   Ad-Sipn   Co.   v.   Storlin;; 

(124  Cal.  420),  230. 
Mcridc'n     Hritannia    Co.     v.     Parker 

(30  Conn.  450),  70,  444. 

Merriam    v.    Kamoiut  Slioe  &    Clotli- 
injj  Co.    (47    F'Vd.   Hep.  411).  00. 
107. 
r.    Ilolloway     I*ul».    Co.     (43    Kid. 
Hep.  4.".0i,   107. 


Mernani  \     .Saalfnld    (  lOS   Kid.  lu-p. 

300,  372),   18. 
V.    Te.vaH    Siftinps     I'lili.    Co.     (40 

Ke.l.  Hep.  044).    113,   108. 
MeiTJam    Co.    v.    C>j;livie    (150    KihI. 

Hep.   038),  03. 
V.   .Syndieate   l»ub.   Co.    (237    C.  S. 

018.  022).  ill.  563. 
.M.rry    v.    IIooihs    (111    X.    Y.    *20), 

28. 
Merryweather  v.  Moore   {L.  H.,  1802, 

p.  2),  257,  258. 
Messcr   v.   Tilie  Kadettes    (108   Mass. 

140).   180. 
Messerole    v.   Tyidierjx    (•'0    How    I'r. 

14),    170. 
V.  Tynbern  (4  ALL.  Pr.  N.  S.  410). 

10.  no. 

Metcalf    V.    Hanover    Star    Mill    Co. 

(204  Ked.  Hep.  211),  ?2. 
Metroi)olitau  Hank  v.  St.  Louis  Uia- 

patch   Co.    (36   Fed.    Rep.    722- 

724),  210,  -226. 
V.    St.    Louis    Dispatch    Co.     (140 

r.  S.  430-440).  210,  221,  226. 
Metzler    V.    Wood     (L.    R.    8    Cli.    1>. 

000).  445. 

Meyer  v.  l.aLau    (51   La.  Ann.   1720  i. 
242. 
V.    Hull   Medicine  Co.    (7  C.   C.  A. 

558).   1.52. 
V.   Hull  Metliclne  Co.    i  Oti  OlT.  (la/. 
107).  177. 
Meyer.s  v.  Kalania/no  Hu^;;y  Co.   (54 
Mieli.  215).    ISl. 
V.   Merillion    (118   l"al.   3.V2 ) ,   248. 

Miclii<.Min     (\)ndenspd     Milk     Co.     v. 

Kennewejr    Co      f  .0)    App.    1).    C. 

■JOl  I.    111. 
MilLank     v.     Milhank      (l!M)(t.     p.     1, 

Ch.  385),  435. 
Mill  Co.   V.   Alcorn    (  l.'.O  V.  S.  460). 

103. 
Milll.ni-     Co.     V.      I  ay  lor.     ChI.      (37 

I'ae.   i;.(i.  235),  80. 


Mil-Mor 


TAliLK   OF    CASES. 


lx\ii 


References 

Miller    v.    Bwk,    Towa     (72    N.    W. 

Rop.  553 ) ,  250. 
V.   Kt'ck-r   (it  Pa.  Co.  Ct.   K.  274), 

225. 
Miller  Tohiicco  Mnmifacturiup  Co.  v. 

Coiiimcrcc    (45   N.    J.    IjIIW,    1H, 

24),  2!)«. 
Mills  V.  HfssIfT    (87   Kan.  .-)4!»),  225. 
Millinfrton   v.    Fox    CJ   Mylnc   &   Cr. 

3SS),  203,  310,  340,  4!)1,  4!»3. 
Milwaukee   R.   R.   Co.   v.    Arms    (!>1 

U.  S.  487,4!)2),  421. 
Mines   v.    Scribner    (147    Fed.    Rep. 

027 ) ,  376. 
^Miskell   V.   Prokop    (58   Nebr.   628), 

320. 
Mississipj)i  &  Mo.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Ward 

(2  Black,  485),  303. 
Mississippi   Wire  Glass  Co.   v.  Con- 
tinuous Glass  Press  Co.  (81  Atl. 

Rep.  374),   113. 
Missouri   Pacific  Railway   v.   Humes 

(115  U.  S.  512,  521),  421. 
Mitciiell  V.  Henry    (L.  R.   15  Cli.  D. 

181),  468. 
V.  Read   (84  N.  Y.  556),  240. 
M.   J.   Breitenbach    Co.    v.   Spann;en- 

berg    (131    Fed.   Rep.   160),    127, 

145,  320. 
Modox  Co.  V.  !Moxie  Xcrve  Food  Co. 

(162  Fed.  Rep.  640,  651),  477. 
Moebius   v.    Louis   De  Jonge    &    Co. 

(215  Fed.  Rep.  443),  334. 
Moet  V.  Clybonn   ( Seb.  533 ) .  340. 
V.   Couston    (33   Beav.    578),   310, 

401,  402. 
V.  Pickering  (L.  R.  8  Ch.  D.  372), 

340,  342,  405,  403. 
V.  Pickering   ( L.  R.  6  Ch.  1).  770), 

404,  405. 

Monarch   v.   Roscnfeld    ( 10  Ky.  Law 

Rep.  14),  187. 
Monarch   Tobacco    Co.    v.    American 

Tobacco    Co.     (165    Fed.     Rep. 

774),  375,  376. 


are  to  pages. 

Monopol  Tobacco   Works   v.   (Jenisor 

(06  N.  Y.  Supp.   155),  407. 
Monro    v.    Smith     (13    X.   Y.   ,Supp. 

708),  301. 
Monroe   Cattle   Co.    v.    Beckir    (147 

U.  S.  47),  53(1. 
Monson  v.  Boelim   ( L.   R.  2«i  Ch.   1). 

308,  407,  408),  70,  211. 
Montague  &  Co.  v.  I><^wry  (103  V.  S. 

38 ) ,  375. 
Montgomerie    v.    Donuld     (Ct.    S<mb. 

Cas.,  4th  ser.,   11506),    113. 
Montgomery     v.     Tliomp.son      (18JM, 

A  pp.  Cas.  217),  172. 
Montgomery   Ward  &   Co.    v.    Sotith 

Dakota,    etc.,    Assn.     (150     Fed. 

Rep.  413),  56. 
Moody   V.   Tlidiiias    (1    Disney,   204  1, 

231. 

Moore   v.  Rawson    (100   Mass.  404), 
225. 
V.    Rawson    (185   Mass.   264),   34, 

230. 
V.  Rugg   (44  Minn.  28),  2.")0. 
V.  Stevenson    (27   Conn.   14),  216. 
Moorehead  v.  Hyde    (38  Iowa,  382), 
250. 

Moorman    &    Givens    v.     Parkerson 
(131  La.  204),  240. 
V.   Hoge    (2   Sawyer,   78,   85),    10, 

270,  503,  508,  536. 
V.  Hoge  (Fed.  Case  No.  0783),  141, 
418. 
Moreau    v.    Edwards     (2    Tenn.    Cli. 

347),  231. 
Morgan    v.   McAdam    (36   L.   J.    Ch. 
228),  70,  82,  80. 
V.  Rogers   (10  Fed.  Rep.  506),  28, 
30,  227. 
.   V.   Schuyler    (70  X.  Y.   400).   240, 
244. 

Morgan  Envelope  Co.  v.  Walton  (30 
C.  C.  A.  383),  152.  150. 
V.    Walton     (82    Fed.    Rep.    469), 
321,  332. 


Ixviii 


T.vm.i:    OK    CASES. 


Mor-Xat 


lirffn  ni'is  arr  to  jiaf/r.t 

Morpin    Sons   Co.    v.   Troxoll    (Cox. 

Mnnual.  074).  'Ml. 
Morison  V.  Moat    (21   L.  .1.  I'll.  24S). 

25G.  2."):i. 
Morris   v.    Alstfdtcr    (\M\    N.    Y.   S. 
110:{),  4S. 
V.   Moss    (2.")  L.  J.  Cli.    1!»4).  222. 
Morrison   v.   Case    (J>  Blatchf.   .')4S). 
12!>.  .^)n8.  .-.40. 
V.  .'Salmon   (2  Man.  A  C  :JS.-)),  2i):5. 
Morse  v.  Hutt-liins   (102  Ma->s.  430), 

2.-)l. 
Morse    v.   Worr.-ll    (10    Pliihi.    IfiS). 

128,  444. 
Morse   Machine    Co.    v.    Morse    ( 10:i 

Mass.  73-7.')),  2.13. 
Morton    V.    Morton     (82    Pac.     \U']^. 
f.tU),   126. 
V.  Morton   (  14S  Calif.  142),  17S. 
Mossier  V.  .Jacobs  (6.1  111.  App.  .171), 

120,  331. 
Motion  Picture  Patents  Co.  v.  Eclair 
Film   Co.    (208    Fed.    Kej).   416), 
43.1. 
Motley   V.   Downman    (3   My.   &   Cr. 

1),  203.  340.  401. 
Mouson  &   Co.   V.   Boclim    (L.   R.   20 

Ch,  D.  .308),  217. 
Moxie  Co.  V.  Daoust   (200  F.d.  Pvcp. 
434).  .360. 
V.  Daoust   (124  C.  C.  A.  434).  34.1. 
Moxie  Nerve  Food  Co.  v.  Baumbacli 
(32  Fed.  Rep.  20.1-210),  .10,  2!>0, 
320,  448. 
V.  Beach   (33  Fed.  Rep.  248).  208, 

320,  453,  473,  488. 
V.  Beach    (3.1  Fed.   R.p.  40.1.  406), 

2.1;1. 
V.   Holland     (141     F.d.     Il.p.    202, 

20.1),    4.13. 
V.  Motlox  Co.   (  1.12  Ke<l.  Hep.  403)., 

264,  417. 
V.  Modox  Co.    (2)    (113   Fed.   Rep. 

487.  480),  446. 
.-.  Modox  Co.    (3)    (1.11    Fed.   Re]!. 
304),  402. 


Mullin.     \.     i'lople     (23     How.     Pr. 

280).  711. 
Mnnun  v.   Kirk    (40   Vnl.   R.-p.  .-)80), 

12.    140. 
MiMKieii    V.    Harris     (  111!     Mo.     .Vpp. 

012).  270. 
Munro    v.    .Smith     (  13    \.    Y.    Sup. 

708),  .306.  318. 
V.  Tousey    (120  N.  Y.  .38),  300. 
Munsay    v.    Butterfield     (1.33    Mass. 

402-401 1 .  222.  240. 
M\iralo    Co.    v.    National    Lead    Co. 

(36  Apj).  I).  C.  .141),  .567. 
Murray  v.   Kngravinjj  Co.   (28  N.  Y. 

Supp.  271),  272. 
Musselman  &  Clarkson's  Appeal   (62 

Pa.  St.  81),  223. 
Myers   v.    Baker    (3    H.    A    N.    802), 

203. 
V.      Kalamazoo     Bujjgy     Co.      (.14 

Mi.li.  211).  240. 
V.  Theller  (  38  Fed.  Rep.  607  ) .  286, 

314. 

N 

Nashville    Syrup    Co.    v.    Coca-Cola 

Co.     (211    Fed.    Rep.    .127,    120). 

564. 
National   Biscuit  Co.   v.    Baker    (01 

Fed.  Hep.   131),  !t,   12,   131.   131. 

344,   345,   340. 
V.  Ohio     Baking     Co.      (  127     Fe<l. 

Rep.    100).  123. 
V.  Swiik     (121    F.d.    Rep.    1007), 

280. 
National    Distilliiig   C«i.    v.   Century 

Liquor  Co.    (  101  V.  C.  A.  038), 

4.14. 
National   Fire   Insurance  Co.  v.  Sul- 

lard   (07   N.  Y.  App.  Div.  233), 

302. 
National    W  utt-r     Co.     v.    A.     Kron 

Brewing  Co.    (107   O.   C.   000), 

568. 
Native  Cunno  Co.  v.  Sewage  Manure 

Co.    (8  P.  U.  125),  107. 


Nat-Nic 


TAliLK    OK    CAoES. 


Lsix 


Rcfercnris 

National     Cium     &     Mica     Co.      v. 

Brai'iidiy    (T)!   N.   Y.   Supp.   'Xi- 

!)7).    2()2. 
National  Starcli  Mf>^.  Co.  v.  Duryca 

(41  V.  V.  A.  244),   nr>. 
V,    Kostcr     {146    Fed.    Kt-p.    2.-)!)), 

4r)2. 
V.  HiTtz  (177  Fed.  Kcp.  007),  V.W, 

312. 
V.  (VConnclI        (150       Fed.       Kcp. 

1001),  51,   131. 
Natural   Food  Co.   v.   Williams    (30 

App.  D.  C.  348),  111,  507,  570. 
Noil8on  V.  Betta    (L.  R.   5  II.  L.  R. 

1),   422. 
Nelson    v.    Brassington     (04    Wash. 

180),  247. 
V.    J.    II.    Winchell    &    Co.     (203 

Mass.  75),  9,  60,  450,  462. 
Neostyle  Mfg.  Co.  v.  EUam's  Dupli- 
cator  Co.     (21    R.    P.    C.    185), 

315. 
Nerve   Food    Co.    v.   Baumbach     (32 

Fed.  Rep.  205),   150. 
Nesne  v.   Sundet    (101    N.   W.    Rep. 

490),   179. 
Neva    Stearine    Co.    v.   Mowling    (9 

Vict.    L.    R.   98),   214. 
Newark   Coal   Co.    v.    Spangler    (54 

N.  J.  Eq.  354),  174. 
Newbro  v.  Undeland   (69  Neb.  821), 

445. 
Newby   v.   Railroad   Co.    (Fed.    Case 

No.    10144),    184. 
Newcomer   &  Lewis  v.    Scrivcn   Co. 

(168    Fed.    Rop.   021,    624),    88, 

282. 

New  England   Confectionery   Co.   v. 

National   Wafer  Co.    (224   Fed. 

Rep.  344),  126. 
V.  National    Wafer    Co.     (140    C. 

C.  A.  30),  334. 
New  Home   Sewing  ^lachine   Co.   v. 

Bloomingdale      (59     Fed.     Rep. 

284),   122,  327. 


are  to  paycs. 

N«'w  Ilieria  Extract  of  Tabasco  Pep- 
per Co.    v.    E.    Mel  Ibcnriy'H   Son 

(01    So.    Rep.    131),   112. 
N'ewman   v.  Alvord    (49   Harb.   588), 

39,    95,   97,    164,    167. 
V.  Alvord     (51    N.    Y.    189,    193), 

7,    21. 
v.    Pinto     (4    R.    P.    C.    508),    79, 

444,  492. 
v.  Wolfson    (<)0  C;a.   704),  248. 
New   Orleans   v.    Steamship   Co.    (20 

Wall.    387-392),    474. 
Newport  Sand  Bank  Co.  v.  Monareli 

Sand  Mining  Co.    (144  Ky.  7), 

14. 
New  York  k  Balto.  Co.  v.  New  York 

Co.     (9     Fed.    Rep.    578,    579), 

486. 
New  York  &.  New  Jersey  Lubricant 

Co.    V.    Young     (77    N.    J.    E<i. 

321),  107,  446. 
V.    O.    W.    Young,    N.    J.    Cli.     (94 

Atl.   Rep.  570),   107. 
New     York    Asbestos    Mfg.    Co.    v. 

Ambler    Asbestos    Air-cell    Cov- 
ering  Co.     (99    Fed.    Rep.    85), 

451,   452,   476. 
New    York    Cement    Co.    v.    Coplay 

Cement  Co.    (1),   (44  Fed.  Rep. 

277),  110. 
V.  Coplay    Cement    Co.     (2),    (45 

Fed.    Rep.    212),    32,    58,    110, 

164,  401. 
New   York   Herald   Co.   v.    Star  Co. 

(146   Fed.   Rep.    204),   202. 
V.  Star  Co.   (146  Fed.  Rep.  1023), 

117. 
New    York    Life    Insurance    Co.    v. 

Cravens    (178    U.    S.    389-401), 

381. 
New  York  Mackintosh  Co.  v.   Flam 

(198   Fed.   Rep.    571),    116. 
Nicholls    V.    Kimpton    (3   Times   L. 

R.  674),  490. 
Nicholson  v.  \Vm.  A.  Stickney  Cigar 

Co.   (158  Mo.  158),  303. 


TAMLi:    OF    CASKS. 


Nix-Oli 


h'rfercntfs  nrt'  to  /itiyrs. 


Nixcy    V.    Rotr.'.v     (W.    N.,    1S70,    p. 

227).  S2.  SJ. 
\.    K.   Kairliniik  I'o.  v.  Cent  nil    l.anl 
("o.     (70    (MT.     (;«/.     «».{."» ).     11!». 
21."),   ;{2.'..    442 
\.    Dunn     {  I2ii     I'.d.     I{.|).     227  i. 

:{is. 
V.    Liiekfl.   Kin;;  A   (i.k'f  Soaj)  Co. 

(102  Ki'd.   K.-|).  :<27.  :»:n).  10, 

.V2.  121.  20(i.  :U)ti.  .127,  .WA,  440. 
V.   Opdon    I'aikin;;    ("o.     (220    F.-d. 

Ui'p.    10021,    110.   32;-). 
V.  R.  \V.   Bi'll   Mf^'.  Co.    (77   F.d. 

Hr|).  S()!n.  28fi,  307.  OO.V 
V.   Windsor     (til    C.    (  .    A.    233), 

4.-).-),  4;')7. 
Nm-1    V.    Ellis     (SO    F.d.    R.p.    07S- 

OSl  I,   113.  331. 
Nix-ra    V.    Williams    Mf^'.    Co.     (MS 

.Muss.  110).  2!Ml. 
Nolan  Bros.  Shot*  Co.  v.  Xolan    (131 

Calif.    271),   370,    (i37. 
North    V.    TIcrriok     (203    F«'d.    Jioy. 

.-.01),   478. 
Nortlicastcrn    Awl    Co.    v.    Marlhor- 

ou;.'h  Awl  Co.    (IHH   Mass.   147  i . 

(t. 
Nortliwost«rn    Consol.     Mill    Co.    v. 

Wm.  Callalian  A:   Son    (177   Fed. 

H.-p.  78(1),  .32.'). 
Northwestern  Knittin;j;  Co.  v.  daron 

(112  Minn.   321),  311. 
Northwesti-rn    Conscdidated    Millin;; 

Co.  V.  Mauser  &  Cressman    (102 

Fed.    i:.p.    1004).   117,   142,  32r). 
V.  W  ni.   (  allani   &    Son    (177    Fed. 

Hep.  78(5).   117,   4.")(t. 
Nortlieutt  V.  Turney    (  KU    K.v.  314  i, 

f.l,    1  it;.    Kill,    lt;4.   40(1. 
N.    15.    L.vnn    Sho<'    Co.    v.    Auliurn- 

Lynn  Shoe  Co.    (100   Me.   4(il), 

3.-)2. 
Notawme     Hosiery     Co.     v.     .Straus 

(231    Fed.    Kep.   243,  24.'i),   448. 


Nunn    V.    D'Alhuquenpie    (34    Beav. 
.'in-)),  401. 

Nuthall    V.   Xinin;;    ( 2S    W .    K.   :VM)). 
270.    2H7. 

0 

Oakes  V.    St.    I.ouis  Candy   Co.    (140 

Mo.    301  I.    10.   (ICi. 
V.   Tonsmierre     (4     Woods,     .")47i, 

27. 
V.  Tonsmierre    (40  Fed.   Rep.  447- 

4.')3),  08,  4.-)4. 
Oakey    v.    Dalton    (1..    K.    3.-.   (  li.    I). 

700).  401. 
Oakley    &    Co.    v.    Baluoek     (133    O. 

(;.    701).   .■)(i8. 
<  )'Bear-Ni'ster    (tlass    Co.     v.    Anti- 

explo  Co.    (101   Tex.    431  ).   2-)7. 
« )"Conneli     \.     .National     Water     Co. 

(  Uil    Fed.    Hep.    .■4.')),  51. 
(>;;livie     v.     C.     &     C.     Merriam    Co. 

(140    F.d.   Rep.  8.-)8),  03. 
oCrady  v.  MeDonald    (72  N.  .7.  Kq. 

8()-)).    3.').-|. 
V.  McOonald    ((1(1   Atl.    Rep.    17')), 

110. 

Ohio  &  Miss.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Press  Pub. 

Co.    (4S    Fed.   Hep.  206).  .■)4. 
Ohio    Bakin^r    Co.    v.    National    Bis- 
cuit   Co.     (02    C.    C.    A.    110), 

123. 
Old    Corner    Book    Store    v.    Upham 

(104   .Mass.    101,    10.-)),  2.32. 
Oldham   v.  .lames    (13   Ir.   Ch.   .303), 

418. 
(^Id   Lexin^iton   Chil>   Dis.  Co.  v.  Ken- 

tueky    Distilleries   &  Warehouse 

(  ...     (234    F.d.    Hep.    4()4),   :)74. 
Olin    V.    Bat.-     (OS    111.    .-)3 ) ,    171. 
Oliphant    v.    Suh-m    Flourin;:    Mills 

(.')    Sawyer    128),    82. 
Oliv.r  niill.'d  Plow  Works  v.  Oliver 

y\ln.  Co.    (40  App.   D.  C.    12.-)), 

.'•)rt3,   508. 


oil  I'liu 


TMilA.    OK    CASKS. 


Ixxi 


(•liver   TviHwritcr   Co.    v.    AnnTicnii 

\Vritin<r    Miu-li.    Vn.     ( ir)(l    1m(1. 

l{i|>.    177).  :i2i. 
( !inc;;a   Oil   Co.    v.    W't'schlcr    (71    N. 

V.   Suiip.  itS.n.    l-2(i.  :i()!). 
( Miio    .Mfj;.    Co.     V.     .MyHtii-     Ruliijcr 

Co.     (22.')    Fed.    lU-p.    !»2),    .{20. 
Oneida  Conimvmity  v.  Oneida  (Jame 

Trap   Co.    (154   N.   Y.   S.   :5!)1), 

nfif). 
()nonda<ia    Co.    ^lilk    Association    v. 

Wall   (17   Hun,  4!)4),  234. 
Opinions    of    the    Attorney    General 

(1S80,    p.    2r)3),    53'). 
Oppermann   v.    Waterman    (!I4   Wi8. 

583),   326. 
Oregon   Steam   Nav.   Co.   v.    Winsor 

(20  Wall.  64-72),  236. 
Orifrinal    LaTosca    Social    Club    v. 

LaTosca  Social  Club    (23  App. 

I).  C.  90),  183. 
ORourke  v.   Central  City  Soap  Co. 

(26  Fed.  Rep.  576),  70,  71,  115, 

430. 
Orr  V.   Diaper   ( L.  R.  4  Ch.  D.  1)2), 

405,  471. 
Orr-Ewing  &  Co.  v.  Grant   (2  Hyde, 

185),   294. 
V.  Johnston   &   Co.    (40   L.   T.    N. 

S.  307),   322. 
Orr-Ewing    v.    Chooneeloll    iliiUick 

(Cor.  150),  60. 
V.  Grant,   Smith   &   Co.    (2   Hyde, 

185),  69. 
V.  Johnson    (13    C.  D.    434),  348. 
V.  Johnston    (7    A.    C.    219),   301. 
Osgood   V.    Allen    (1    Holmes,    185), 

95,  l.')8,  159. 
V.  Allen     (Fed.    Cas.    No.    10603), 

301. 
V.  Rockwood       (Fed.      Case      No. 

10605),   440. 
V.  Rockwood    (11    Blatchf.    310), 

122,  506,  511. 
Outcalt   V.   New   York   Herald    (146 

Fed.  Rep.  205),  356. 


licfrrcnccfi  ore  tu  jxiycu. 

Outciiult  V.  New  York  Herald  Co, 
(136  O.  G.  437),  578. 

Oxypathor  Co.  v.  De  Cordero  (149 
.\.  V.  S.  513),  260,  267. 

( 'zo  Remedy  Co.  v.  Carnrick  &  Co., 
Ltd.    (C.  D.,  1909,  p.  162),  572. 


I'abst  Brewing  Co.  v.   Ekers    (Rap. 

Jud.  Que.  21  C.  S.  545),  69. 
Pacific  Coast  Condensed  Milk  Co.  v. 

Frye    &    Co.    (85    Wash.    133), 

293. 
1 'aimer    v.    Graham     ( 1     Pars.     Eq. 

Cas.  476),  231. 
V.  Harris    (60    Pa.    St.    156),    79, 

121,   443. 
V.  Travers     (20    Fed.    Rep.    501), 

56. 
Paris   Medicine   Co.    v.    W.   H.    Hill 

Co.     (102    Fed.    Rep.    148-151), 

302,  345. 
Parker    v.    Mulnie     (1    Fisher,    44), 

419. 
Parkhurst  v.  Brock  (Vt.  47  All.  Rep. 

1068),  242. 
Parkland  Hill  Blue  Lick  Water  Co. 

V.     Hawkins     (26    S.    W.    Rep. 

389),   116. 
Parlett    v.    (Juggenheinier     (67    Md. 

542),  79,  443. 
Parsons    v.    Hayward     (31,  Beavan, 

199),  222,  229. 
Partlo   V.   Todd    (17   Can.    S.   C.    R. 

196),   143,   145. 
Partridge   v.   ^Nlenck    (2    Sandf.    Ch. 

622),  78,   157,  442. 
Patapasco  Ins.  Co.  v.  Southgate    ( 5 

Peters,  604,  616),  484. 
Paton    V.     Majors     (40     Fed.     Rep. 

210),  472. 
Paul  V.   Barrows    (4   DeG.    J.   &    S. 

150),  342. 
V.  Virginia     (8    Wall.     If.Si,    414. 


Ixxii 


TAllLK   OK    CA^^ES. 


I'uv-lVr 


Tavcaich   v.   Now   F.n^jlund   Lift'   Ins. 

Co.    (ftO   S.    K.    U»-p.    08),    272. 

V.  Now     Ennlnnd     Lifi-     In«.     To. 

(122  C.H.    IHO).  27.".. 

I'nyton    v.     Siu'lliii;:     (  I'.Xil.    A.    1'. 

:U)S).  4(V.». 

V.  Sn.'llin^'     (17     K.     V.    (".    (•..».'>  i , 

409. 
V.  Sm-lliii-     (17     15.     I'.    C.    028 1 , 

2fl7. 
V.  Snellin);    <  17    H.   P.   C.   4S.  .Vi), 

2!)7. 
V.  Ward   (17   K.  W  C.  58),  208. 
P.  C".  Weist  Co.  V.  Weeks    (177   Tu. 

412),  57,   387. 
V.-ahody  v.  Norfolk   (08  Mass.  452), 

253.  254,  250,  258. 
PearllKTfj   V.    Rost'nstom-    (70    N.   •!. 

Eq.    0381,    52. 
IVck    V.    Trilmno    Co.     (214    V.    S. 

185,   190),  277. 
Peerless  T^ublier   Mf;r.  Co.   v.   Nichol 

(187    Fed.    Kep.    238),   458. 
Peerless    Pattern     Co.     v.    Pictorial 
Review   Co.    (132   N.   Y.  S.  37), 
200. 
Peltz   V.    Eicliele    (02    Mo.    171-180). 

240. 
PenlxTtliy   Injector  Co.  v.    Lee    (120 

Mich.    174),    175. 
Pence    V.    Lanpdon     (00    V.    S.    578- 

581),   200. 
P.nnell  V.  Lothrop   (101  Muss.  357), 

430. 
T'ennsylvania    Co.    v.     nailroiul    (d. 

(IIH  U.  S.   200),   414. 
Pennsylvania     RuMier     Co.      Dread- 
nau^jht  Tire  &    Hiil.l.er  Co.    (225 
Fed.  Hej).    138),   113. 
Pennsylvania  Suit  Mf;,'.  Co.   v.  Mey- 
ers   (70   iM-d.   Hep.   87),    128. 


Re  f  lit  mis  (trc  to  pages. 

People   V.    Bartlioif    (00    Ilun,   020), 
750. 
V.  Cannon    (130    N.    Y.    32),    755, 

750. 
V.    Elfenliein      (20     N.     Y.     Snpp. 

304  ) .  750. 
V.   Fisher    (5(1   Hun,   552),  f). 
V.   Fisher      (57    N.     Y.     Sup.    Ct. 

5.52).   02,   500. 
V.  Gluckman     (70     N.     Y.     Supp. 

173),  755. 
V.  llilfnuin    (70  N.  Y.  Supp.  021), 

755. 
V.  Ilofran   (20  N.  Y.  St.  110),  755. 
V.  Krivitzky     (108    N.    Y.     182), 

755. 
V.   Luhrs     (80    N.     K.     Uep.    171), 

750. 
V.  Molins    (10   N.   Y.  Supp.    130), 

30,   545. 
V.   Morjzan     (00     .\]^\>.    Div.     110), 

220. 
V.   Roberts    (1.50    N.    Y.    70).    218, 
220,  227. 
People  ex   rel.   Columl.ia  Chem.   Co. 
V.    O'Brien     (01    N.     Y.    Supp. 
649),   189. 
People   ex    rel.   Power   v.    Rose    (219 

111.   40),    180. 
Pepper  v.   Lahrot    (8  Fed.  Rep.  29), 

28.  20.  213,  337. 
Perceval    v.    Phipps    (22    Ves.    &.    B. 

19),   200. 
Perfect   Safety    Paper  Co.   v.  Ceor^e 
La    Monte    &.    Son     (122    O.    (J. 
809),  509. 
Perham  v.  Richman    (158  Fed.  Rep. 

540),    190. 
Perkins    v.    .\poIl<>    Bros.    (107     I'Vd. 
Rep.  470),   120. 
V.   lleert    (158  N.  Y.  300),  755. 
Perks  v.   Hill    I  W.   N..  1881.  p.  Ill), 
444. 


Pennsylvania     Su^rar     R<-f.     (<>.     > 

American   Su^ar    l{ei.   (  ..     (l",il  |    Perllier;;    v.    Sniitli     (70    N.    J.    Eq 


Fed.    Rep.    254),    370. 


038),  52,  79. 


Per-Pla 


TAULE   OF    CASES. 


Ixxiii 


I'cfcrcncrs 

Porry   v.   Tnicfit    (0   r?.iiv.   0(1),   10, 

42,  4:{,  7H,  125. 
P.    E.    iSharpless    Co.    v.     LuwrcMici- 

(130  C.  C.  A.  59),  459,  4«(). 
Potcr     Schocnhoffii     Brew.     Co.     v. 

MaltiiH-  Co.    (134  O.  (i.    1804), 

5;")!). 
V.  Maltinr    Co.     (:(0    App.     I).    ( '. 

340),    102. 
Pt'torsoii  V.   lluinpliicy    (4   Ahl).   I'r. 

394),   29,   243. 
Petrol ia  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Bell  &  Bogart 

Soap  Co.    (97    Fed.    Rep.   781), 

3(5,  118. 
Pettes     V.     American     Watchman's 

Clock  Co.   (85  N.  Y.  Supp.  900), 

755. 
Peyton    v.    Desmond    ((53    C.    C.    A. 

654),  414. 
Pfeiffer    v.    Wilde     (102    Fed.    Rep. 

658),    465. 
V.  Wilde   (46  C.  C.  A.  415),  46.5. 
Phalon    V.    Wright    (5    Phila.    464 1 , 

79,    102,   444. 
Phelan  v.  Colleiider    ( 13  N.  Y.  Sup 

Ct.  244),   29. 
Philadelphia      Extracting      Co.      v. 

Keystone    E.xtracting   Co.     (176 

Fed.    Rep.    830),   257,  267. 
Philadelpliia  Nov.   Co.   v.  Blakesley 

Nov.   Co.    (37    Fed.    Rep.    365), 

453. 
Pliiladelphia  Nov.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Blakes- 
ley  Novelty  Co.    (40  Fed.   Rep. 

588),   140,  2«6. 
V.  Rouss  (40  Fed.  Rep.  585,  5S7), 

141. 
Philadelphia   R.    R.    Co.   v.    Quigh-y 
(62   U.    S.,    21    Howard,    213), 

421. 
Piaget  V.  Headley    (68  N.  Y.   Supp. 

351),   291. 
Pickett    V.    Green     (120    Ind.    584), 

225,  246. 
Pidding  v.  llow.    (8  Sim.  477),  78, 
122. 


are  to  pagcH, 

Pierce  V.  Frank    (15  T..  J.  Ch.  122), 

490. 
V.   Fuller   (H  .Mans.  22H),  222. 
V.  CJuittard    ( 6H  Cal.  (iS,  71),   47. 

637. 
Tike    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Cleveland    Stone 

Co.     (35    Fed.    Rep.    896),    122, 

123,    124,    125,     131,    21(5,    324, 

332. 
i'illslmry    v.     I'lllsliury     (24    U.    S. 

App.  395-404),   172. 
V.   Pillsbury-Washimrn    Mills    Co. 

(12  C.   C.  A.  432),   444. 
V.  Pillshury-Washlmrn        Flour 

Mills    Co.     (64    Fed.    Rep.    841- 

847),  30,  81,  302,  343,  345. 
Pillsbury-Washhurn    Co.    v.     Eagle 

(86    Fed.    Rep.    608),    10,    161, 

166,    167. 
rilislmry-Washhurn  Flour  Mills  Co. 

V.  Eagle   (30  C.  C.  A.  386),   12, 

162,   400. 
rilmore  v.  Hood   (5  Bing.  N.  C.  97), 

251. 
Pinto  V.  Badman    (8  R.  P.  C.   181), 

26,    144. 
V.  Trott    (8   P.   R.   173),  326. 
Pioneer  Suspender  Co.  v.  Louis  Op- 

penlieinier's    Sons     ( 128    O.    G. 

1293),  577. 
Piso   Co.   V.   Voight    (4    Ohio  N.    P. 

347),  79,  417. 
Pittsburg  Cruslied  Steel  Co.  v.  Dia- 
mond  Steel   Co.    (85   Fed.   Rep. 

637,  638),  217,  3.32,  386,  387. 
Pittsburgh     Water     Heater     Co.     v. 

Beler    Water    Heater    Co.     (222 

Fed.    Rep.    950),   428,   434,  488. 
Plant  Seed   Co.    v.    Michel    Plant   & 

Seed    Co.     (23    Mo.    App.   579), 

179. 
Planten    v.    Canton    Pharmacy    Co. 

(33  App.  D.  C.  268),  99. 
v.  Gedney    (211    Fed.    Rep.    281), 

395. 
V.  Gedney    (140  CCA.   1),  395. 


Ixxiv 


TAMLK    OK    TASKS. 


rio  Tri 


ItrfvrrtKt  K  <ir 

V.  Ix)riUara  to.   v.   I\'|Mr    (S(5   F.il 
Htp.  n:)Ol,  340.  4(57. 

V.  iVpiT  {-.w  I'.  V.  A.  4ur.i,  :»:»7. 

V.   IVpiT  ((5r>  K»-(l.  K»p.  r)J»7l.  ;537. 

riiimlcy   V.    MasaacliusottH    (1.');")   l". 

S.    4(il.   4(t7,   475M,   7(5. 
r.   M.  (.'o.  V.   Ajax  Rail  Aiu'lu>r  (<.. 

(216    Fed.    Hrp.   (534).   4S1. 
Pocono    rini's    Asscml)!)-    v.     Miller 

(77    Atl.    Ri'p.    1()!>4).    10!». 
Tollard  v.   Photo-irapliic  Vo.    (40   (". 

D.,  Eng.,  34.-)).  2.V.>. 
Pollen    V.    LeRoy     (30    N.    Y.    r)4!)- 

.'iOl),  470. 
Poineroy  Ink  Co.  v.  PonnToy   (77  *. 

J.  Kq.  203).  2ri7,  26.1,  267. 
P..!isardin   v.   Poto    (33   Bi-av.   642), 

404.   40.-). 
Ponti'fact    V.     Isi-nbtTfU'r    (106    Fed. 

Rep.  499),   121,  313. 
Pope  V.  Curl   (2  Atk.  342).  260. 
PojH-   A.   M.   Co.   V.  MeCrum-Howell 

Co.    (112  C.  C.  A.  .391),  320. 
Pope-Turnl>o    v.    Bedford    (147    Mo. 

A|)p.  6!I2).  22.-). 
Popham  V.  Cole   (66  N.  Y.  69  i .  306. 
V.  Wilcox     (14    Abb.    Pr.     N.     S. 

206 ) ,   .... 
V.   Wilcox     (66    N.    Y.    69),     109, 

304,   467,   ->07. 
l-(.rtcr  V.  Corman    (O.l  C.a.  11),  221, 

231. 
Tortuondo  v.  ;Monn«     (2S   Fed.  Rop. 

Kii.   301,   4r)2. 
Postal  Tel.  Cable  Co.  v.  Netter  (102 

Fed.  Rep.  691),  .546. 
Postum    Cereal     Co.     v.     American 

Health  Food  Co.    ( 109  Fed.  Rep. 

K9H|,    10,  333. 
V.  American  Health  Food  Co.    (56 

C.   C.   A.   360),  2«4,  2!)4. 
Potter   V.    AhrenB    (110   Cal.    681), 

24fl. 
V.  CommiPHionerH   of  lnlaii<l    Rev- 
enue  (10  Kx.  147),  222. 


tn    poi/rs. 

I'olt.r    Dru^   \    Cheni.   Co.    v.    Miller 
(7:)    Fed.    Rep.    6.161,    119.    323. 
J'otter  D.  &  Ch.-m.  Corp.  v.   Pasfleld 
Soap    Co.     (2 1,     lot;     Fed.    Kej). 
914).   119.   333, 
V.    Pasfield     Soap    Co.     ( 102     Fe«l. 
K.p.    490),    119.   333. 
Piiwell      \.      I{irmin;.'ham       \'ine;,'ar 
Brewery  Co.  ( L.  R.,  1894.  3  Ch. 
D.   449-462),    1.12. 
Pratt's  Mfg.  Co.  v.   Astral  Refining 
Co.    (27   Fed.  Rep.  492-494),  99. 
President   Suspender   Co.  v.  Macwil- 
liam    (233    Fed.   Rep.   433,  437), 
28. 
Press   Pub.   Co.  v.    Monroe    (73  Fed. 

Rep.   196,  201),  421. 
Prest-0-Lite   Co.    v.   Avery    Lighting 
Co.     (1()1    Fed.    Rep.    (548,   6.11), 
314. 
V.   Bogen      (209      Fed.     Rep.     91.1, 

916).   314. 
V.     Davis     (209     Fed.     Rej).    917, 

92,   924).    314. 
V.   Davis    (131   C.  C.  A.  491),  314. 
V.   Heideii   (  13.1  C.  C.  A.  .115,  517), 

314. 
V.    Post    &     Lester    Vo.     (163    Fed. 
Rej).    63,   (54),    314. 
Preservaline     Mfg.     Co.     v.     Heller 
Chemical    Co.     (118     Fed.     Rep. 
103).  87. 
Price    V.    C.oodall     (L.    R.,    1891,    1 

Cli.    D.    35),   9. 
Price    Baking    Powder    Co.    v.    Fyfe 
(45    Fed.    Rej).    799),    119,  453, 
488. 
Prince   Metallic    Paint    Co.    v.    Car- 
bon   Metallic    Paint    Co.   .(Seb. 
.173),    174. 
V.    Prince    Mfg.    Co.     (6    C.   C.    A. 

647).  209. 
V.  Prince  Mfg.  Co.    (53  Fed.  Rep. 
493),  385,  393,  415,  547. 


Pri-Rat 


TAULK   01'"    CASJES. 


Ixxv 


Jirfcrcncra  arc  (>>  pngin 

J'rincc  Mfj,'.  Co.  v.    I'riiicc'H  Mctiillic 

Paint  Co.    (2),    l.tf)   N.   V.  24), 

l^^,  77,  Kit*. 
V.  Prince's  Motallic   T*aiiitCo.  (IT) 

N.  Y.  Supp.  24!H,  37. 
V.  Prince's  :M('tallic  Paint  Co.  (."{fl 

N.   Y.    S.    R.   488),   28. 
Prohasco    v.    Bouyon     ( 1    Mo.    App. 

241),  241. 
Proctor  V.   McBridf    (Ft-d.  Case  No. 

11441),   32!). 
Proctor  &  Collier  Co.  v.  Mali  in   (93 

Fed.    Rep.    87."),    87G),    3(i3. 
Proctor  &  Gamble  Co.  v.  Globe  Re- 
fining Co.    (92   Fed.    Rep.    3:)7 

3G2),  320,  333,  343. 
V.  Globe    Refinino;   Co.    (34   C.    C. 

A.   405),   286,   337. 
Provident  Chemical  Works  v.   Can- 
ada Chemical  Mfjr.  Co.   (2  Ont. 

Law   Rep.   182),  100. 
Prudential  Assurance  Co.  v.   Knott 

(L.   R.    10   Ch.    D.    142),    53. 
Publishing  Co.  v.  Dobinson   (82  Fed. 

Rep.  50 ) ,  202. 
V.  Dobinson    (72   Fed.   Rep.   603), 

189. 
Puritan   Cordage;  Mills  v.   Sampson 

Cordage  Works    (232  Fed.   Rep. 

138),  465. 
Putnam  Nail  Co.  v.  Ausable  Horse- 
nail    Co.    (53    Fed.    Rep.    390), 

52. 
V.  Bennett    (43    Fed.    Rep.    800), 

294,  441,  538. 
V.  Dulaney   (140  Pa.  205),  139. 


R 


Quaker  City  Flour  Mills  Co.  v. 
Quaker  Oats  Co.  (43  App.  D. 
C.  260),  109. 


IJadain    v.  Capitai    .Microlje   DcHtroy- 
er  Co.    (81   Texas,   122),  468. 
V.   Destroyer  Co.    (81  T<xaH,  122), 

467. 
I!ad(h'    V.    .Norman     ( I-.     R.     14    Kq. 

.348),   61,  .328. 
Raggett  V.  Findlater    (L.  R.   17   Kq. 

29),    108. 
Ualitjen's   (^onij)osition    Co.    v.  Holz- 

sipjx'l's     ('omj)osition     Co.      '97 

Fed.  Rep.  949),  83. 
V.   llol/apfel's      Composition      Co. 

(41   C.  C.   A.  329),   83. 
l^ailroad    Co.    v.    Harris    (12    Wall. 

65),   414. 
Rains  v.  White   (21  Ky.  L.  R.  742), 

286. 
Raleigh   v.    Kinematograph    Trading 

Co.     (31    R.    P.    C.     143,    145), 

205. 
Ralli  V.  Fleming,  Ind.  (L.  R.  3  Calc. 

417),  339. 
Ralph    V.    Taylor    (L.    R.   25   Ch.   D. 

194),  88. 
Ralston    Steel   Car   Co.    v.   National 

Dump  Car  Co.    (222   Fed.   Rep. 

.590),  433. 
Rammelsberg  v.   Mitchell    (29  Ohio 

St.    22),    245. 
Ramsden   v.    Dyson    (L.  R.    1  IT.   L. 

129),  209. 
Ranft   V.    Reimers     (200    111.    386), 

231,  232. 
Ransom    v.    Ball     (7    N.    Y^.    Supp. 

238),  78. 
V.  Mayor    (1   Fisher,  252),  419. 
Ransome    v.    Bentall    (3    L.    -T.    Ch. 

161),  305,  340,  341. 
V.  Graham    (51    L.    J.    Ch.    807), 

85,   340. 
Rathbone,  Sard  &  Co.  v.  Champion 

Steel  Range   Co.    (110  C.  C.  A. 

596),  370. 


Iwvi 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


Raw-Rio 


liifrrrnrrs 

Kaulinsoii  v.  Hraiiianl  iV  ArniHtroiifj 
Co.    (;'>'.»   N.   V.   Sujip.   SSO),   Til. 

33r>. 

Kawwm    v.    Pratt    (<.U    In.l.    i» ) ,   24!), 

251. 
Kaymond   v.    Royal    Bakin^j    Powdi-r 
Co.    (S.')   F.(i.   Urp.   2:n),  128. 
V.  Royal  Bakinjr   rowdi-r  Co.    (70 
Fod.    Rep.    40.")).   40.-). 
Reach    Co.    v.    Simmons    Hdw.    Co. 

(155  Mo.  App.  412),  4r). 
Read  v.  Kicliardson    (4")  L.  T.  N.  S- 

54),  86,  322,   470. 
Reading     Stove     Works     v.     S.     M. 
Howes    Co.     (201     Mass.    437/, 
456. 
V.  S.    M.    Howes    Co.     (87    N.    E. 
Rep.    7.")1),   130. 
Reddaway   v.  Banham    (L.   R.,  ISDO, 
A.    C.    100,    204,    205),    13,    40, 
152,    153,    101,    194. 
Reddaway  &  Co.  v.  Bentham  Hemp 
Spinning  Co.    (0   R.    1'.  C.  503), 
151,   301. 
Redgrave  v.  Kurd   ( L.   R.  20  C"h.   1). 

1),    251. 
Reed  v.  West  (47  Tex.  240),  200. 
Reeder  v.   Brodt,  C.   P.,    (4  Oliio  N. 

P.   205),   114,  305. 
Reeves   v.    Denieke    (12   Al.h.    Pr.  N. 

S.  92),  29,  230. 
Regent    Shoe    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Haakt-r 

(75    Nebr.    426),   446. 
Regina  v.  Closa  (D.  &  B.  460),  410. 
V.  Dundas     (6    Cox,    380),    410. 
V.  Gray     (Sev.     183).    410. 
V.  Smith    (1).   &    B.  5(i()),  410. 
V.  Sutter    (10  Cox,   577),   410. 
Regis   V.    J.   A.    Jaynes   &   Co.    (185 
Mass.   458),  294,   449. 
V.  Jaynes  &   Co.    (191   Mass.  245, 

251,  252),  455.  450,  462. 
V.  Jaynes    (70    N".    E.    Rep.    480), 

128. 
V.  .Ia\  nes    (77    N.    K.    Rep.    774), 
100. 


arc  tn  ]>agra. 

I    Registrar   v.    Du    Cms,   Ltd.    (83- L. 

J.  Ch.    li,   170. 
Rchl>ein    v.    Weaver    (133    Fed.    Rep. 

607),  384. 
Reinhart    v.    Spaulding     (40    L.    J. 

Cii.   57),   121. 
Rcpiil.lie  of    Pent   v.    Reeves    (40   X. 

V.  Sup.   Ct.   310),  402. 
iJi'uter's  Telegram  Co.  v.  Byron    (43 

L.  J.  Ch.  001),  201. 
Revere    Ruhl>er    Co.    v.    Consolidated 

Hoof    Pad    Co.    (139    Fed.    Rep. 

151.    154).   67. 
\Uy     V.     Laeouturier     ( L.    R.,     1008, 

2    Ch.    726),    IIH. 
Ri-ynier    &    Bros.    v.    Hnyler's    (100 

Fed.  Rep.  83),  125. 
l.'eynolds   v.    Bulloek     (47    L.   J.    Cli 

773),  227. 
!;.  Gaustavino  Co.  v.  Comerma   (180 

Fed.    Rep.   920).    11,    122. 
V.  C»)merma    (184   F.-d.  Rep.  540). 

lis,   120.  403. 
R.  Heiniseh's  Sons  Co.  v.   Bokcr    (80 

Fed.   Rep.  705).  40,  l(i7,   170. 
Rhodes  V.  Sperry  «S:    Hutehinson  Co. 

(85  N.   E.   Ri-p.    1097),  278. 
Rieard  v.  Caton  College  Co.,  Minn., 

(92   X.  W.   Rep.  9.58),  320. 
Rice  V.  Standard   Oil  Co.    (134  Fed. 

Rep.    404  ) ,    377. 
Rice  &  Co.  V.  Redlich  Mfg.  Co.   (122 

C.  C.  A.  442),  370. 
Rice-Stix  Dry  (Joods  Co.  v.  Scriven 

Co.    (165  Fed.   Rep.  639),  89. 
Richards  v.  Butelur   ( L.  R.,  1891,2 

Ch.  522).  102. 
V.    Butcher    (02   E.  T.  867),  390. 
V.    Hunt   ((>5  (;a.  342),  245. 
Ricliard.Hon  &    Boynton  Co.  v.  Rich- 
ardson &  Morgan  Co.    (8  N.  Y. 

Supp.   53),   202. 
Richardson    v.    Peacock     (33    X.    J. 

Eq.  597),  242. 
Richmond  Nervine  Co.  v.  Richmond 

159  U.  S.  293,  302),  20,  879. 


Kic-Rog 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxvii 


Rcfcrcnrrs  (ii 

RichtiT  T.  Anclior   Rt-mo'ly  Co.    (r>2 

Fed.    Hep.    4->ry,    4r.8),    2.'{,    «!), 

380,    387. 
V.  Reynolds     (8    C.    C.    A.    22(t), 

387. 
V.  Reynolds    (.'>!»    Fed.    Kep.   r)77), 

23,  27,  «)!>,  217,  3H(!,  .■)37. 
Rillet    V.    Curlier     ((il    Harh.    4:!r> ) , 

122,    147. 
Rivero    v.    Norris    (Seton,    4th    Kd., 

236),  405. 

R.  J.  Reynolds  Tobacco  Co.  v.  Allen 

Bros.    Tol)acco    Co.     (151     Fed. 

Rep.   819),  30,    129,  296,  450. 
Roberson  v.  Rochester  Folding  Box 

Co.    (171  N.   Y.   540),   268,  2(59, 

272,  276. 
Roberts   v.    Sheldon    (8    Biss.    398), 

330,  404. 
V     Sheldon  (Fed.  Case  No.  11916) , 

127. 
Robertson   v.   Berry    (50   ;Md.    591 1, 

196,  290. 
V.  Quiddington     (28  Beavan,  529) , 

226. 
Robinson    v.    Finlay    (L.    R.    9    Ch. 

D.   487),    63,  215,   339. 
V.  Storm    (103   Tenn.   40),   177. 
Robison  v.   Texas  Pine  Land  Assn. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.,  40  S.  W.   Rep. 

843),  373. 
Rubber  &  Celluloid  II.  T.  Co.  v.  F. 

W.  DeVoe  &  C.  T.  Reynolds  Co. 

(233   Fed.   Rep.    150,   154),    110, 

192,  330,  458. 
Rubber   &   Celluloid    Harness   Trim- 
ming     Co.      V.      Rubber-Bound 

Brush   Co.    (81   N.   J.   Kq.  419), 

I'M,   330. 
laimford   Chemical   Works  v.   ^luth 

(35  Fed.   Rep.  524),  98,   137. 
Rupp  V.  Over   (3  Brewst.  133),  231, 
Rushmore  v.  Badger  Brass  Mfg.  Co. 
(198    Fed.   Rep.    379),   371. 


•r   to   jKiffrH. 

Rushmore    v.    Manhattan    Screw    Si 

Stamping  Works  ( 1(J3    Fed.  Ueji. 

939),  293,   369,   371. 
V.  Manhattan   Screw   &   Stamping 

Works    (90  C.  C.  A.  299),   103. 
V.  Saxon      (158     Fed.     Rep.     499, 

509),    142,    152,    176,    178,    369. 
V.  Saxon     (154     Fed.    Rep.     213), 

292. 
Russell    V.    Lundeen     (72    Oil.    Gaz. 

420),  259. 
Russia    Cement    Co.    v.    Frauenhar 

(66  C.  C.  A.  500),  317. 
Russia    Cement   Co.    v.    Katzenstein 

(109  Fed.   Rep.   314),   124,  316. 
V.  Lepage    (147    Mass.    206),    29, 

171,   177,   181,  227,  442. 
V.  Frauenhar      (126      Fed.      Rep. 

228),  317. 
Ryder  v.  Holt  (128  U.  S.  525),  385, 

392,   415,   429,  547. 
Rock  V.   Purssell    (84  L.  T.  Jo.  45), 

436. 
Rock  Springs  Distillery  v.  Monarch 

(15  Ky.   L.   Rep.   866),   177. 
Rocky  Mountain  Bell  Telephone  Co. 

V.     Utah     Telephone     Co.      (31 

Utah,  377),  340. 
V.  Utah     Independent     Telephone 

Co.    (88  Rac.  Rep.  26),   114. 
Rodgers    v.    Xowill     (6    Hare    325), 

174,  415,   490. 

V.  Nowill    (5  C.  B.   109),  293. 
V.  Nowill   (2),   (Cox,  Manual,  Xo. 

115),  474,  475. 
V.  Philp     (1    Oil.    (la./..    29),    418. 
V.  Rodgers    (31  L.  T.  X.  S.  285), 

311. 
V.   Rogers     (53    Conn,     i:^'  ),    172, 

175,  177. 

V.  Taintor     (97     Mass.    291),    30, 

32,    174. 
Rogers   Co.   v.    Rogers  Mfg.  Co.    (17 

C.  C.  A.  576),  189. 
V.  \Vm.  Rogers  .Mfg.  Co.    (70  Fed. 

Rep.  1017),  177. 


Ixxviii 


TAIILK    OF    CAShis. 


Rog-San 


Itrffrcncfs  nit-  to  paifrs. 


\lo}ivrn  Mffj.  Cn.  V,   RiifjtTt*  A    Spurr 

Mf>:.    lo.     (11    K.'d.    II.p.    4».')), 

ITT.   IT;).   411. 
Kolt  V.   HulmiT    (Sri..   (-.14  i.  -JJT. 
l!(>no(ironi  v.  CroHH   (S(>  N,   Y.  Siipi*. 

11121,    148. 
Hoot  V.  L.  S.  &   M.  S.   Kv.  Co.    ( lO.". 

U.   S.    1891.   42151.  4.".8. 
l\o|M'»    V.    Upton     (12.")     Mhhs.     2')8- 

2(51).   24". 
Ixosi-   V.    LoftiM    (4T    L.   .1.  Ch.   .")T(5), 

:no.  :n3.  .3:5".  nnn.  4!)2. 

V.  Hpiilcy     (4T     L.    J.    Ch.    .'iTT), 

313. 
V.  Ilonly    (Sfl..   .-..-.1),  337. 
lU»st'nl)urj;    V.    Fri'i-moiit    Undfrtak- 
ing    Co.     (114    Pac.    Rep.    8S(5), 
121. 
V.   Fremont    Undortakinj^  Co.    (03 
Wash,  r.2),  183. 
Rosenthal    v.    Blatt    ( N.    J.   Ch..   83 

Atl.   Ri-p.  387).   10(5. 
Ro8onz\vi'i<;    v.    Korhi-s     (121    O.    (!. 

2G07),  r).')3. 
RoHin;;  v.  Atkinson  (27  Sol.  .1.  .^)34  ) , 

120. 
Rossman   v.   (lanii.r    (128   C.   C.   A. 
73),  384,  r)(14. 
V.  GarniiT    (211    F.d.    Itij..   401  i, 
114.  r)8(5. 
Rourkf   V.    Klk    Dru;;  Co.    (T.".   N.   Y. 

App.  Div.   14.-)),  373. 
Itow.ll  V.   Row.ll    (122  Wis.    1.   17 1 , 

221. 
Rowland  v.  Mitcli.dl    (I..    !{..    18'.»7.    1 

Ch.    1).    71.   74 1.  It. 
Rowh'v     V.     nou;{hton      (2     Rrcwst. 
.303),    122. 
V.  .1.     F.     RowK'y    Co.     (  Kil     F<  <1. 

It.'p.   04),    178. 
V.     Rowley     (11:5    C.    C.    A.    38(5). 
4.-|». 
Royal    Itakiii;;    l'oW(hT   Co.    v.    On  tin 
i2(5    Fid.   Rip.   203).  28(5.  200. 


Roynl  Hakin;;    I'owdir   I'o.   v.    Royal 

('.8  C    C.  A.  4JM»),  177.   17». 
V.   Royal    Chrmit-al    Co.     (Price   & 

Stenart.    1  ).    903. 
Royal    InH.    Co.    v.    Midland    Iiim.   Co. 

(20   R.    P.  C.   728),  4(.J». 
Roystone   v.   Woodltnry   Dermatolofj- 

ioal     institute     (122    N.    Y.    S. 

444),  200. 
R«»y    Watch -Chhi'  Co.    v.    Camm-Koy 

Watch-Caso     Co.      (39     N.     Y. 

Siipp.  079),  330. 

s 

Saccharin    Corp    v.    Wild.    1903     (1 

Ch.  410),  431. 
Safe-Cabinet   Co.   v.   (^IoIm'- Wernicke 

Co.    (3  Ohio  App.  24),  293. 
Sa^e    V.    Taus/ky     (Fed.    Case    No. 

12214),  48.-.. 
Salin-rer  v.  Salin^-.r   ( ti!)  X.  II.  oSO), 

2.-)0. 
Salomon    v.    llert/     (40    X.    .1.    Eij. 

400),  254,  2r)r>,  20(5. 
Sam.son    Cordage   Work.s  v.    Puritan 

Corda-e    .Mills    (211    Fed.    Rep. 

003).    193. 
Sanuii'l    V.    Her;;ir    (24,  Harl..    103), 

418. 
Samuel  Bros.  &  Co.  v.   Ilofitetter  Co. 

(.-.r>  C.  C.  A.    Ill;,  313. 
Samuels      v.      Spit/.er      ( 177      Mass. 

220),   .328. 
Sanche    v.    Malii.r    (219    Ills.    349), 

471. 
Sanders  v.  .laeol.    (20   Mo.  App.  90), 

200. 
San    Francisco  Natl.   Hank   v.    Dodpo 

(197    U.  S.  70,  93).   221. 
Sanitaa  Co.  v.  Condy   (I   P.   R.   19.-.), 

:{:jo. 

Sanitas     Xnt     Fi.od     I'u.     v.     C<in<T 
(134    .Mich.   370),   2;)7. 


V.    Raymond    (70   Fed.    Rip.    370).   |    Saul  a    Fe    Fleitric    Co.   v.    Ilitelieotk 


4,    128,    lO.".,    2Hi.    211 


(9  New   .Me.\.   l.-)0),  228. 


Sur-Sch 


TAULK   OF    CASES. 


bcxix 


Rrfcrcncca  arc  to  paycH. 


Surra/.in    v.    W.    R.    Irln-    ri;:ar    & 
Tobacco  Co.   (\Y.\  Fed.   lU'p.  024- 
027),   17,   10,  28,   00.   124,  380, 
530. 
V.  \V.   R.    lrl)y   Cigar   Co.    (Sf)   C. 
C.  A.  4»0),  31. 
Sartor  v.  Stliadcii    (12."i   Iowa,  OUT), 
308. 
V.  Schadfn   (101  N.  W.   Itcp.  .'.l  1  i , 

8,  110. 
V.  Smith    (12")   la.  OOo),  343. 
Saut-rs  Milling  Co.  v.  Kchlor  Flour 
Mills  Co.    (39  App.  D.  C.  Mf)), 
100. 
Sawyer   v.    Horn    (1    Fod.    Rep.  24), 
42,  201.  338,  4;).'). 
V.  Horn     (4    Hughes,    230),    270, 

508. 
V.  Kellogg     (7    Fed.     Rep.    720), 

179,  200,  330,  345,  444. 
V.  Kellogg     (1),      (7     Fed.     Rep. 

721),  73,  92,  403. 
V.  Kellogg     (2),     (9     Fed.     Rep. 
COl),   210,    345,   404,    443,    455, 
490,  491. 
Sawyer    Crystal    Blue    Co.    v.    Hub- 
bard   (32  Fed.   Rep.   388),  209, 
313,  337. 
Saxby  v.  Easterl)ro()k   (Cox.  Manual, 

GOG),  53. 
Saxlehner    v.     Apolliiiaris     Co.     (T^. 
R.,   1807,   1   Ch.  803),  404. 
V.  Eisner    (77  C.  C.  A.  417),  403. 
V.  Eisner    (140    Fed.    Rep.    038), 

403. 
V.  Eisner    &    :Mendels()n    Co.     (88 

Fed.    Rep.   01-70),   :W8,   403. 
V.  Eisner    &    Mendelson    Co.     (2 1, 

(91  Fed.  Rep.  536),  22.  37. 
V.  Eisner  &  Mendelson  Co.  (3), 
(179  U.  S.  19),  22,  37,  123, 
208,  213,  216,  217,  444,  457, 
884. 
V.  Eisner  &  Mendelson  Co.  (4). 
(138  Fed.  Rep.  22,  24),  456, 
457,   4G2. 


Saxlohner   v.    C.raef    (81    Fed.    Rep. 
704),  200. 
V.   NeiJHon    (34  (J.  C.  A.  000 ),  208. 
V.   Neilson     ( K8     Fed.     it.p.     71), 

208. 
V.   Nielsoii     (  170    C.    S.    43),    208. 
V.  Siegel-C()op<-r   Co.     (170    U.    S. 

42 ) ,  205,  440. 
V.   Wagner    (210   U.   S.   375),   105, 

3.")8. 
V.  Wagner  (85  C.  C.  A.  321),  105, 
358. 
Scanlan  &  Bartell  v.  W'illiams   (114 

S.  W.  Rep.  862),   178. 
Seiieer   v.   Ameriean   Ice  Co.    (00  X. 

Y.   Supp.   3),  243. 
Sehendle   v.    Silver    (70    X.    Y.    Sup. 
Ct.  330),  320. 
V.  Silver   (18  X.  Y.  Supp.  1|,  120. 
Selu-nker    v.    Awerbach     (85     N.    Y. 

Supp.  120),  282. 
Selieuer  v.  MuUer  (20  C.  C.  A.  161), 
48,    167. 
v.  Muller   (74  Fed.    I^'p.  225 1 ,  51, 
167. 
Seliinasi   v.    Seliinasi    (155   X.    Y.   S. 

867),  175. 
Schmalz   v.    Wooh-y    (57    X.   J.    ¥a\. 

303),  736. 
Sebmidt    v.    Brieg     (100    Cal.    672 » . 
110,  637. 
v.    Crystal    Soda    Water    Co.     (35 

Pac.  Rep.  855),   110. 
V.  Haake  (35  Pac.  Rep.  855),  110. 
v.    Liberty    Soda    Water   Co.    (35 

Pac.  Rep.  856),  110. 
V.  McEwrn     (35    Pac     Rep.    854), 

110. 
V.    Stcinke    (35    Pac.    Rep.    855), 
110. 
Schneider    v.    Williams     (44    X.    J. 

Eq.  301),   62,  76,  424,   500. 
Schonwald    v.     Ragains     (32    Okla. 
223 ) .  364. 
V.   Ragains    (122   Pac.  Rep.  203), 
373. 


Ixxx 


TADLE   OF   CASES. 


Scb-Sho 


Rcfvrtiu'ts  arc   l<>  /k/j/in. 
Sohrnudir      v.      RtTonford      A      Co.    I    Srnrl.'  \.   ricrrtli  Co.  v.   WanitT   (.'jO 


(Hrownc,  Trn«l«miirkH,  (Ull  »,  «17. 


(.'.  C.  A.  :{21»,  asn. 


St'humaoluT  &  KttlinpT  V.  Srlnvfiiki-    I    S«'ar«  &  NichoI«  Co.  v.  Uriikilcy   ('M 

Ajip.  I).  V.  r>30).  IU2. 
Senrn,  Itcxliuck  fi,  Co.  v.  Klliott  \'ur- 

iii.sli    Co.    (232    Ftd.    lU'p.    .ISS, 

.■.!»(!).  334. 
Si'ojjor    Hi'fri^riTator    (it.    v.     Wliit*' 

Eiiamt'l    Hffrijrorator    Co.    (17H 

F«'d.  Ucp.  .'■)(i7).  S!»,   112. 
S.>fl.v  V.  FiHli.r   (11  Sim.  581),  M. 
Si'igert  V.  Abhott   (1)    01   Md.  276), 

81. 
Scixo  V.  Prov.'zcndr  (L.  R.  1  Ch.  D. 

192).   1«0,  :UI4.  .321,   33.'>. 
Silchow    V.    Bakrr     (03    N.    Y.    59), 

12!t.  214. 
V.    ChalTee    &    Selchow    Mfg.    Co. 

(  132    F.d.   Rop.  !)n6),    108,   147. 
Stltzor    V.    Powell    (8    Phila.    290), 

129. 
Sin  Si'D  Co.  V.  Hritt.-n    ( L.  K..  1899, 

1  Ch.  1).  092 ),  83. 
S.  F.  MyiTS  Co.  V.  Tiittlo   (188  Fed. 

K.p.  .")32),  2.32. 
V.    Tuttk'     (183    Fvd.    Rt-p.    235), 

226. 
Sliacklo    V.    Rak.T     (14    Ves.    468), 

223. 


(2»     (30    OIT.    Caz.    457 1.    418. 
429.  .503.  546. 
V.   WoKram    (35    Fed.    Kip.    2I<1). 
.592. 
."-H'liumat'hcr    v.    Srliwi-nkc     (1)      (26 
Fi-d.    H.'p.    81.SI,    3S5,    3'.t2,    415, 
429,  547. 
SchiiyliT  V.  Curtis   (  19  N.   Y.  Supp. 
264).  269. 
V.   Curtis    (24    N.    Y.    Su|.p.    .')()9- 

511).  271. 
V.    Curtis    (42    N.    K.    K.p.   22-24  >. 

272. 
V.  Curtis    (64  Hun.  594  i .  271. 
Schwarz     v.     .""Jupt-rior     Court     (111 

Cal.   106),  475,  476. 
Schwfitzer  v.   Atkins   (37   L.   .1.  Cli. 

8471.  32."). 
Scott    V.    Mackintosli     (  1     \'.    &     H. 
.503  1 .  222.  242. 
V.    Rowland    (20    \V.    R.   208),    29, 

222. 
V.     Standard     Oil    Co.     (l()(i     Ala. 
475),   103,  313. 
Scriven  v.  North   (67  C.  C.  A.  348), 
51. 


V.  North  (134  F.-d.  R.'p.  366),  193.       Sliavrr    v.    Ilclh-r    &    Morz   Co.     (48 
V.  North  (124  Fi-d.  R<p.  h94,  896l,  C\  C.  A.  48),  44.5. 


51,  102. 
Sfalmry    v.    Orosvcnor     ( Fod.    Cast; 

No.  12570),  79. 
V.    GroBv.nnr     (14    Bhitchf.    262 1 , 

.546. 
Soaich     V.     MaHonScaman     Tranap. 

Co.    (156  N.  Y.  S.  .579),  248. 
St-aman  v.   .lohnson    ( 100  Fed.  Rep. 

915).   93. 
S<'ainl«»«H   RuhlM-r   C'o.    v.    Star    Ruli- 

Iht    Co.     (C.    1).,    I'.ilO.    p.    44), 

.573. 
.s<>archllt{ht  flan  Co.  v.   Pn-Ht-O-Lite 

Co.   (131  C.  C.  A.  026),  314. 


V.    Ililhr   &    Merz   Co.    (108    Fed. 

Ri'p.  821-824),  216. 
V.  Shaver    (54   Iowa.   208.  209),  5, 

64.  177.  424.  442. 
>liaw  V.  I'illin;,'  (175  Pa.  St.  78-84), 

51.  293.  423,  470. 
Sliaw  .Stoekinj;  Co.  v.  Mack    (12  Fed. 

Rep.  7(t7),  6.  129,  330,  337,  3.39, 

341. 
Sheldon     V.     ll(iu;rl,ton     (5     RIatchf. 

285,    201),   223. 
Shelh'y    v.    Sperry     (121     Mo.     .\j)p. 

429),  45,    1.50. 
Sheppard  v.  Stuart    (1.3    I'hil.    117), 

69,   121,  143,  216. 


She-Ski 


TAULi:    OF    CASKS. 


Ixxxi 


Ucfrnnrcs 

S.  HornBhcim   Bros.   &   Co.,   Ltd.  v. 

.1.   II.  Margrave  &   Son    (SI  OIF. 

(In/..  FMi),  .'■)44. 

Sherwood    v.   Andrcw.s    ( ."{   Am.    Law 

R»'p.  N.  S.  fiHH),   104. 

V.  Andrews    (r>  Am.  L.   Reg.   N.  S. 

r)88).  2!),  ;J0,  81,  214. 
V.    Ilortoii,    Cato    4    Co.     (84    Off. 
(Jaz.   2018  1,  (K!.  ."JS."),  .38R. 
Shipwriglit   v.   ChmcntB    (10  \V.    R. 

finn),  28,  .30,  212,  228. 
Shook  V.   Rankin    (0  Bias.  477,  480, 

481),  477. 
S.      Howes      Co.    V.      Howes      Crain 
Cleaner  Co.   (24  Misc.  Rep.  R.3), 
4;').-). 
Shrimpton     v.     Lai<^lit      (IS     licav. 

164),    30;-).   444. 
Sibley   Soap   Co.    v.   Lami)ert   Phar- 
macal  Co.   (103  Off.  Gaz.  2172), 
388. 
Siegert     v.     Abbott     (1)      (61     Md. 
270),   30,  447. 
V.  Abbott   (1)    (01  Md.  28(5),  417. 
V.     Abbott     (2)      (Co.\,     Manual, 

718),   147. 
V.    Abbott    (4)     (2;-)    X.    Y.    Supp. 

.'SnO),  417. 
V.  Ab))ott   (72  Hun,  243),  iVJO. 
V.  Killers    (Sel).  432).   147,   404. 
V.  Findlater  (L.  R.  7  Ch.  D.  801  i , 

98,   147,  2r)3,   404. 
V.  Gandolfi    (139  Fed.   Rep.  917), 

115. 
V.   Gondolfi    (149   Fed.   Rep.   100), 

98,  llf). 
V.    Lawrence    (11   Vic.   L.    R.   47), 
404,  443. 
Simmons   Hardware   Co.    v.    Waibel 

(1  So.  Dak.  488),  260. 
Simmons  Medicine  Co.  v.  Simmons 
(81  Fed.  Rep.  163),  2r)4,  2r)7, 
258,  280. 
Simplex  Automobile  Co.  v.  Kahn- 
weiler  (162  App.  Div.  480), 
367. 


nri;  tn  payrH. 

Simpson    v.    Wriglit     (1|     (If)    <  iff. 

Gaz.   248),  r>ll. 
V.     Wright     (2)      (l.'i     Off.     (Jaz. 

293),    500,    511. 
Singer  Mfg.  Co.    v.    Meiit    (163   C.  S. 

169,  204),  92. 
V.   Bent      163   l".  S.  205).  HS,   137, 

149,    151,   172. 
V.    Bent    (41    Fed.    R.p.   214),   88. 
V.  Brill    (Cox,  Manual,  672),   149. 
V.   British   Empire   Mfg.   Co.    (20 

R.  P.  C.  313.  318,  319),  348. 
V.    Cimrlebois    (10    Rap.    Jud.    Q. 

C.  S.   167),  91. 
V.    Hippie     (109    Fed.    Rep.     l.VZl, 

87. 
V.  James  Spence  &  Co.    (10  R.    I'. 

C.  297,  309),  347. 
V.  June  (41  Fed.  Rep.  208),  88. 
V.  June  Mfg.  Co.    ( 103  U.  S.   160, 

186),  88,  90,  111,  137,  149,   151, 

171,   178,    193,  216,  4.58. 
V.    Kimball   &    Morton    (Ct.   Sess. 

Cas.,  3d  ser.,  XI,  267),  69. 
V.  Larsen   (8  Biss.  151),  88. 
V.  Larsen    (Fed.  Case  Xo.   12902), 

172. 
V.  Loog   (18  Ch.  D.  412),  294. 
V.    Loog    (3)     (L.    R.    18    Ch.    D. 

395-404),  398,  399. 
V.    Loog    (3)     (8   App.    Cas.    39), 

335. 
V.   Loog    (3)    (L.   R.   8  App.   Cas. 

15),  149,  412,  415,  442. 
V.   Riley    (11   Fed.  Rep.  706),  88. 
V.  Stanage   (6  Fed.  Rep.  279),  88. 
V.  Wilson   (2  Ch.  D.  434),  64,  65, 

290.   306,  413. 
V.  Wilson   (3  App.  Cas.  376-391), 

293. 
Singleton  v.   Bolton    (3  Doug.  2931, 

33,  49,  293. 
S.  Jarvis  Adams  Co.  v.  Knapp    (58 

C.  C.  A.  I ) ,  265. 
Skinner  v.  Oakcs   (10  Mo.  App.  45), 

27,  39,   181. 


Ixxxii 


T.MM.K    «»K    C'ASliS. 


Slu-Sou 


Slack  V    Suddoth    (102  Tonn.   :i7M.   !    Smith  v.  Webb  (170  Ah».  r.OO . .  228, 

248. 


Slal.r    V.    Banwrll     (.'.0    F.-d.     Roj). 
i:i(>i.   472. 
V.  M.rritt    (7.-.  N.  Y.  2«;8).  47:.. 


V.    Woodniir    (48    Bar!..    4:»S  i .  7f>, 

i:{0. 

Sniitli    A    l)a^i^i    Mf;.-.    I  «>.    v.    Smith 

(80  Vri\.  it.p.  48«;i.  :{:«!>. 

(K) 


Slazfnuir    v.    F.-ltham    («    T..    V.   C       Smitli-Dixun    (  ...    v.     St.'vonH     (I 
r,:ui.  2!Mi.  :i2:i.  :t2:..  ^,,,    ,i()».  4:.l. 


Sloep.T    V.    Bak.r    (22    N.    D.    :^!^«' i . 


V.    Sti'vi'iiH     (.V.»    Atl.    rv.j).    401), 
(585). 


ShH-py    Kyi'    Milling'    Co.    v.    C.    F.       Snidt-r  v.   McK.-lvcy    (27    Out.    App. 


IJlanki-    Ti'a    &    Coffm-    (.'o.     (8r> 
Off.  Gaz.  1005).  f,(i.   124,  385. 
Small    V.    Sand.Ts     (US    Ind.    lO.''.), 

305. 
Smallcy    v.    Cwoiw     ("'^    la.    241), 

255. 
Smith     V.     Adams     (0     Paifjo,    435- 
443),    148. 
V.  Carron  Co.   (13  P.  U.  108).  331. 
V.  David  H.   Brand  &  Co.    (<i7   X. 

.1.  Kq.  520),  230. 
V.    Evcn-tt     (27    IWav.    44(5).    222. 

230. 
V.  Fair    (14  Out.   Rep.  720  i.  28. 
V.  C.il.hH    (44   N.  H.  335),  231. 
V.    Imu8    (32  Alb.  L.  J.   455),  28, 

150,   342. 
V.  Roman    (8   Ohio    Di-c,    reprint 

32),    3(i0. 
V.    Kraiiw    (ir.O    Fed.    R.-i..    270, 

271),   140. 
V.   Mason     (W.    R..    1875,    p.    02), 

127. 
V.  lU-ynoldB  (1)     (10  Blatfhf.  85  i . 

504. 
V.     R.-ynolds     (2)      (3     OIT.     C.az. 

213),  503. 
V.      R.'VnohlH      (2)       (10      Blachf. 

100).  503.  504.  5015. 
V.      U.-ynoldB      (F»-d.      Cum;      No. 

13008),  440. 
V.    Sixbury    (25    Hnn.    232).    125. 

1.38. 
V.  Walk.r    (37  Mi<h.   45t5),   150. 


33!)).  247. 
Snt.d-rrass    v.    WrlU     (11     Mo.    App. 

500  1 .  20.  20.  20. 
Snow     V.     Holm.s      (71     Cal.     142), 

240.  251. 
Siiowdcii     V.      .Noah      (lloj^kin".'     Ch. 

347  ) ,   4,  40,   100,  202. 
Snydi-r  Mff,'-  Co.  v.  SnydiT  (54  Ohio 

St.   80).   28.   244. 
Snyder     Pasteurized      Milk     Co.     v. 
Burton     (82    N.    -I.     K<l.     185), 
232. 
Sohier  v.  .Tohnson    (111    Mass.  238), 

28.  34. 
Sohl    V.    C.eisendorf    (1    Wills.,    Iiid. 

00),  211,  330. 
Solia   Cigar   Co.   v.    Po/.o    (It)    Colo. 

388),   30,    144. 
Somers  V.  Newman    (:51    .\pp.  D.  C. 

103),   127. 
Somerville    v.    Schembri    (L.    R.    12 

App.  Cas.  453-457),  443. 
Sooy  V.   State    (41   N.  J.   Law,  304), 

257. 
Sor^r    V.    W.dsh    (Hi    Oir.    Caz.    010), 

130,  502,   503. 
South     Carolina    v.     S.-ym.mr     (153 

V.   S.  353),   532. 

Southern   White    Load    Co.    v.   Gary 

(25    Fed.    Rep.    125),    IfiO,    168, 

331. 

V.   Coit    (30    Fed.    Ke|>.   402),    1C7. 

Southern     (or    Southerner     v.    How 

(2    Pophani,     llli.     10,    40,    57. 


Soc-Sta 


TAIUJ;    (»K    CASKS. 


Ixxxlii 


llvfirvnc<it 

Social   Rf;,'.    AaHn.    ».    Murphy    ( 12H 

Fod.  K«'p.  116),  201,  33:'). 
V.    Howard     (tKI    Frd.    IJ.p.    270), 

12!>,  201. 
Soc'l<''t(''     .Anoiiynif     v.     Haxtcr      ( 14 

IMat.-lif  2(11).  :{()H. 
V.  Wostcrii  Distilling' Co.  (4()  Fed. 

R«'p.   021).  4(52. 
V.     Wt'stiTii     Distillinf;     Co.      (43 

Ffd.    Hep.   41(5),    11(5,    147,    1^)0. 
V.     Weflti-rn     Di.stilliii','     ('<>.      (42 

Fed.  Kcp.  00),  47.'). 
Soci^"*!^     Anonyme      Boiu-dictini"     v. 

Hygradf    Wine    Co.     (173    Fed. 

Rep.  796),  437. 
Soci^te    Anonyme    de    la    Distillerie 

de    la    Benedictine    v.    Jlicalo- 

vitch,   Fletcher  &  Co.    (36   Alb. 

Law   J.   3(54),    116,  503. 
SociC'tiT'  de  la  Benedictine  v.  Micalo- 

vitch    (3(5  All).  L.  .1.  3(54),  .'30. 

Society   des   Iluiles   D'Olive    de   Nice 

V.    Rorke     (31    X.    Y.    Sup]).    .")!). 

451. 
Society   of  Accountants  v.   Corpora- 
tion   of   Accountants    (20   Scot. 

Sess.   Caa.,   4th   ser.   7.50),   400. 
Spaldinjj  &    Bros.   v.    Gamage,    Ltd. 

(32  R.  P.  C.  284),  46. 
Speddin-j  V.   Fitzpatriek    (38  C.   D., 

p.  413),  435. 
Sperry  v.   Percival   Millin}^  Co.    (81 

Cal.    252),    286,    200,    326,    4(18, 

637. 
Sperry    &   Huteliinson    Co.    v.   Asso- 
ciated    ^Merchants'     Stamp     Co. 
(208   Fed.  Rep.  205).  365. 
V.    Fenster    (210    Fed.    Rep.    755), 

038. 
V.    Pommer    (10!)    Y>.'<\.    Rep.    300, 

314).   364. 
Spice  V.   James    (Seh.  46),   224. 
Spicf;el     v.     Zuckernian     (175     Fed. 

Rep.  078),  68,   100. 
Spieker    v.    Lash    (102    Cal.   38-45), 
106,   181,   037. 


«r«  to  pngcs. 

Sjiier     V.     l,anil>diii      (45    Ca.     310), 

234. 
Spratt  V.  .I.IT.ry    (10   B.  &  C.  240), 

222. 
Sprifi;,'    V.     Fislier     (222     Fi-d,     R<p. 

004,  067).  305. 

Sprint;     Valley      Water      Works     v. 

Schottler     (62    Cal.     60,     118), 

226. 
S.    R.    Fell    Co.    V    .Jolin    K.    Robhins 

Co.     (136    (".    C.    A.    2.58),    142. 

334. 
S.     S.     Wliit.'     Dental     .\If^'.     Co.     v. 

Mitch. -11    (  1S8    Fed.    Rcji.    1017  1. 

•.^66. 
Staehelherf,'    v.    Ponce     (128    U.    S. 

686).  106,  301,  .546. 
V.  Ponce    (23  Fed.  Rep.   430).  81, 

124,   418. 
Stamford    Foundry   Co.   v.   Thatclier 

Furnace     Co.      (200     Fed.     Re]). 

324),   120. 
Stanipin<r  Co.  v.  F»-Ilows   (163  Mass. 

101  I.   16. 
Stiuulard    Cigar     Co.     v.    Coldsmitli 

(58   Pa.   Super.  Ct.   33),  4.-)4. 
Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  Doyle   (118  Ky. 

662),  373. 
Standard     Paint    Co.     v.     Rubheroid 

Roofing  Co.    (140  C.  C.  A.  235), 

330. 
V.     Rubheroid     Roofing    Co.     (224 

Fed.  Rep.  605),  103. 
V.  Trinidad  Asphalt  Mfg.  Co.    (00 

C.  C.  A.  I!t5).  110. 
V.   Trinidad  Asi)]ialt    Co.    (220   U. 

5.  4461,  110.  103. 

Standard    Table    Oil    Cloth    Co.    v. 

Trenton   Oil   Cloth   &    Linoleum 

Co.    (63   Atl.   Rep.   846).    120. 
V.  Trenton   Oil   Cloth  &   Linolciim 

Co.    (71   X.  .T.   Kq.  5.55),  342. 
Standard   Varnish    Works    v.    Fisher 

153    Fed.    Rep.    028,    030),     14, 

130,   102. 


Ix.wiv 


TAULl.    I'K    (ASKS 


SUSte 


MjuidinpiT    V.    Stiuiiliuuf"     i  1!>    I.«'g. 

Int.   8:.>.    17_'. 
Star  Co.  V.  Colvrr   l'nl>.    ll<>u-f   i  IJl 

F«i.   Ri'p.   12!»l.  4.-.:J. 
V.   Whwler  Syndicate    (  l."».")   N.  Y. 

S.  7S2).  :>. 
Starey  v.  Chihvorth  (Junpowdrr  Co. 

{h.  R.  24  Q.  n.  I).  HO).  77. 


Itefcrcnni  an-  t<>  /<ii«/'S. 

Stud'   of    I'lMiiisylvimiii    v.    \\  lu-flin;; 

k  H.'lmont   Hridnc  Co.    (59  I'.  S. 

421 -4:1:$).  400. 
.•^tc-finor     V.     Hlak«'     ['M\     I'.d.     Hrp. 

IS.'J.    1S4),   4S4. 
St.iir  V.   Bin;.'    (21.".    K.d.    K.-p.   204). 

:iO!l. 
V.  (iimhfl   HroH.    (  LSI  C.  C.  A.  21). 


2;»i. 

{^tar    Milling'    Co.    v.    M.-toalf    (240  |    ^,^j^    ^.     National    Lifo    Artsociation 


U.  S.  403 ) .  25 
Slate    V.    Rarnett     (i:.!l     Ind.    4:52). 

673. 
V.    Raskowitz     (l.'>(5    S.    W.     Rep. 

J)4.")t.  70s. 
V.     RerlinslK'iMKT     ( t>2    Mo.     .\pp. 

16.")).  Ql. 
V.  Rick   (167  Mo.  272).  7 IS. 
V.    Rishop    (31   S.   \V.    H.-p.   !t,    ill. 

f1. 
V.  Risliop    (12S  Mo.  373),  03,  718. 
V.   Royd.  I).-l.    (!».-)  Atl.  R*-p.  232). 

C.V2. 
V.   Dinni.sse  (  l()!t  Mo.  434),  7  IS. 
V.  (Jibbs   '.")6  Mo.   133),  22,  .'.7.  OS, 

718. 
V.   \\tL\yn    (0   Ind.   App.    107),  02, 

673. 
V.    Hand    Rrcwinp    Co.    (32    R.    I. 

m),  7no. 

V.  Mason    (38  Par.  Rep.   1.30).  .">."). 
V.   McCratli    (!I3   Mo.   3.17),    184. 
V.     Mont^oni.iy     (  UtO     I'ac     R«'I'. 

771).  821. 
V.  Nicftmann    (101   Mo.   A|tp.  .')07 ) , 

718. 
V.    Mimidt    (48    Atl.    R.p.    .'.88). 

736. 
V.   St.   Clair    (137    .Mo.    App.    183), 

718. 
V.  Tetu    (08  Minn.  3.-.1),  SO. 
V.  Thierauf   (167  Mo.  420).  7  IS. 
V.  Wri^rlit    (  I.-.O  Ind.  .304  1,  073. 
Statf.  ex  ril.,  Spenrerian   Ren  Co.  v. 

KiN.-y    (  10.-.  .\pp.   Div.    132  1.  Oti, 


(105  Ga.  821,  1800),  3.50,  361. 
Steintbal  v.  Samson  (Seb,  .546),  143. 
.'■'teinway  v.  Ilrnsliaw    (5  V.   R.  77), 

331. 
Sti'pliano      V.      Satniatopoulds       (  l!'!t 

Fed.    Rep.    451),    128. 
*^f«plifii.s  V.   DeConto    (4   .\bb.    Rr.   X. 
S.    47).    124.   202. 
V.    DeConto     (7     Robertson,    343), 

200. 

V.  Reel   (16  L.  T.   X.  S.   145),  331. 

Sterlin<i     Remedy     Co.     v.     Eureka 

('hemical    &    Mff.'.    Co.    (SO    Fed. 

Rep.   1051.  115.  334. 

V.  Knreka  Mf},'.  Co.    (70  Fed.  Rep. 

704),  .V2,    120. 
V.    fJorey     (110     Fed.     Rep.    372), 

324,  344. 
V.  Spermine  Remedy  Co.   (.50  C.  C. 
A.  057),  .325,  403. 
."■'terlinfr  Varni.sli  Co.  v.  Macon    (217 

I 'a.   7),  257. 
Stern     V.     Rarrett     Chem.     Co.     (2ft 

.Mi.-^e.   i;.p.  000),   128. 

sternlxTfr    Mf-r.    Co.    v.    Miller,    Dii 

Rnil   &    Peters   Mf}?.  Co.    (88  C. 

C.   A.  30S).    113. 

V.   Miller,   I)u   Rrul  4  Peters  Mfg. 

Co.    (161    Fed.    Rep.    318),   386. 

?•  (eridierjier    v.    'lliallieimer     (3    ()(T. 

(.'a/..    120),   117,  .'>05. 
Stenart   v.  Cladntone    (L.   R.    10   Cli. 

I).  646),  227. 
Sl.-venH    A    Co.    v.    StiloH     (20    R.    I. 
300),  257,  300. 


Ste-Tae 


TAISI-K    OK    (:ASE8. 


Ixxxv 


I'rfrrcnccH  lire  tn  pa  yes. 


SU'vcM.--    Limn    Works   v.    William   & 

.IdIiii   Don  \   Co.    (  121    1'<m1.   Ki-p. 

1711,   IS.  :mi,   Hlit. 
St«'\vart     v.     ('lmllacoiiil)c      (11      111. 

App.  .T!)),  2:)0. 
V.  Hook    (lis  (ia.   44.-)),  2:)4,  2r>7. 
V.    Hudson    (222    Fel.    Hep.    .■>S4 ) . 

3r)7,  3(»!». 
V.  Smithson   (1   Hilt.  11!»),  83,  85. 
Steward    v.    Kinsti-in     ((14    OIT.    Caz. 

ir)33),  400. 
Stior  V.  MnrhuF}?  Hros.   (C.  I)..  r.tl3. 

p.  234 ) .  r)72. 
Stirling    Silk    Mfj,'.    Co.    v.    Sterling 

Silk  Co.    (46  Atl.  Rep.  1!)!)),  87. 
St.  Louis  Piano  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Morkrl 

(1  Mo.  App.  30,-,),  6.",,  .3.11. 
St.  Louis  Stanipinji;  Co.  v.  Piper   (.'}:{ 

N.  Y.  Supp.  443),  104. 
}St.  Munpo  Co.  V.  Viper  Co.    (27   H. 

P.  C.  420),  333,  460. 
Stokes  V.  Allen  (0  N.  Y.  Supp.  846), 

130. 
V.  Landraff    (17   Barb.   608).   101, 

103.  106,  107.   133. 
Stokes  Bros.  Mfp.  Co.  v.  Heller    (.lO 

Fed.  Rep.  207  ) .  25.5,  263. 
Stone    V.    Carlan     (Cox,    Case    No. 

104),  355, 
V.  Goss   (65  X.  J.  Eq.  756),  257. 
Ston<'braker  v.  Stonehraker   (33  Md. 

252),   177. 
Stoupliton  V.  Woodard  (30  Fed.  Rep. 

002),   119. 
Strasser    v.    Moonelis     (108    X.    Y. 

611),  02,  500. 
Straus     V.     Xotasemo     Hosierj-    Co. 

(240  U.  S.  170),  448. 
Sirausp  V.  Weil  (101  Fed.  Rep  527). 

360. 
Street  v.  Bla.v,  1S31    (2  Barn.  &  Ad. 

456),  4.34. 
Street  &    Smith    v.    Atlas    Mf;,'.    Co. 
(231  U.  S.  348),  205,  466,  581. 
Streeter  v.  Rush    (25  Cal.  67),  248. 


s.  T.  Taylor  Co.  v.  Xast  (154  X.  Y 

Supp.  082),  124,  202. 
Stuart  V.  F.  (i.  Stewart  Co.  (01   Fed 

l{.p.    213),    178,    170,    1K2,    .331 

344. 
v.    F.  a.   Stuart  Co.    (33   C.  C.  A 

4S0),  177. 
Stuart    &     Co.     v.    ScottiKli    Val    di 

Travers    Paving   C^o.    (Ct.   Se»ji 

Cas.,  4tli  ser.   13,   1).  104. 
•^'luckcs  V.  National  Candy  Co.   ( 158 

Mo.  App.  342),  267. 
Summit  City  Soap  Works  v.  Stand- 
ard   Soap   Co.    (37    App.    D.   C. 

604),  125. 
Sui)reme   Court   of   Hamilton-Brown 

Shoe   Co.    V.    Wolf    Bros.   &   Co. 

(240  U.  S.  641).  105. 
Supreme  Lodge  K.  of  P.  v.  Improved 

Order  K.  of  P.   (113  Mich.  133). 

100. 
Swain    V.    .Tohn.^on    (151    X.   C.   03), 

365. 
Swift    V.    Dey    (4    Robertson,    611), 

306,  475. 
V.  Peters  (11  Id.   1110),  510. 
Swift  &   Co.    V.    Brenner    (125    Fed. 

Rep.  826),  370. 
V.  Groff  (114  Fed.  Rep.  605),  440. 
Sykes  V.  Sykes  (3  B.  &  Cr.  541),  83, 

203.  300,  413. 
Symington    v.    Footman     (.56    L.    T. 

X.  S.  696),  104. 
Symonds    v.    Greene    (28    Fed.    Rep. 

834),    121,   302,    303,    415,   453, 

473,  488,  546. 
V.  Jones  (82  Me.  302),  29. 


Tabor  v.  Hoffmann    (118  X.  Y.  30), 
257. 

Taendsticksfabriks  Aktiebolaget  Vul- 
can V.  Myers   (139  X.  Y.  364  i, 
131,  444,  449. 
V.  Myers  (11  N.  Y.  Sup.  663),  3 IS. 


Ixxxvj 


TAlll.i:    UK    CASUS. 


T-1    riio 


III ffriurca  arr  in  paffrs. 
Talbot  V.  Wobhy    <  :i    I*.    I'    f.  •»7«>.        I.\a,  &  I'.  I!.  Co.  v.  W  il.lt  r   (Hi  l\tl. 

iio.  H.|..  !i:i:n.  -js:.. 

'lallcot  V.  MtKjre   ((5  iliin,    Jdt'ii.  Jifi.   :     Tluu-kiTH.v  v    SnxKlmrr    ( (1(»  ('.  ('.  A. 


402. 


:>fl'2 1 ,  208. 


Tarrunt  A  t'n.  v.  llolT  (Tl    l<'tl.   1J<I'    |     I'liaddiMis  Duv  id.H  (."n.  v.   DaviiU   ( 2.'{:{ 


1(13).  7S. 
V.  llolT  (22  ('.  (".  A.  (544).  17«. 
V.  lloir   (7«  Fed.  R»'|>-  "'>!'».  251. 
Taussig  V.  'iHiissi):  (  1  IS  ()   C.  22.'>1 ) , 

.-)71. 
Taylor  v.  A.hUm   (II  M.  \  \N .  4<t2i. 
21>3. 
V.  H.-mis    (4   His.s.  40ti).  21).  27. 
V.   Hotliin    (  l"<-«i.  (MX'  N...    l.TSOi. 

:U.  .")S. 
V.  farpi-ntor    (3t    (11    rai;:t\  2'.t2  i . 

TiS.  421    442. 
V.    Carpi-liter    (3)     (2    Saiulf.    Cli. 

003).   17.  22.  30.->.  33S. 
V.  CarpiMitt-r    (1)     (3  Story.  4.")8), 

22.    127.  206.  443.  S.V). 
V.  Carp.-ntor    (2)     (2  Wood.   &    M. 
1).  22.    140.   20(>.   200.   211,   33S. 
41fi.  410. 
V.  (Jilli.-s    (.-lO  N.  Y.  331).   103. 
V.  Howard  (110  Ala.  46S).  240. 
V.    Taylor     (L.    R.     2    Kq.     200). 
177.  300,  344. 
Taylor   Iron   &    Stool    Co.  v.   Nichols 

(70  N.  .1.  Kq.  r)41),  2r).),  2.")7. 
Taylor  Provision  Co,  v.  Oobel    (180 

Fi-d.  Rep.  938),  73,  100. 
T.  R.  Dunn  Co.  v.  Trix  Mff,'.  Co.   (63 

N.  Y.  Supp.  33),  470. 
Telephone  Mfji.  Co.   v.   Sumter  Mf>:. 

Co.    (63  S.  C.  313).   160. 
TennoHBoe    Coal    Co.    v.    Kelly    ( 163 

Ala.  348).  36."). 
Terry    Steam   Turbiiie    Co.    v.    R.    F. 
Sturtevant    Co.    (204    Fed.    Rep. 
103),  434. 
Tetlow  V.  Savournin  (1.")  I'liila.  170). 
2.')6. 
V.  TappuM   (H.-)  Fid.  Rep    774),  26. 
64,  70,  72,  130,  213. 


V.  S.  461),  384. 
V.    Davids     (  16.")     Fed.    I!ep.    7!I2). 

.")64 
'v.     Davi.ls     (  l!l()     F<d.     Rep.    28.")). 

.")64. 
V.   Davids   (102  C.  C.  A.  240),  .'>64. 
Tlie     Amiable    Naney    (16    l\    S..    3 

Wheat.   .-)46.  .VjS),  421. 
The    Collins    Co.    v.    Oliver    Ames   &. 

Con   Corporation    (18    Fi-d.   Rep. 

.")6I  57'  ),  40,-). 
I  hedford  Medicine  Co.  v.  Curry    (06 

Ca.   8!l),  308. 
The  Fair  v.  .lose  Morales  &  Co,    (82 

111.   A  pp.   400),  26. 
Ihe  Merchandise  Marks  Acts,   1887- 

1804    (.')0   and    .ll   Viet.,  c.  2S), 

20. 
Ilieodore     Rectanus     Co.    v.     I'nited 

Drufj  Co.    (226  Fed.  Rep.  545). 

100.  128. 
v    United  Dru^'  Co.    (141  C.  C.  A. 

301).  4,10. 
The  Peck  Pros.  &  Co.  v.  Peck  Bros. 

Co.  (,")1  C.  C.  A.  251),  180. 
Thermofiene    Co.   v.    Thermozine   Co. 

(22.")   Fed.  Rep.  446),   112. 
Thomas  (i.  Carroll  A  Son  Co.  v.  Mc- 

Tlvaine    &     Raldwin     (171     Fi^l. 

IN  p.    12.").   120).  73. 
Thomas  C  Plant  Co.  v.  May  Co.   (44 

C.   C.   A.   ,")34).    10,    127.    105. 
V.    May   Co.    (  100    Fed.    Rep.    72), 

127. 
V.   May  Merc.   Co.    (  l.")3    Fed.    Rej). 

220),    127.   448. 
Thompson     v.      .\ndrus      (73     Mich. 

.l.-)!).  222. 
V.  Mackinnon  (2  .Steph.  Dig.  726), 

28. 


Tho-Tut 


TAULE   OF    CASES. 


lxxx\  ii 


Ilcfcrcncra  arc  tn  puyea. 


ThompHoii     \.     Montgomery     (1891, 

App.  Cas.  217),  102. 
V.   Montgornery    (41   Cli.    D.  3.")4 ) , 

194. 
V.  Mont{,n)rii.Ty    (fi  R.  P.  C.  4041. 

V.     Wiiiclicstci-      cm;     Mass.     214  1, 

112. 
V     W'iiiiH'liaf^o    County     (4S    lowii, 

1.-..-)),  222. 
Tliompson  &    Co.    v.    Rol>ertson    (Ct. 

Scss.   Cas.,    4tli   scT.,    XV,   880), 

G2. 
Tliomsen  v.  Union  Castle  Mail  S.  S. 

Co.  (160  Fed.  Ri'p.  2.')1).  370. 
Thonison    v.    W'inclH'stcr     (  1!)     I'ick. 

214),  41. 
Thorley's    Cattle    Food   Co.    v.    Mas- 

sam    (42  L.  T.  N.  S.  S.ll),   177. 
V.    Massam    ( L.    R.    40   ]..   .1.    Cli. 

713),  r)3. 
Tliornbury  v.  l^cvill    (1   Y.  &  C.  Cli. 

.'i.")4),  224. 
Tliornton     v.     Crowley     (47     X.     V. 

Super.  Ct.  r)27).  301. 
Tliuni  V.  Andrews  (53  Fed.  Rep.  S4, 

85),  484. 
Thum  Co,  V.  Tloczynski    (114   :Mi<li. 

149),  254,  256. 
TliynneA.  Shove  (89  L.  T.  Jour.  84). 

29. 
V.  Shove    (L.  R.,  1890.  4.")  Ch.  D. 

577-.-82),  174,  181,  230. 
Tichenor  v.  Xewnian    (186  111.  264). 

225. 
Tim  &  Co.  v.  Cluett,  Peabody  &  Co. 

(42  App.  D.  C.  212),  564. 
T.  M.  Kiidow  Cigar  Co.  v.  Geo.  B. 

Sprague  Cigar  Co.    (35  App.  1). 

C.  345),   104. 
Tobacco   Co.   v.   Polacsck    (170    Fed. 

Rep    117),  308. 
Todd    V.   \Vliitaker    (217    Fed.   Rep. 

319),  481. 

Tode  V.  Gross  (127  X.  Y.  485),  246, 
254. 


Tong(-  v.  Ward   (21  L.  T.  X.  S.  480), 

331,  404,  443,  492. 
Towle  v.  Spear   (7  l'<'iui.   I..  .J.   17(ii, 

113. 
li.wn   v.  StetHon    (3   Daly,  53),    lOI. 
v.  Steti^on   (5  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S,  218), 

134. 
TownserKl    v.    Ilur^t    (37    Miss.  679), 

2.')2. 
Tracy    v.    Hank.r    (170    .\Ia.ss.    266). 

62.  694. 
Trademark  Cases  (  100  T.  S.  H2 ) ,  17, 

19.   04.    70,    37H,    370,   407,    .')01, 

.-)3 1 . 
Irask   Fi^li  Co.   v.  Wooster   (28  Mo. 

App.  408),  110. 
Travelers'  Insurance  Machine  Co.   v. 

Traveler.s'    In>urance    Co.     (  134 

S.  W.   Rep.  877),   112. 
V.    TruveU-rs'    Ins.    Co.     (143    Ky. 

216),  187. 
Trego  V.  Hunt  ( 65  L.  J.  Ch.  1 ) ,  230 

240. 
Triii'dad    Asphalt    Co.    v.    Standard 

Paint  Co.    (103   Fed.   Hep.  977 1 

193. 
Trisdorfer  &   Co,   v.   Estate  of   Bas 

sett    (60   MSS.   D.   Sept.    1896) 

70. 
Tuck  &  Sons  v.  Priester  (19  Q.  B.  U 

629 t    260. 
Tucker  Alfg.  Co.  v.  Boyington   (Fed 

Cas.  Xo.  14229),  88. 
V.    Boyington     (9    Off.    Gaz.    455) 

112,  301. 
Tuerk  Power  Co.  v.  Tuerk  (30  X.  Y 

Supp    384),  177. 
Turner  v.  Evans    (2  El.  &  El.  512), 

242 
V.  Major  (3  Giff.  442),  29.  222. 
Turton  &  Sons,  Ltd.,  v.  Turton    (42 

Ch.  D.  128),  175. 
Tussaud  V.  Tussaud  (38  \V.  R.  440), 

29,  175.  177. 
Tuttle  V.  Blow   (176  Mo.  158,  173), 

38. 


Ixxxviii 


T.MU.K    OK    CASES. 


'J  «»•  liii 


/i*c/ii<  ■»<•«« 

rwentscl.f   Stoom   Blofkcry   Goor   v. 

Kllinpr    t-Jli    W .    K.    TD),    HM, 
443,  444. 


rU-da   V.   Zinloit.i    ( 2'2fi   V.  S.  452). 

437. 
IMell-Pmlock     Mfjr.     Co.     v.     Id.-ll 

Works  (32  App.  I).  C.  2S2).  12h. 

.".70. 
rilinnn  v.  la-viba    (  1!M)S,  A.  C.  443), 

Jt. 
ludrrwood  Typewriter  Co.  v.   A.   B. 

Dick   Co.    (163  Off.    (Jaz.    730), 

3!I0. 
V.  A.  11.  Dick  Co.    (3(J  Ajpp.   D.  C. 

17r»i.  ."iG7. 
rngles-lli>j,'j,M-ttc   Mfg.   Co.    v.    i-'anii- 

ers'   Hog  &   Cattle   Powder  Co. 

(232  Fed.  Rep.  116),  D.-). 
I'nion     Klectric     Co.     v.     Creamery 

Package     Mfg.     Co.      (203     Fed. 

Rep.  .-)3),  374. 
I'nion    Pacific    Coal    Co.    v.    I'nited 

States  (  173  Fed.  Rep.  737).  \r^(]. 
I'nion    Paper   Collar    Co.    v.    Metro- 
politan Collar  Co.,  Ltd.  (3  Daly, 

171).  472. 
I'nion  ."switch  4  Signal  Co.  v.  Sperry 

(  16!l  Fed.  Rep.  !I26»,  2r)7. 
liiitcd    iAH-e    Mfg.    Co.    V.    llartheis 

Mfg.   Co.     (217    Fed.    Reji.    17.')). 

486. 
I'nited    Lace    i    Hraid    Mfg.    Co.    v. 

Bartli^ls     Mfg.    Co.     (213     Fed. 

Rep.  .■)3.> ) .  43."). 
V.    Bartliels    Mfg.    Co.    (221     Fe<l. 

Rep.   4.'>«),   ."..    116,    l!t3.   324. 
I'nited    StaU-s    v.    Brann     (3!l    Fe<l. 

Rep.  77."»).  66.  386,  408,  .-)31. 
V.  CamfK'  (8!»  Fed.  Rcj..  61»7 ) .  400, 

410. 
V.  Ducll   (17  App.  D.  C.  478),  rtA:,. 
V.  Forty  BarrcU   (241   U.  S.  265), 

155. 


arf  Id  pagcu. 

United  StateH  v.   Freight  .Assn.    (  1G6 
U.  S.  200.  3201.  247. 
V.  Holliiiay   (3  Wall.  407),  535. 
V.  .Julian   (  162  V.  S.  324).  485. 
V.   Kix-li    (40    Fed.    Rep.   2.')0-2.')2 ) , 

4  OH. 
i:  Loed    (40  F«h|.  Rep.  6361. 
V.  Mari.le   (22  Id.   1366).  •'>02. 
V.    National    Lead    Co.     (75    Fed. 

Rep.  <I4).  472. 
V.     132     Packages    of     Spirituous 

Li(piors    and     Wines     (76    Fe<l. 

Rep.  364,  .368),  400,  410. 
V.     132     Packages     of    Spirituous 

Liquors  and  Wines  (22  C.  C.  A. 

228),  400. 
V.   Roche    (1    ^rcCrar}•,  385),   501. 

511. 
V.   Sandefuhr    (145   Ft>d.   Rep.  40), 

410. 
V.    Seattle    Brew.    Co.     (135    Fed. 

Rep.  .507),  410. 
V.    Seymour    (66   <ltT.    (Jaz.    1167). 

.530.  543. 
V.  Steffens   (100  U.  S.  82).  511. 
V.   Thirty    Cases    (100    Fed.    Rep. 

032),   152. 
V.    ThirtySi.v     Bottles     (205    Fed. 

Rep.    Ill  I.    l.-)4. 
V.    Twenty    Boxes     (67    C.    C.    A. 

214).  410. 
V.  Ipham    (43  F.-d.  Rep.  68),  .536. 
United    States   Cordage   Co.    v.    Wm. 

Wall's    Sons    Rope    Co.     (35    N. 

V.   .Supp.  078),  252. 
United    States    Fxpansion    Bolt   Co. 

V.  Kroncke  Ildw.  Co.   (225  Fed. 

Reji.    383),   360. 
United    .States,  ex   rel..   SchumacluT 

V.  Maride    (3   Mackey.  .{2),  51.5. 
United     States,    ex     r«'l.,     Wilcox    & 

(Jildm    Sewing    Machine    Co.    v. 

Marhle     (1     .Mackey.    284),    515. 
Unit<'d   States  Frame  A    Picture  Co. 

V.   Horowitz    (100   N.   Y.    Suppi 

705),  312. 


Uni-Vir 


TAUIiK   OF    CAbES. 


Ixxxix 


liifcnncca  arc  lu  pnycs. 
United  States  L.  &  IT.  Co.  v.  United   |    Vand.rliilt    v.    MitclnMI     (72    N.    J. 


States   L.   &    H.   Co.    (IHl     \'\i\. 

Rep.    1H2,    184),    221. 
i:iiit<(l   States   lMayin>i  Card   Co.   v. 

C.  M.  Clark  I'ul).  C«>.    i'M)  App. 

1).   C.    2()S),    'II. 
V.  Clark     Tnl..    Cc     (  12t;     < ).     (J. 

2HH)).  riT.i. 
United  States  Tobacco  Co.  v.  Amer- 

iean   ToI»iiee<>   Co.  (  Ifl!}  Fed.  Hep. 

701),  :?7<i. 
V.  McCireeiiery,      144      Ked.      Kep. 

o.-H.   -uVl),  'I'M. 
Universal    Motor  Truck  Co.  v.   Uni- 
versal   Motor    Co.     (1!)7    O.    C 

."JS;}).  r)(i8. 
Upmann  v.  Curry    {2'.>  Sol.  .F.  7."5.")), 

40;"),   442. 
V.   Klkan     ( L.     R.     12     Eq.     140), 

:{02.   403,   405,   443.   401. 
V.   Forester  ( L.  R.  24  Ch.  D.  2:{ll, 

302.  40r.,  438,   442,   443,   400. 
Upper    Assam    Tea    Co.    v.    IIerl)ert 

(7  R.  l\  C.   183),  323. 
Uri  V.  Hirsch   (123  Fed.  Rep.  568), 

80. 


Vacuum    Oil    Co.    v.    Climax    Refin- 
ing   Co.     (120    Fed.     Pvcp.    254, 

250),    103. 
V.  Climax  Refining  Co.    (5(>  C.   C. 

A.  00),   102. 
V.  Eagle   Oil   Co.    (122    Fed.    Rei). 

105),    340. 
Valentine   v.    Valentine     (31    L.    R. 

Ir.  488),  404. 
Van    Beil    v.    Rrescott     (82    X.    Y. 

(i30).    110. 
Van   Camp   Packing    Co.    v.    Cruik- 

shanks  Bros.  Co.    (00  Fed.  Rep. 

814),    270,    290,    451. 
Vandcr    Rergli    &    Co.    v.    Belmont 

Distilling    Co.     (00    OtV.    (Ja/. 

1624),  389. 


i;.|.   010),   276. 
\  an     Dyke    v.    .Taekson     (1     E.     D. 

Smith,  N.  v.,  410),  245. 
\'an    Holioken    v.    Molins    iV    Kulten- 

liacli    (112    Fed.    Kep.   528),  115, 

313,  468. 
\'an  Horn  v.  Coogan    (52  N.  J.  E<|. 

380),    127,    152,   .329. 
v.  Coogan     (.52    \.    J.    Eq.    .588), 

127. 
\'an     limiteii     v.    TTooton    CoT:oa    & 

Chocolate    Co.     (  l.'U)    Fed.    Rep. 

«iOO.  ()()3),  354. 

\'ai)  Kaniiel  Revolving  Door  Co.  v. 
American  Revolving  Door  Co. 
(135  C.  C.   A.   4.30),  08,  261. 

\an    Raalt    v.    Schneck     (1.50    Fed. 
Rep.    248),   426,   448,    458. 
v.  Schneck     (05    C.    C.    A.    C72), 
426. 

\'an  Stan's  Stratena  Co.  v.  Van 
Stan     (200    Pa.    564),    320. 

Van  Zile  v.  Xorub  Mfg.  Co.  (228 
Fed.    Rep.    820),    126,   334. 

N'assar  College  v.  Loose-Wiles  Bis- 
cuit  Co.    (107    Fed.   Rep.    982). 

278. 
\'erges  v.  Forshec  (0  La.  Ann.  204  I , 

250. 
Viano    v.    Baccigalupo     (183    Mass. 

160),  312. 
\'ickery    v.    Welsh     (10     Pick.    .523- 

.527),    2.")3. 
Victor   Safe  &  Lock  Co.   v.   Deright 

(77   C.   C.  A.   437),   'iG. 
\'ictor     Talking     Machine     Co.     v. 

Armstrong  ( 132    Fed.  Rep.  7 11  i . 

279,   282. 
\  irginia     Raking    Co.    v.    Southern 

Biscuit    Works    (68   S.   E.    Rep. 

261),    119. 


xc 


TAIU  I      OK    CASKS. 


VirWal 


h'tliriiKt  s 

N'irjrinia    Hot    Spriiip*   Co.    v.    IK'ni*- 

man  4   To.    (138   K.d.    K.|>.   Hri.-i, 

S«2i.  207. 
\'it4.8o«>|n'     Co.      V.      liiiti'*!      Statt'H 

riiononrapli    I  o.    (HU    F.d.    K.p. 

.101.   .V2.    l.U. 
Vopt    V.    P.-oplr    (.".!»    111.    .\pp.   MA), 

411. 
V.    PtHiplo    (.')7   111.  App.  «S4).  OtW. 
Vol)r«r  V.   Fom-    (71    N.   Y.  S.  2011). 

.320. 
\  On     Hr.-nifn    v.    MiuMomiifs     (200 

N     V    -in.  J.?i. 
WuiiliTliank     v.     Sclmiidt      (4»     I-ii. 

Anil.   2«4l.   2;}!i.   3:).-). 
Von  FaluT  v.   FaluT   (124   F.'.l.  It.  i« 

(•)0:n.  102.  17"),  isr. 

\on    KalMT-Castfll   v.   Falur    ,71    C. 
C.    A.    .38:1),    17:").    181. 
V.  Fabor     ( l.SO     Foci.    Rop.     2r)7 1 , 

1(»2. 
V.   Fal..T    (2i.   (70  C.  C.  A.  .'illS . , 
ISl. 
Von  Miinim  v.  Frash    (r)0  Frd.  Rep. 
8;j0-8:{!t).    1()8.   280.   300.   407. 
V.  Kirk    (4^   K.d.    Rep.  r)8n),  2S(i. 
V.       SU'innutz      (  I'M     Fi'd.     Rt-p. 

108),  207. 
V.  Witti-man    (2),    (33   C.    C.    A. 

404),  270. 
V.  Witti-mann       (8."»      Fid.      \lr\u 
000).  270,  200,   200. 
\ On  Tiiodorovicli  v.  Rfncficial  AsHn. 

(l.-)4    Fi'd.    Rip.   011»,   277. 
Vo8<?  V.  Ro«'l»uck,  I'tc,  Co.    (210  Fed. 

Rt'p.  087).  432. 
N'ulcan    Dilinnin;^    Co.    v.    .\miTuan 
Can    Co.     (07    N.     1.    i:«i.    243), 
2.')4.  2o:.. 
V.   AnicricHH    (  iiii    Co.     (70    N.    .1. 

Ki).    .'■>88),   2.')7. 
V.   AmiTican    Can    Co.     (72    N.    .1. 

Kq.  387  I.  2."i7.  20."). 
V.   Amrriran    Can    Co.     (80    N.    .F. 
lv|.    443 1,    207. 


If    pitijrs. 


w 


\V.    A.    Caini'H   &    Co.    v.    E.    Whyto 
(Jroo.ry.  Fruit  A  \Vim>  Co.  (107 
Mo.   Ajip.  .')07i,   120. 
V.    Kalin      (  1.').'.     K.'d.     Ri-p.     0.30), 

38,   217. 
V.   Kni'cht   &    .Son    (120    (1(T.    Haz. 

1103),    300. 
V.   Li-8lii'    (M    N.    V.    Siipj).    421). 

120,   320. 
V.   Rock   .Spring    Dis.   Co.    (141   C. 

C.  A.  287),  38,  110,  200,  .'i04. 
V.   Rock     Springs    His.    Co.     (17!» 

Fed.  Rep.  544),  441. 
V.   Rock      Spriufr      DistillinK     Co. 
(220    Fed.   Rip.    r.31,   .->37),   04, 
4SS. 
V.    Kork      Spriii;.'       Distilliii;:      Co. 

(220    Fi-d.    R.'p.    5.38 1,    2.'). 
V.  Turner-Looker   Co.    ( 123   C.   C. 
A.  70).  327.  447. 
Wapner    v.    Daly     y^l    Hun,    477), 

71. 
WajrniT    Typewriter     Co.     v.     F.     S. 
Webster     Co.      (144     Fed.     Rep. 
40.")).    40(i. 
Walker  v.  Alley    (13  Crant  Cp.  Can. 
Ch.  .300),  310. 
V.    Mikohis     (70    Fed.    Rep.    O.').")), 

324. 
V.    Reid     (Fed.    Case    No.     17084), 
111,    342. 
Wallace  V.    1).   Appli'ton  k  Co.    (101 

Fed.     Rep.     884),    477. 
Wallach   v.   Wi{,'more    (87   Fed.    Rep. 

400),    .v.).    300,    417. 
WalliH  V.   Wailirt    (4   Dr.  4r)8).  443. 
Walter    v.    Asliton     (I..    R..    1002,    2 

Cli.    282),   348. 
Walt.r    Hiik.r    .<L    Co.    v.    Raker    (87 
Fed.     Re|).    200 1,    442. 
V.    Delapenba       (  100      Fed.      Rep. 

740),    00.    11."..  .324. 
V.   HurriHon   (32  App.  D.  C.  272), 
.507. 


Wal-Wed 


TAULi:    OK    CASKS. 


XCl 


I'rfirrnciH  an    In  piitjrH. 


WultiT  Buktr  i  f'o.  v.  Pjiritan  Turc 
Food    Co.     (i:»!l    l'"ril.    i;.|).    liHd, 

r»«:n.  :i()c.. 

V.   Siiiidcrs     (HO     Fed.     iu-p.     SS!i, 

K!)l),  40,  4t)2.   473. 
V.  Sandtrrt     ('2(1    C.    C".    A.    '220 1, 

170.    44!>. 
V.  Slack      (  l.U)     I-Vd.      i{.'i>.     ."il 4, 

510),  457,  401,  402. 
Walton  V.  Crowl.-y    (3  lUutdi.  440  i , 

68. 
V.    Crowley  (  Fed.  CuHc  N'l).  171.'i;!), 

30,    305. 
Warrt'ii.v.  Warn-ii  Tliread  Co.   (134 

Ma.ss.  247).   30.   386. 
\V»  llman  &  Dwire  Tob.  Co.  v.  Ware 

Tol).  Works  (46  Fed.  Rop.  28!)), 

112. 
Wamsutta  Mills  v.  Allen    (12  Tliila. 

535),  308,  332. 
VVandt   v.    Hearst's   Clucajjo  Ameri- 
can    (12!)    Wis.   41!)),    270. 
Ward  V.   Drat    (Cox,  Manual,  007), 

53. 
V.  Robinson  (L.  R.  !)  Cli.  D.  487), 

,32,  215. 
Warfield    V.     Booth     (33     Md.     03). 

225. 
Waring  v.   Cox    (1   Camp.  309),   17. 
Warner    v.    Roolir     ( Fed.    Case    Xo. 

17189A),  410,  420,  852. 
V.    Searlo   &    lleretli    Co.     (  l!)l    V. 

S.    195),  380,  392,  429,  550. 
Warner    Bros.    Co.    v.   Wiener    (218 

Fed.  Rep.  635),  13,  131. 
V.  Wiener     (134    C.    vJ.    A.    393), 

332. 
V.  Wiener     (130    C.    C.    A.    424), 

332. 
Warren    Bros.    v.    Barber    Asphalt 

Paving    Co.     (145    Mich.     70), 

52. 
Warren   Featherhone   Co.   v.   Ameri- 
can   Featheroone  Co.    (72  C.   C. 

A.   571),   89. 


Warwick    Tyre    Co.    v.    New    Motor 

Co.    (1910,    1    Cii.  248),  399. 
Wasldmrn  v.    Dosch    (OS   Wis.   430), 

2:5 1 . 
V.   National    Wall    Taper   Co.    (HI 

Fed.   Re|).    17-20),  220,  220. 
WaHlil.iirn  &  Moen  Mfg.  Co.  t.  Free- 
man   Wire    (.'().     (41     F'ed.    Rep. 

410),  472. 
V.    Haish    (Fed.  Case   No.    17217), 

87. 
Wasliington    Medallion    Pen    Co.    v. 

Ka.steri)rook      (Fed.     Case     No. 

17240a),   281. 
Waterman    v.   Shipman    (1."'.0    N.   Y. 

301),    !)2,    123. 
Waterman    Co.    v.    Modern    I'en    Co. 

(235   U.    S.    88,    94),    187. 
Watkins  v.  Landon   (52  Minn.  389), 

214,    2.-)3,   708. 
Watt  V.  O'llanlon    (4    1'.    \\.    1  ),    108, 

130. 
Waukesha    H.     M.    Springs     Co.     v. 

Hygeia  S.  D.  Wat«T  Co.    ( 1 1  C. 

C.  A.  277),  58. 

Waukesha  Hygeia  Mineral  Springs 
Co.  V.  Hygeia  Sparkling  Dis- 
tilled Water  Co.  (03  Fe<l.  R.'p. 
4.38),   123. 

V.  Hygeia     Distilled     Water     Co. 
(70   Otr.   Gaz.    1319),   536,   547. 

V.    Hygeia       Sparkling       Distilled 

Water   Co.    (11    C.    C.   A.    282), 

123. 

Wayne    County    Preserving    Co.    v. 

Olney    Canning    Co.     (32    App. 

D.  C.  2791,  503. 

Weber    Medical    Tea    Co.    v.    Kireh- 
stein    (101  Fed.  Rep.  580 1,  31S. 
V.   Wel)er     (102    Fed.     Rep.     150), 
463. 
Webster     v.  *  Wel)ster      (3     Swan.-^t. 
490).   29,   424. 
V.   Williams    (02    Ark.    101  i,   225. 
W  Cdderburn      v.     Wedderburn      (22 
Beavan,   84-104),    220. 


xcu 


TAIILK   OF    CASh>^. 


Wcc-Wlii 


Rrfcrrnrra  arc  to  pagrs. 


Weed   V.   rct*rw»n    (12   Al.h.    Pr.   N. 

S.   178),  20.  230.  :U(».  41M).  492. 
WtvniT     V.      Hrnyton      (  ir)2     MaHH. 

101  \,  4.  !•.  «2.  424,  400. 
NNoiiiHtock,    Lultin    4    Co.    v.    Murks 

(100   Cal.   .V>0>.    :\'1H,    :{4«,    r.37, 

Wrlch    V.    Knott    (4    K.    A    .1.    747  i. 

:u:{.  :»:i7. 
Wrhlon   V.    Dick    ( L.    K.    lo   Ch.    D. 

247).  206. 
Wclloomr  V.  Haiim    (  l.l.".  O.  (J.  S04  i .  j 

V.  Tliompson    &   Cappi-r    (1    L.    K. 

Cli.  Div..   1004.  |t.  730,  742.  740, 

7r)0,  7r)4),  105. 
\\«'llman    &     Owiri"    Tobacco    Co.    v. 

Wari"  Tobacco   Works    (4«  Fed. 

iicp.   289),  280. 
WfUs  V.   Ceylon   Perfume   Co.    (10.") 

Fed.  Rep.  021),  335. 
Wells    &    Richardson    Co.    v.    Sie<;el, 

Cooper    &    Co.     (100    Fed.    Rep. 

77l,   117. 
Welsbach    Lif^ht   Co.    v.    Adam    (107 

Fed.    Rep.    403),    (54,    332,    3.-)0, 

54'.. 
Welz  V.    HliodiuH    (S7    Ind.    li.    234. 
Wcnt/x-I    V.    Harliiii     (180    Pa.    .-)02). 

232. 
Wertlieimir    v.    Racli<ll(T    Iniportin;,' 

Co.    (  185    Fed.    Rej).    S.-)()).    123. 
V.  Stewart,  Cooper  &  Co.    (23   R. 

P.  C.  481),  348. 
WcKsell    V.    H:iv<-n8    (01     Xeb.    420), 

231 
Western    (irocer    Co.     v.     CalTarelli 

RroH.     (lOK    S.    W.     Hep.    4 13 1, 

8,    119. 
WeBtervelt     v.    National     Pai)er    Co. 
(154    Ind.   073),   2.-.0,  257,  258. 
Weotminnter   I.atindry   Co.    v.   IlenHC 

Envelope    Co.     (  174     Mo.     App. 

238),   307. 


U'eBton  V.  IlimnionH    (2   Vict.   I-.    R. 

i;.].    121  I.   250. 
V.   Ketdiam    (ll,    (30   N.   Y.   54), 

20,  29,  399. 
V.    Ketcliani     (2).     (51     Htiw.     I'r. 

4551,   20,   34. 
Wetniore    v.    Sci.v.Jl     (3    Kdw.    Ch. 

515).    200. 
Weynian     v.     Soderiierj;     ( 108     Fed. 

Rep.   031.   101.    1.59,  311. 
Wluinn    V.    Whann     (110    La.    000), 

89. 
Wharton  \.    Ilmrlnr    (I'o.x.   .Matuial, 

0031,  401. 
W.  11.   Hak.r  v.   Maker    ( C.  I)..  1906, 

p.   337),   505. 
Wlieeier    v.    .loiinston    (3    L.    K.    Ir. 

284),  01. 
Wheeler     &     Wilson     Mfg.     Co.     v. 

Shakespear    (30   L.   J.  Ch.   36), 

88. 
Wheeler-Stenzel     Co.     v.     American 

Window    (Mass   Co.    (202    Mass. 

47)  ).  304.  30.5. 
V.   National    Window   Glass   Assn. 

(  152    Fed.    Rep.   804),   376. 
Wliit.'   V.  .Tones    (1    Abb.   Pr.    N.    S. 

337).  231. 
V.  Trowl)rid^'e    (210   Pa.    111.    171. 

220. 
V.   Wa;,'iir   (83   111.  Aj.p.  5021.410. 

008. 
V.   W"a-ar     (1S5     111.     105).     Ud. 

008. 
Whitcomb    v.    t\)nverHe     (110    Mass. 

38),    28. 
Whitehead    v.     Kiston     (110     Mass. 

484),   56. 
Whitford    V.    County   of   Clark    (110 

r.  S.  522),  480. 
Wiiitfleld   V.   Txjveless    (04   Off.   C.a/. 

442).   355. 
Whitinfj   Mfp.    Co.    v.   Jos.    II.    Ran 

land  Co.    (50  N.  Y.  Supp.    114i, 

452. 


Wlii-VVol 


TAULK   OF    CASES. 


XCUl 


Utfcrcncra  are  to  piitfrs. 


Whitman  v.  Ilubhcll    (30   Fi-d.   Mt'\>. 

81),  393. 
Whitney    v.    RolxTtnon    (124    V.    S. 

l!H)-li»4),  53'). 
Wliittakcr     v.     Ildwc      (.'{      Iloavan, 

383).  224. 
W  liittcnKtrc  Uros.  &  Co.  v.  Ilautha- 
way   (132  O.  O.  233),  FtM,  r)77. 
VVhittitT  V.   l)i.-tz    ((it>  C'al.   78),   10, 

3i)«,  G37. 
Whitwcll     V.     Continontal     Tobacco 

Co.   (12;")  Fed.  Rop.  454),  375. 
Wickers  v.  Weinwiirm    (C.  D.,  1907, 

p.   219),  572. 
W'ightman  v.  Wij^htmaii   (111  N.  K. 

Kep.   881),   225. 
Wilcox    &    Gibba    Sewinjr    Macliine 
Co.     V.     Gibbons'     Frame      (21 
Blatchf.    431),   279,   508. 
V.  The    Gibbens   Frame     (17    Fed. 
Rep.   623),  88. 
Wilkinson  v.  Greely    (  Fed  Case  Xo. 
17671),   470. 
V.  Griflith    (8   R.   P.   C.   370-374), 
307,   321. 
William   Ropers  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Rogers 
&  Spiirr  Mfg.  Co.   (11  Fed.  Rep. 
495),    185. 
Williams   v.    Adams    (8   Biss.    4.52), 
131. 
V.  Brooks     (.-)0    Conn.    278),    444, 

4G8. 
V.  Farrand    (88  Mich.   473),   220, 

231,  232,  243. 
V.  .Johnson    (2   Bos.   1),   131,   177, 

284,   444. 
V.  Mitchell     (45    C.    C.    A.    205), 

117,   463. 
V.  Mitciiell    (106   Fed.   Rep.    168), 

457. 
V.  Osborne    (13   L.  T.  N.  S.  498), 

444. 
V.    Pope     (215    Fed.    Rep.    1000). 

435.    436. 
V.  Spenco     (25    How.     Pr.     366), 
131. 


Williams  v.  Williams    (3  Mer.  157), 

2:.4, 

V.   Wilson     (4     Sandf.     Ch.     379), 
229. 
Williams    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Noera     (158 

Mass.   110),   149. 
Wiiiiier    V.    Tliomas     (74    Md.    485), 

30,   386. 
Wilson    V.    American    Ice   Co.     (206 
Fed.    Rep.    736),    428. 
V.   Delaney    (137    la.  636),  248. 
V.  Singer  Mfg.  Co.    (12  Fed.  Rep. 
57),  84. 
Winchester    Repeating   Arms  Co.    v 
Butler    Bros.     ( 128     Fed.     Rep 
976),  394. 
V.   Peters  Cartridge  Co.    (30  App 

D.    C.    505),    110. 
V.  Peters    Cartridge    Co.     (C.    D. 
1908,   p.   401),   562. 
Winn  V.  Gilmer   (27  Fed.  Rep.  817) 

536. 
Winsor    V.    Clyde     (9    Phila.    513) 

403. 
W  irtz  V.  Eagle  Bottling  Co.    (50  X 

J.   Eq.    164),  296,  306. 
Witkop  &  Holmes  Co.  v.  Boyce   (112 
X.  Y.  S.  874),  257. 
V.    Boyce    (118    X.   Y.    Supp.    461, 

464).  363. 
V.    Boyce    (61    X.    Y.    Misc.    126), 

361. 
V.    Great    Atlantic    &    Pacific   Tea 
Co.   (124  X.  Y.  Supp.  956),  360. 
Witt  V.  Reed  lifectric  Co.    (187   Pa. 

424),  263. 
Witthaus  V.    Braun    (44    Md.    303), 

25.  27,  28,  227. 
Wolfe  V.  Alsop    (2)    (12  Vict.  L.  R., 
]•:.,  421),  418. 
V.    Alsop    (10   V.    L.    R.   Eq.   41), 

110. 
V.  Barnett   (24  La.  Ann.  07),  213, 

444. 
V.  Burke   (56  X.  Y.   115).   174. 


XCIV 


TAIU.K    ()K    t"ASt>. 


WolWvc 


lit ftTcurrs  (in    tn  pages. 


Wolfi-  V.  Burkr   (7   N.  V.  Sup.  Ct.). 
i:.n.  70. 

V.  Coulanl    t  IS  Wow.  Vr.  (U  1 ,   110, 

If)!!. 
V.  Mart   (4  V.  h.  K.  Kq    lir.).  110. 

346. 
V.  Lan;:   (  i:<  Vict.  I..   K.  752).  110, 
41S. 
Wolf  Hros.  i  Co    V.  llamiltonRrown 
SluH'   Co.    (  165    K.'d.    K.'p.   4l:n. 
1!»5.  .124. 
V.  Unniilton-nrown  Siioc  Co.    (125 
(►.  (J.  (167).  5.1!t. 
Wood  V.  Rurpess  ( T..  V^.  24  Q.  B.  1). 
162).  411. 
V.  Butler   (.3  R.  P.  C    .SI).  7!>. 
V.  Hincliman    (IIU  t)fT.  (Ja/..  600), 

336. 
V.  Lambort  ( L.  K.  :}2  Ch.  I).  247). 
!•.  62.  215. 
Woodcofk    V.    (\\\\    (3.3    Wasli.    2:54). 

66,  821. 
Woodman    v.   rnitcd   States    (15  Ct. 

of  CI.  541),  501. 
Woods    V.    Sands     ( Fed.    Caso    No. 

17n63),   181,  355. 
Woodward  v.   Lazar    (21    Cal.   448), 

355.  637. 
Woolf    V.    W(K)lf     (43    Sol.    .1.     127), 

4!tO. 
WOolntT   V.    Hiiiiiic-k    (170    i'cd.   Kcp. 

662),  410. 
Woolhcy    V.    Judd    (4    Dui-r.    37!M . 
Woost<T    V.     Kisoli     (26    Hun,    61). 

246. 
Worce»t«T    Rri'winR    Corporation    v. 
Renter    &    Co.     (157    Fed.    Rep. 
217).  12!>. 
V.  Renter  4  Co.  (84  C.  C.  A.  605), 
111,  206.   4.58. 
Worden  v.  California  Kip  Syrup  Co. 

(  102    Fed.    Rep.    334),    100. 
\\  orden     4     Co.     v.     California     Fijj 
Syrup    Co.     (187     T.     S.     515), 
100.  447. 


Woini>er    V.    Siiayne    (11     III.    App. 

5561,  445. 
WotherKpoon   v.   Curie    (22    K.    T.    N. 

S.  260).  3)». 
V.    Currie    ( L.    R.    5    II.    L.    .508), 

121.    171.    1»4,   2»3,   29.'!. 
V.    (;ray     (Ct.    Sess.    Cas.,    3d    Her., 

2.  3Si.  113. 
W Oven   Stet'l  Co.  v.   Keashey  &   Mat- 

tis<in  Co.    (41    App.  I).  C.  247), 

566. 

Wni.    A.    Roper-;,    Ltd.    v.    Coliann«-t 

Silver  Co.    (186  Fed.  Rep.  241), 

177. 
Wm.  (;.   Ropers  Co.  v.   International 

Silver  Co.   (55C.  C.  A.  83).  17!». 
Wni.  J.  Mo.xley  Co.  v.  Rraun  A  Fitts 

Co.    (!»3   III.  App.   183),  17. 

Wni.  Ropers  Mfp.  Co.  v.  Ropers   (73 
f)fT.  (Ja/.  !t70),  17!». 
V.  Ropers  (84  Fed.  Rep.  6.39).  174. 
v.  Ropers  &  S.  Mfp.  Co.    (11   Fed. 

Rep.  4!>5).  64.  1.59.   174,  181. 
V.  R.  W.  Ropers  Co.    (66  Fed.  Rep. 

(i6i.   174,   175,   177. 

V.    Simpson    (54   Conn.   527),   175. 

Wm.    Wripley,   .Jr..    &    Co.   v.    Cirovp 

Co.    (  Itil     r.d.    R.-i>.    885),    111. 

V.    Xoni>     1.34    Aj.]..    D.    C.    138). 

111. 

W  .  X.  Sliarpe.  Ltd.  v.  Solomon  Bros. 

(31    R.    P.    C.    441.    4.501.  !»7. 
\\  riplit     V.    Simpson     (15    OlT.    Haz. 

'.168 ).   32.    502.    518. 
Wriplit  &    Taylor    v.   Rlutlientlial    .t 
Riekert    (119  ().   (J.   2234).  571. 
W.    R.    Lynn    Slioe    Co.    v.    Auburn- 
Lynn    Shoe    Co.     (62    At  I.     Rep. 
4!l!n.    115. 
Wy.kolT    V.     Howe     Scale    Co.     (100 

Fed.   Re|>.  .520),  66. 
WyekofT.     Seamans     4     Rene»liet     v. 
Ilowi-    Seal*'    Co.     (58    C.    C.    A. 
510).  66. 


Yul-Zyc 


TABLE  OP   CASES. 


XCV 


Yale   &    Towne    Mfp.    Co.    v.    Alder 

(154    Fed.   R.'p.    37),   37ft,   371. 

V.  Aldor    (83  C.  C.  A.   149),  202. 

Yale  MffT.  Co.  v.  Yale    (30  Off.  C.az. 

11H3),    122,    -){)2,   illl,   .')12,  i543, 

544. 
Yonkers    Brewery    v.   Her    &    liurj,'- 

weger   (143  O.  G.  258),  572. 
Young  V.  Jones  (3  Hughes,  274),  2ft. 
V.  Jones    (Fed.  Case  No.    18159), 

31,  58. 


Iteferencea  are  to  pages. 

Young    V.    Macrae    (9    Jur.    N.    S. 
322),  88,  108. 


Zanturjian  v.  Booma/ian    (25  R.  T. 
ir)l),  232,  240. 

Zittlo.sen  Mfg.  Co.   v.   Boss    (135   C 

C.  A.  551),   193. 
Zych    V.   American   Car   &    Foundry 

Co.    (127   Fed.  Rep.   723,   727), 

486. 


HOPKINS  ON  TRADEMARKS 


CHAPTKH  T. 
PREFATORY. 

§  1.  Primitive  merchandise  marks. — The  history  of  com- 
merce is  the  liistory  oi'  civilization.  The  hinterland  is  but  a 
fairy  net-work  of  legend  and  fable,  of  myth  that  involves 
itself  with  a  precarious  entanglement  of  possible  facts. 

Just  as  the  refinements  of  modern  thought  have  produced 
the  juristic  science  of  unfair  competition,  the  vanity,  super- 
stition, or  forethought  of  the  primitive  trader  led  him  to  im- 
])rint  upon  his  wares  his  name,  some  symbol  associated  with 
the  religion  that  calmed  his  fear  of  the  hereafter,  or,  finally, 
a  mark  to  point  out  the  origin  of  his  goods. 

The  idler,  scrawling  his  name  with  rude  graffiti  on  the 
walls  of  Rome  or  Pompeii,  made  as  near  an  approach  to  a 
trademark  as  did  the  kings  who  pressed  their  names  and  titles 
on  the  bricks  of  Babylon. 

The  woBshipper  of  Mithras  imprinted  on  his  bricks  the 
sacred  symbol  of  water,  as  did  the  early  Christians  their 
favored  emblems,  the  i)alm-braneh  and  the  fishes. 

But  among  the  very  earliest  brick-stamps  there  are  speci- 
mens which  bear  not  merely  the  maker's  name,  or  a  picture 
of  religious  significance,  but  fanciful  designs  whose  object 
Avas  commercial  identification  unless,  indeed,  it  was  purely 
artistic. 

So,  too,  Ave  find  npon  the  lead  water-pipes  exhumed  at 
Ostia  symbols  to  which  we  may  reasonably  attribute  true  trade- 
ma  .-k  quality. 

Maker's  names,  in  the  early  centuries  of  the  Christian  era, 
are  almost  universally  used.  The  charred  loaves  of  bread 
excavated  at  Pompeii  are  so  marked,  and  it  is  generally  so 

1 


§  2]  uoi'KiNs  DN  tiui>i;makks.  2 

whh  tho  hrlcks  of  Hahyloii  and  Konic,  and  lead  i»i|>»*  wlierc- 
ovor  prodiu'od.  OtluT  iiiarkiiifrs  by  Avay  of  Icltoriiij^  liavc  a 
wide  range  of  significaiu'C,  fre(|ucntly  indicating  ownershij) 
of  tho  i»artic'ular  article  and  iiotliiiig  more. 

We  walk  in  almost  absolute  darkness  along  these  dim  his- 
torie  trails.  On  every  hand  are  signs  tliat  show  the  coming 
importance  of  trademai-ks.  Hut  Rome  is  to  reach  her  zenith 
and  iier  debacle,  the  ^Middle  Ages  are  to  intervene,  the  new 
world  beyond  the  Atlantic  is  to  be  discovered,  modern  Europe 
is  to  bo  reorganised  by  states  and  jieojiles,  before  we  next 
reach  traces  of  the  use  of  identifying  marks  in  trade.  Even 
then  tlie  law  of  trademarks  will  not  come  into  existence  until 
generations  of  traders  liavo  come  and  gone. 

The  history  of  the  law  of  trademarks  is  pretty  accurately 
at  our  service.  The  history  of  the  early  use  of  trademarks 
has  never  been  written,  and  most  of  its  evidences  have 
crumbled  into  dust.  For  those  illuminating  examples  of 
ancient  marks  preserved  to  us,  the  labor  of  the  arehteologist 
alone  is  responsible,  and  to  him  our  ai)prociation  is  due. 

§2.  The  need  of  legal  restraint  of  unfair  trade.— It  is  not 
the  spirit  of  our  laws  to  intorl'cre  with  lair  competition.  It 
is  for  the  best  interests  of  society  that  i)rices  should  be  ad- 
justed by  the  economical  laws  of  supply  and  demand.  With 
limitations  that  have  been  imjiosed  by  varying  local  condi- 
tions, temjiered  by  the  caprices  of  legislation  and  the  idio- 
sjTicrasies  of  judges,  our  common  and  statutoi-v  law  alike 
condemn  contracts  in  restraint  of  trade,  and  monopolies,  com- 
l)lete  or  jiartial.  But,  on  tho  other  hand,  there  are  recognized 
property  rights  which  are  of  necessity  monopolistic  in  their 
character.  The  most  notable  are  those  created  by  the  patent 
and  copyright  laws,  which  grant,  for  a  limited  time,  a  monop- 
oly in  the  production  of  the  brain  of  the  author  or  inven- 
tor. The  value  of  these  laws  in  the  advancement  of  science, 
manufacture  and  art  is  universally  recognized.  Closely  allied 
to  these  rights  is  the  right  of  those  engaged  i>i  commerce  to 
be  subjected  to  none  but  fair  compi^tit  ion. 

T^nfair  comjietition  consists  in  passing  f)IT  one's  goods  as 
the  goods  of  another,  or  in  otherwise  securing  patronage  that 
should   go   to   another,    by    falso   representations   that    lead   the 


3  I'llEl-'ATOHY.  [§2 

patron  to  believe  that  he  is  ])ali"<)iii/infi^  the  other  person,  it 
is  of  vital  importance  to  healthy  business  conditions  that  sucii 
comj)ctition  should  be  suppressed.  Tt  is  equally  important, 
however,  that  fair  competition  shall  nf)t  be  interfered  with. 
Whether  the  competitive  acts  complained  of  are  fair  or  un- 
fair is  the  controlling  issue  in  eacli  litiji;ate(l  case. 

It  is  apparent  that  the  simplest  means  of  depriving  another 
of  the  trade  he  has  built  up  is  to  copy  the  marks  he  places  on 
his  merchandise.  This  is  the  easiest  method  of  stealing  his 
trade,  and  most  universal  because  of  the  general  use  of  marks 
or  brands  u])on  personal  property.  The  use  of  such  marks 
runs  far  back  into  the  shadows  of  history,  and  to  the  period 
when  a  knowledge  of  written  language  was  unusual  among 
tradesmen.  It  is  only  natural  that  these  marks  used  in  trade, 
or  trademarks,  should  have  first  become  the  subjects  of  judi- 
cial consideration,  and  that  the  law  concerning  them  should 
have  reached  a  state  of  comparatively  complete  development 
before  infringers  began  to  emi)loy  other  and  more  obscure 
means  to  divert  trade. 

It  is  true,  as  well,  that  the  development  of  the  law  of  the 
technical  trademark  tended  to  encourage  the  buccaneers  of 
commerce  to  invent  new  and  subtler  means  of  stealing  another's 
trade  without  trespassing  upon  his  trademark  rights.  But  the 
law,  steadily  though  slowly,  extended  its  bulwark  of  pro- 
tection about  the  legitimate  trader,  until  at  length  he  was 
afforded  legal  redress  in  some  form,  not  always  adequate  or 
complete,  against  the  fraudulent  diversion  of  his  trade,  in  what- 
ever form  it  might  appear. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts  it  is  self  evident  that  the  law  of 
the  technical  trademark  must  first  be  mastered  before  the 
student  can  wath  understanding  study  the  gradual  evolution, 
from  this  protoplasm,  of  the  larger  law  regulating  all  unfair 
competition  in  trade. 

From  the  early  days  of  commerce,  probably  from  its  be- 
ginning, the  keen  rivalry  of  competing  merchants  has  led  to 
the  use  of  unfair  and  dishonest  methods  of  diverting  custom. 
With  the  growth  of  commerce  has  come  a  corresponding  in- 
crease of  fraudulent  competition  and  its  attendant  evils.  The 
English  speaking  people  were  slow  to  realize  that  some  legal 


§3] 


nOPKINS   ON   TKADKMAKKS. 


restraint  should  be  imjinsed  upon  the  dealer  who  seeks  to  se- 
cure patronajje  by  dressing  his  j^oods  in  a  manner  i-aleulatcd 
to  deceive  the  public  into  a  belief  that  they  are  the  goods  of 
another.  Tiiere  are  a  few  unimportant  unfair  trade  cases  in 
the  Euf^lish  rcjjorts  of  the  cif^lilccnth  century  ;  the  first  reported 
American  decision  \\  as  rendered  in  IM!.").'  The  law  as  it  is 
administered  by  the  courts  of  the  I'nitcd  Stati's  today  is  almost 
wholly  the  product  of  the  last  half  century. 

The  purpose  of  this  treatise  is  to  discuss  the  law  of  unfair 
trade  in  its  broadest  sense,  inclndin<r  not  oidy  the  law  of 
trademarks,  but  also  the  i)rinciplcs  applicable  to  the  restraint 
of  fraudulent  competition  in  cases  where  no  trademark  is 
involved,  "liie  law  of  trademarks  is  but  j)art  of  the  law  of 
unfair  competitioii   \n  trade."- 

§  3.     Trademark     dejined.-^ — A     trademark     is     a    distinc- 


1 — Snowdon  v.  Noah,  Hopkins 
Ch.   347. 

2 — Bradford,  J.,  in  Dcnnison 
Mfp.  Co.  V.  Thomas  I^Ifg.  Co.,  94 
Fed.   Rep.   651,  659. 

3 — Judicial  definitions.  •'—  "A 
trademark  may  consist  of  a  name, 
symlx)!,  letter,  form  or  device,  if 
adopted  and  used  by  a  manufac- 
turer or  merchant  in  order  to  des- 
if^ate  the  goods  ln'  manufactures 
or  Bells,  to  distinj^uish  the  same 
from  those  manufactured  or  sold 
by  another,  to  the  end  tliat  the 
poods  may  be  known  in  the  market 
as  his,  and  to  enable  him  to  secure 
such  profits  as  result  from  his 
reputation  for  skill,  industry,  and 
fid<'lity.'*  Mr.  Justice  Clifford  in 
McLean  v.  Fh-minp,  96  U.  S.  245, 
254,  24  L.  Ed.  832,  and  in  Amos- 
keap  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Trainer,  101  U. 
S.  51,  60,  25  L.  Ed.  993. 

"A  trademark,  projierly  so  called, 
may  be  described  as  a  particular 
mark  or  symbol,  iised  by  a  person 
for  the  pur[)ow  of  den«)tin;;  that 
the  article  to  whidi   it  is  afTixed  is 


sold  or  manufacture<l  liy  liim  or  by 
Ins  Authority,  or  that  he  carries  on 
business  at  a  particular  place." 
Lord  Cranworth  in  Leatlier  Cloth 
Co.  V.  American  Leather  Cloth  Co., 
35  L.  J.  Ch.  01. 

"A  trademark  is  a  mere  notice, 
an  arbitrary  mark  or  sign  put  on 
an  artificial  product,  whereby  any 
person  interested  in  the  informa- 
tion may  be  assured  as  to  the  ori- 
gin of  said  ])nKluct."  Showalter, 
J.,  in  Koyal  Haking  Powder  Co. 
V.  Raymond,  70  PVd.  Rep.  370,  380. 

''A  trademark  is  a  peculiar  name 
or  device,  by  whicli  a  person  deal- 
ing in  an  article  designates  it  as 
of  a  jjeculiar  kind,  cliaracter  or 
quality,  or  as  manufactured  by  or 
for  him,  or  dealt  in  by  him,  and 
of  wliich  he  is  entitled  to  the  ex- 
clusive use."  Devens,  J.,  in  Weener 
V.   llrayton,   152  Mass.    101,   102. 

"A  trademark  is  a  form,  symbol 
or  name  af)projiriat<'d  by  one  who 
produces  or  deals  in  a  particular 
thing,  or  condiicts  a  particular 
business,  to  designate  tiie  origin  or 


I'KEl'ATUUV. 


[§3 


ownorflhip  tlifrcof."  SIohh,  J.,  in 
Italian  SwIhh  Colony  v.  Italian 
Vineyard  Co.,  ir,S  Cal.  2:12,  110 
I'ae.   Ki'p.  l>i;i. 

"A  trademark  is  a  distinftlvc 
mark  of  authenticity  through 
which  the  products  of  a  particular 
manufacturer  may  he  di8tinf,'ui8hed 
from  othern."  Vceder,  J.,  in 
United  Lace  &  llraid  Co.  v.  Barth- 
els  Mfjr.  Co.,  221  Fed.  Rep.  457, 
459. 

"A  trademark  has  been  very  well 
defined  as  one's  commercial  signa- 
ture to  his  goods."  Dyer,  J.,  in 
Leideradorf  v.  Flint,  8  Biss.  327, 
Fed.  Case  No.  8,210.  For  the  ori- 
gin of  this  definition,  see  Browne 
on  Trademarks,  §  i:?0,  n.  2  (2d 
Ed.). 

The  same  definition  occurs  in 
Star  Co.  V.  \Mieeler  Syndicate,  155 
X.  Y.  S.  782. 

"It  is  a  mode  of  designating 
goods  as  being  the  goods  which 
have  been,  in  some  way  or  other, 
dealt  with  by  A.  B.,  the  person  who 
owns  the  trademark."  Kay,  J.,  In 
re  The  Australian  Wine  Import- 
ers (Ltd.),  L.  R.  41  Ch.  D.  278,  281. 

"Symbols  or  devices  used  by  a 
manufacturer  or  merchant  to  dis- 
tinguish the  products,  manufac- 
tures, or  merchandise  which  he 
produces,  manufactures  or  sells, 
from  that  of  others,  are  called  and 
known  by  the  name  of  trade- 
marks. They  are  used  in  order 
that  such  products,  manufactures 
or  merchandise  may  be  known  as 
belonging  to  the  owner  of  the 
symbol  or  device,  and  that  he  may 
secure  the  profits  from  its  reputa- 
tion or  superiority."  Mr.  Justice 
Clifford  in  Amoskeag  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Trainer,  101  U.  S.  51,  56,  25  L. 
Ed.  903. 


"Any  name,  symbol,  letter,  figure 
<ir  device  adopted  by  the  perHons 
manufacturing  or  selling  goods, 
and  used  and  put  upon  sucii  goodH 
to  dlslingulsii  them  from  those 
manufactured  or  sold  by  otiiers,  and 
employed  so  often  and  for  such  a 
length  of  time,  as  to  raise  the  pre- 
sumption tiiat  the  public  would 
know  that  it  was  used  to  indicat*- 
ownert-.hlp  of  the  goods  in  the  pt'rson 
manufacturing  or  scdling  tliem, 
constitutes  his  trademark."  Rhodes, 
.1.,  in  Derringer  v.  Plate,  20  Cal. 
202;   Cox,  324. 

"A  trademark  is  a  symbol  arbi- 
trarily selected  l)y  a  manufacturer 
or  dealer,  and  attached  to  his 
wares  to  indicate  that  they  are  his 
wares."  Douglas,  J.,  in  Cady  v. 
Schultz,  10  R.  I.  103;  Gl  Am.  St. 
Rep.  763,  765. 

"It  is  a  sign  or  mark  by  which 
the  manufactured  articles  produced 
by  one  person,  or  firm,  or  maker 
are  distinguishable  from  those  pro- 
duced by  rival  manufacturers." 
Williams,  J.,  in  Hoyt  v.  Hoyt,  143 
Pa.   St.   623;   24  Am.   St.  Rep.   575. 

"A  trademark  consists  of  a  word, 
mark  or  device  adopted  by  a  manu- 
facturer or  vendor  to  distinguish 
his  i)roductions  from  other  pro- 
ductions of  the  same  article."  Gil- 
fillan,  C.  J.,  in  Cigarmakers'  Pro- 
tective Union  v.  Conhaim,  40  Minn. 
243;   12  Am.  St.  Rep.  726. 

"A  trademark  is  a  name,  sign, 
symbol,  mark,  brand,  or  device  of 
any  kind,  used  to  designate  the 
goods  manufactured  or  sold,  or  the 
place  of  business  of  tlie  manufac- 
turer or  dealer  in  such  goods." 
Beck,  J.,  in  Shaver  v.  Shaver,  54 
Iowa,  208;  Price  &  Steuart,  305. 

"A  trademark  may  consist  of 
anything,    marks,    forms,    sjTnbols, 


§3] 


inH'KINS    ON    TUAOKMAKKS. 


wliicli  d«'Hij:mit«'«l  tlif  trm-  i>n>;iii  or 
owntTHliip  of  till-  nrtirlf."  Moiu-ll, 
.1.,  in  t;oilillot  \.  Uu/ard,  U  N.  Y. 
Suj>.   It.   427. 

"A  irailfniark  i»  .  .  .  tho 
nnmc,  hviuIk)!,  lijfiiro,  l«'tt«T,  form, 
or  ih'vicf  iiwd  liy  u  inanufaoturiT 
or  nn'rcliaiit  to  clrHij^nati'  the 
^•(mmIs  In-  nuiiiufaotun-H  or  nv\\»,  to 
ilistin^nnsh  tluin  from  thoso  man- 
ufacturi'd  or  sold  !•%  aiiotluT,  to  i\w 
.nd  that  tlu-y  nmy  W  known  in  the 
market  as  his,  and  to  iwcurc  Huch 
profits  as  rt'Bult  from  a  reputation 
for  superior  skill,  industry  or  cn- 
terpris*'."  Crawford.  .1.,  in  Lar- 
rabee  v.  Lewis.  07  (!a.  r)(i2. 

"A  trademark  is  an  arbitrary 
character  or  characters  without 
special  meaniiij;,  adopted  by  per- 
sons, firms  or  corporations  for  the 
purpose  of  identifying  the  poods 
manufactiired  by  them  or  of  which 
they  have  the  sale."  Marble, 
Commissioner,  in  A'j  parte  Frei- 
berg &  Workum,  20  Off.  Gaz. 
IIG). 

"Broadly  defined,  a  trademark  is 
a  mark  by  which  tlie  wares  of  the 
owner  are  known  in  trade.  Its  ob- 
ject is  two-fold:  First,  to  protect 
the  party  using  it  from  competi- 
tion with  inf<-rior  articles;  and 
wcond,  to  j)rotect  tiie  puldic  from 
imposititin.  .  .  .  Anything  which 
can  8<'rve  to  distinguish  one  man's 
productions  from  thow  of  another 
may  Ik*  used.  The  trademark 
brands  the  goods  as  genuine,  just 
as  the  signature  to  a  letter  stamjis 
it  as  authentic."  Coxe,  .T.,  in  Shaw 
St<K-king  Co.  V.  Mark.  12  Fed.  K.p. 
707.  710. 

"A  trademark  is  any  proper 
mark  by  which  goods  and  wares  of 
the  owner  or  manufacturer  are 
known  in  the  trade.  Cotirts  «>f 
••quity  have  two  objects  in  view  in 


granting  injunctions  against  their 
imitation:  1.  To  si-cure  to  the  in- 
dividual adopting  one  the  profits 
of  iiis  skill,  industry  and  enter- 
prise; 2.  To  prot<ft  the  public 
against  fraud."  Nixon,  J.,  in 
l!um|»hreys'  Specific  Med.  Co.  v. 
Wenz,  14  Fed.   Kep.  2.'i0,  252. 

"A  trademark  is  a  sign  or  sym- 
bol primarily  confined  exclusively 
to  the  indication  of  tlie  origin  or 
ownershij)  of  tlie  goods  to  which  it 
may  lie  attached  and  it  may  be 
composed  of  any  name,  device,  line, 
figure,  mark,  word,  letter,  numeral 
or  combination  or  arrangement  of 
any  or  all  of  these,  which  will  serve 
the  sole  purpose  of  a  trademark, 
and  wliich  no  other  person  can 
adopt  or  use  with  i'«]ual  truth." 
Ilargis,  J.,  in  Avery  v.  Meikle,  81 
Ky.  73. 

"A  trademark  consists  of  a 
word,  mark,  or  device  adopted  by 
a  manufacturer  or  vendor  to  dis- 
tinguish his  production  from  other 
productions  of  the  same  article." 
Wallace,  J.,  in  Hostetter  v.  Fries, 
17    Fed.   Rep.  G20,  622. 

"A  trademark,  as  defined  by 
Bouvier,  is  a  sign,  writing  or 
ticket  put  on  manufactured  goods, 
to  distinguish  tliem  from  others. 
It  has,  !)>•  a  commentator  on  trade- 
marks, l)een  more  fully  explained 
as  a  name,  symbol,  figure,  letter, 
form,  or  device,  adopted  and  used 
by  a  manufacturer  or  merchant  to 
designate  the  goods  he  manufac- 
tures or  sells  to  distinguisli  them 
from  the  goods  of  aiiotlier."  Alli- 
son, I*.  .1.,  in  FiTguson  v.  Davol 
Mills,  2  Hrewst.   314. 

".\  trademark  is  some  arbitrary 
or  representative  device  attached 
to  or  sold  with  merchandise  and 
serving  to  designat*'  the  origin  or 
manufacture  of    tliat   merchandise." 


rUKKAIOUV 


[§3 


Carpenter,  J.,  in  Davis  v.  Davis,  27 
Fed.    Hep.  400,  491. 

"Wliat  ia  a  trademark?  A  'mark' 
meanH  to  make  a  visible  Bi;^n  upon 
Homotliing,  to  allix  a  8ij,'ni(ioant 
mark  lo;  to  draw,  cut,  fasten, 
lirand ;  a  token  upon,  indicating  or 
intimating  sometiiing;  to  allix  an 
indication  to;  to  attacli  one's  name 
or  initials  to.  A  trademark,  there- 
fore, consists  of  the  use  in  trade  of 
such  a  mark,  jjlaced  upon  goods 
manufactured  l>y  a  particular  person 
and  ])laei'd  in  the  market  with  such 
marks,  for  sale  and  trade."  Welker, 
.1.,  in  Adams  v.  Ileisel,  31  Fed.  Rep. 
279,  280. 

"A  trademark  is  properly  defined 
hy  Upton  (Upton's  Trademarks,  9) 
as  'the  name,  symbol,  figure,  letter, 
form  or  device  adopted  and  used 
liy  a  manufacturer  or  merchant,  in 
order  to  designate  the  goods  that 
he  manufactures  or  sells,  and  dis- 
tinguish tliem  from  those  maiuifac- 
tured  or  sold  hy  anotlier,  to  the 
end  that  tlii'y  may  be  known  in  the 
market  as  his,  and  thus  enable  him 
to  secure  such  profits  as  result 
from  a  reputation  for  superior 
skill,  industry  or  enterprise.'  The 
trademark  must  he  used  to  indi- 
cate not  the  quality,  but  the  origin 
or  owiiership  of  the  article  to 
Mhich  it  is  attached.  It  may  be 
any  sign,  mark,  symbol,  word  or 
words,  which  others  have  not  an 
equal  right  to  employ  for  the  same 
purpose."  Earl,  Commissioner  of 
Appeals,  in  Newman  v.  Alvord,  51 
N.  Y.  189,  193. 

"Every  one  is  at  liberty  to  affix 
to  a  product  of  his  own  manufac- 
ture any  symbol  or  device,  not  pre- 
viously appropriated,  which  will 
distinguish  it  from  articles  of  the 
same   general   nature   manufactured 


or  Hold  by  others,  and  thus  «ecure 
to  himself  the  benefits  of  increased 
sale  by  reason  of  any  peculiar  ex- 
cellence he  may  have  given  to  it. 
The  Hyml)ol  or  device  thus  becomea 
a  sign  to  tlie  public  of  the  origin 
of  till-  goods  to  which  it  is  attached, 
and  an  assurance  tiiat  they  are  the 
geiuiine  article  of  the  original  pro- 
ducer. In  this  way  it  often  {)roves 
to  be  of  great  value  to  the  manu- 
facturer in  preventing  the  substitu- 
tion and  sale  of  an  inferior  and 
difl'erent  article  for  his  products. 
It  becomes  his  trademark,  and  the 
courts  will  protect  him  in  its  ex- 
clusive use."  Mr.  Justice  Field  in 
Amoskeag  Mfg.  Co.  v  Trainer,  101 
U.   S.   51,   .53;   25  L.   Ed.   993. 

"Trademark. — An  arbitrary  sym- 
bol affixed  by  a  manufacturer  or 
merchant  to  a  vendible  commodity. 
The  principal  purpose  of  a  trade- 
mark is  to  guarantee  the  genuine- 
ness of  a  product.  It  is,  in  fact, 
the  commercial  substitute  for  one's 
autograph.  In  all  ages  it  has  been 
used  to  denote  origin,  and  thus 
protect  the  purchaser  as  well  as 
the  vendor.  All  countries  protect 
the  integrity  of  trademarks,  and 
nearly  all  civilized  nations  have 
treaties  or  conventions  securing 
reciprocity  of  protection.  The  tests 
of  a  trademark  are:  1.  Universal- 
ity; that  is,  commonly  recognized 
as  such.  2.  Exclusiveness;  in  the 
possession  of  the  owner.  3.  Indi- 
viduality; must  indicate  origin  and 
ownership.  4.  ^lust  be  for  mer- 
chandise. 5.  ^lust  be  in  a  lawful 
business.  G.  Must  be  distinct  and 
invariable."  Knight's  ilechanical 
Dictionary,  title  "Trademark," 
]).   2009. 

"Our  word  'trademark'  compre- 
liends  both   the  marque  tie  fabrique 


§3] 


IDI'KINS    ON    TKAKW.M  \KKS. 


8 


ami  marque  ilc  <<>mmcrrc  of 
France."  Townsend,  .1.,  in  La  Re- 
puliUque  Frnncaisf  v.  Scluiltz,  57 
FikI.   Hop.   37,  41. 

"A  distinctive  mark  of  authen- 
ticity, throuj,'h  which  the  products 
of  particular  manufacturers  or  the 
vendible  commodities  of  particular 
merchants  may  l>o  distin<,nii8hed 
from  those  of  others."  Mr.  Chief 
.lurstiee  Fuller  in  Kl}.Mn  Nat.  Watch 
Co.  V.  Illinois  Watch  Case  Co.  (21, 
170  V.  S.  ('.(ir>,  ()73,  45  L.  Ed.  305. 
'•.V  trademark  is  a  name  or  a 
mark  or  a  device  which  is  at- 
tached to  the  article  to  point  out 
its  origin."  Shipman,  J.,  in  Adee 
V.  Peck  Bros.  &  Co.,  39  Fed.  Rep. 
209,  210. 

"A  trademark  is  a  word,  a  sym- 
Ih>1  or  device  hy  which  the  wares 
of  the  owner  are  known  in  trade." 
Coxe,  J.,  in  Kipling  v.  G.  P.  Put- 
nam's Sons,  120  Fed.  Rep.  631,  57 
C.  C.  A.  295. 

"A  trademark  is  an  arbitrary, 
distinctive  name,  symbol,  or  de- 
vice, to  indicate  or  authenticate 
the  origin  of  the  product  to  which 
it  is  attached."  Deemer,  C.  J.,  in 
Sartor  v.  Rchaden,  101  X.  W.  Rep. 
511,  125  Iowa,  GOG. 

"A  trademark  is  a  notice,  a  me- 
dium of  information  touching  ori- 
gin or  ownership."  Showalter,  J., 
in  Beadleston  &  Woerz  v.  Cooke 
Brewing  Co.,  20  C.  C.  A.  405;  74 
Fed.  Rep.  229,  234. 

"A  trademark  is  a  means  of  au- 
thenticating or  indicating  the  ori- 
gin of  an  article."  Hillings,  .!.,  in 
Johnson  v.  Schenck,  Fed.  Case 
No.  7,412. 

"A  trademark  is  a  distinctive 
mark  of  authenticity  through  which 
the  products  of  a  particular  man- 
ufacturer may  be  distinguished 
from  otliers."  Veeder,  J.,  in  United 


L.  &  H.  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Barthfls  Mfg. 
Co.,  221  Fed.  Rep.  456,  459  (ob- 
viously too  limited  because  it  does 
not  cover  natural  products,  selec- 
tors' marks,  etc. ) . 

"A  trademark  is  a  guaranty  that 
the  goods  to  wliich  it  is  attached 
are  made  l>y  its  owner."  Coxe, 
J.,  in  American  Tobacco  Co.  v. 
Polacsek,    170    Fed.    Rep.    117,    120. 

"A  trademark  is  a  distinctive 
name,  word,  mark,  emblem,  design, 
symbol,  or  device  used  in  lawful 
commerce  to  indicate  or  authenti- 
cate the  source  from  which  has 
come,  or  throtigh  which  has  passed, 
the  chattel  on  or  to  which  it  is 
afTi.xed."  Fly,  -T.,  in  Western 
Grocer  Co.  v.  CalTerelli  Bros. 
(T.X.),  108  S.  W.  Rep.  413,  414, 
(not  ofricially  reported)  adopting 
tlie  definition  of  the  author. 

"A  trademark  is  something  used 
on  salable  articles  to  designate 
them  as  the  articles  made  by  A., 
and  to  distinguish  them  from  simi- 
lar articles  made  or  sold  by  B." 
Torrance,  J.,  in  Hygeia  Distilled 
Water  Co.  v.  Hygeia  Ice  Co.,  40 
Atl.  534,  540;    70  Conn.  516. 

"The  only  recognized  indication 
of  a  trademark  is  the  source,  ori- 
gin or  ownership  of  an  article  of 
merchandise  on  which  it  is  placed. 
Caswell  v.  Davis,  58  N.  Y.  223; 
17  Am.  Rep.  233.  This  means  that 
the  mark  is  calculated  to  distin- 
guish the  artich'S  which  bear  it 
from  those  of  other  makers  or  ven- 
dors. It  need  not  indicate  any 
jiarticular  person  as  maker,  manu- 
facturer, or  vi-ndor,  or  give  the 
name  or  address  of  either.  When 
tlie  mark  has  become  recognized  by 
j)urcliasers  as  a  distinctive  desig- 
nation of  a  particular  manufae- 
turcr,  maker,  or  seller  of  a  cc-rtain 
quality   of  goods,    it   will   be   a   suf- 


PREFATORY. 


[§3 


tive^  name,  word,  mark,  emblein,  design,  symbol  or  device,  used 
in  lawful  commerce  to  indicate  or  authenticate  the  source  from 
which  has  come,  or  through  which  lias  passed,"  the  chattel 
vipon  or  to  which  it  is  applied  or  affixed." 


ficii'iit  indication  of  tiic  origin  or 
ownersliip,  within  tiic  rule  requisite 
to  its  protection  as  such,  though 
purcliasers  may  not,  from  the 
words  or  otherwise,  l)e  able  to  tell 
who  is  the  particular  maker  or 
seller  of  the  articles.  Its  value  is 
in  its  employment,  marking  the 
goods  on  which  it  is  placed.  This 
gives  it  the  character  of  property. 
It  is,  then,  a  symbol  of  reputation 
or  good  will."  People  v.  Fisher,  50 
Hun,  552;  3  N.  Y.  Supp.  786; 
adopted  in  State  v.  Bishop,  31  S. 
W.  Rep.  !),  II;  128  ilo.  373;  29  L. 
R.  A.  200;  40  Am.  St.  Rep.  569. 
4 — By  the  word  "distinctive,"  as 
used  in  our  definition,  is  meant 
that  the  mark  must  be  something 
which  "shall  be  capable  of  distin- 
guishing the  particular  goods  in 
relation  to  which  it  is  to  be  used 
from  other  goods  of  a  like  charac- 
ter belonging  to  other  people." 
Lord  Chief  Justice  Russell,  in 
Rowland  v.  Mitchell,  L.  R.  (1897) 
1  Ch.  D.  71,  74;  Wood  v.  Lambert, 
L.  R.  32  Ch.  D.  247 ;  54  L.  T.  N.  S. 
314;  3  P.  R.  81;  (Court  of  Ap- 
peals) L.  R.  32  Ch.  D.  257;  55  L. 
J.  Ch.  277;  54  L.  T.  N.  S.  317;  3 
P.  R.  88;  Re  Perry  Davis  &  Son, 
58  L.  T.  N.  S.  695 ;  5  P.  R.  333,  and 
many  similar  English  cases  treat 
of  the  word  "distinctive"  as  used  in 
the  English  Patents,  Designs  and 
Trademarks  Act  of  1883,  section 
64,  subsection  1,  c.  But  the  word 
is  used  with  the  same  significance 
by  our  own  leading  jurists,  as  for 
example,  by  ]\rr.  Chief  Justice 
Fuller,    in    Elgin    National    Watch 


Co.  V.  Illinois  Watch  Case  Co.  (2), 
179  U.  S.  665,  673;  45  L.  Ed.  ;i79 ; 
by  Justice  Holmes,  in  Northeastern 
Awl  Co.  V.  Marlborough  Awl  Co., 
168  Mass.  147 ;  60  Am.  St.  Rep.  373 ; 
and  by  Judge  Lacombe  in  National 
Biscuit  Co.  V.  Baker,  95  Fed.  Rep. 
136.  For  this  reason  the  word  is  in- 
corporated in  the  definition  given  in 
the  text. 

5 — "The  use  of  a  trademark  docs 
not  necessarily  and  as  a  matter  of 
law  import  that  the  articles  upon 
which  it  is  used  are  manufactured 
by  its  user.  It  may  be  enough  that 
tliey  are  manufactured  for  him; 
that  he  controls  their  production, 
or  even  that  they  pass  through  his 
hands  in  the  course  of  trade,  and 
that  he  gives  to  them  the  benefit 
of  his  reputation,  or  of  his  name 
and  business  style."  Sheldon,  J., 
in  Nelson  v.  J.  H.  Winchell  &  Co., 
203  Mass.  75;  89  N.  E.  Rep.  180; 
citing  Weener  v.  Brayton,  152 
Mass.  101,  102;  25  N.  E.  Rep.  46; 
8  L.  R.  A.  640 ;  McLean  v.  Fleming, 
96  U.  S.  245,  253;  24  L.  Ed.  828; 
:\Ienendez  v.  Holt,  128  U.  S.  514, 
520;  32  L.  Ed.  526;  Godillot  v. 
Harris,  81  K  Y.  263,  266;  In  re 
Australian  Wine  Importers,  L.  R. 
41  Ch.  D.  278,  280,  281;  Major 
Brothers  v.  Franklin  (1908),  1  K. 
B.  712;  Ullman  v.  Leviba  (1908), 
A.  C.  443. 

6 — The  mode  in  which  the  mark 
is  applied  or  affixed  is  immaterial. 
It  may  be  water-marked  in  trans- 
lucent fabrics.  Price  v.  Goodall, 
L.  R.  (1891)  1  Ch.  D.  35.  It  has 
been  held  to  be  a  sufficient  method 


§4] 


rUAHK.M  AKK^ 


10 


§4.  Tradename  defined. — Tlio  word  "tradename''  as  nscd 
in  the  di'risions  lias  two  diilVrent  meaning's.  Standing;  alone, 
and  separate  from  the  word  "trademark"  it  includes  all  busi- 
ness names;  while  in  the  expression  "trademarks  and  trade- 
names" it  means  all  l)usiness  names  which  are  not  technical 
trademarks.' 

Mr.  l)rowne,  in  his  valuable  treatise  on  trademarks  (sec.  91) 
uses  the  rollouinfr  lanprnape:  "the  distinction  will  be  readily- 
comprehended,  when  it  is  remembered  that  a  trademark  owes 
its  existence  to  the  fact  that  it  is  actually  affixed  to  a  vendible 
commodity.  A  tradename  is  more  properly  allied  to  the  grood- 
will  of  a  business."  This  distinction  is  of  itself  decidedly 
misleading.  ]\Iany  tradenames  are  "actually  affixed  to  a  vend- 
ible commodity,"^  and  as  both  trademarks  and  other  trade- 
names are  a  constituent  part  of  the  goodwill  of  the  business 
in  which  they  are  used,  it  is  not  possible  for  one  class  of  names 
to  be  more  properly  allied  to  the  goodwill  than  the  other, 
nor  is  it  proper  to  say  of  either  that  it  is  "allied''  to  some- 
thing of  which  it  is  a  component  part. 

A  name  is  frequently  referred  to  as  a  "trademark"  and 
as  a  "tradename"  in  the  same  opinion.^  Some  of  our  ablest 
judges  treat  the  words  "tradename"  and  "trademark"  as 
synonymous.^" 

Some  of  the  cases  dealing  with  tradenames  are  fairly  be- 
wildering to  one  who  endeavors  to  reconcile  them  or  deduce 


of  afTixinp  tin-  mark,  to  use  it  in 
advert isiiifr,  and  to  place  a  litlio- 
grai)hed  fac-simile  of  it  on  a  card, 
in  a  lx)X  containing  a  quantity  of 
the  goods.  Hay  &  Todd  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Querns  Hrothers,  8(5  Off.  Gaz. 
1323.  It  has  heen  held  that  to  dis- 
play the  mark  on  a  show-card 
placed  on  lots  of  candy  in  a  show 
window,  is  not  sufficient  to  cstah- 
liflh  a  trademark  right  therein. 
Oakes  v.  St.  Louis  Candy  Co.,  140 
Mo.   391;   48  S.  \V.   Rep.  407. 

7— N.  K.  Fairhank  Co.  v.  Luckel, 
King  &,   Cake   iSuup  Co.,   102   i'^cd, 


Kep.  327.  331;  42  C.  V.  A.  370;  02 
Off.  Gaz.  1437. 

8 — As  "Minnesota  Patent,"  in 
Pillshury-Washburn  Co.  v.  Eagle, 
80  Fed.  Rep.  008;  30  C.  C.  A.  380; 
and  "Wnltliam."  in  American 
Waltliam  Watcli  C...  v.  Ignited 
Stat<'8  Watch  Co.,  173  Mass.  8."); 
r)3  X.   E.   Rep.   141. 

'.) — Opinion  of  Seaman,  J.,  in 
Postum  Cereal  Co.  v.  American 
Health  Food  Co.,  100  Fed.  Rep.  808. 

10— Thomas  G.  Plant  Co.  v.  May 
Co.,  44  C.  C.  A.  .'534;  10')  Fed.  Rep. 
375. 


11  PREFATOKV.  [§4 

a  general  definition  of  "tradename''  from  them.  In  a  Mass- 
achusetts case,  for  example,  the  court  found  that  the  defendant 
had  acquired  the  right  to  the  use  of  the  name  "John  G.  Lor- 
ing  &  Co."  as  a  "trademark"  on  goods,  but  had  no  right  to 
use  it  as  a  tradename.'^ 

This  confusion  is  not  lessened  by  those  opinions  in  which 
the  courts  seek  to  i)oint  out  functions  common  to  trademarks 
and  tradenames.  For  example,  "a  'trademark'  or  'tradename' 
is  some  symbol  l)y  which  one  man's  manufacture  is  differ- 
entiated from  another's."  '- 

As  a  proper  name  can  not  be  a  trademark,  under  principles 
discussed  elscAvhere  is  this  book,  while  the  meaning  of  the 
word  as  used  by  the  court  is  clear,  the  opinion  lends  no 
assistance  to  the  distinction  between  "trademark"  and  "trade- 
name. ' ' 

Historically,  this  confusion  probably  arose  in  the  English 
decisions.  In  one  of  the  leading  cases  we  find  that  Lord  Chan- 
cellor Westbury  said  "a  name  or  the  style  of  a  firm  may  by 
long  usage  become  a  mere  trademark,"  ^^  and  in  the  same 
case,  in  the  House  of  Lords,  Lord  Cramvorth  referred  to  the 
difficulties  which  "may  arise  where  the  trademark  consists 
merely  of  the  name  of  the  manufacturer."  ^^ 

Lord  Romilly  said  in  another  case  "the  name  or  style  of 
the  firm  of  'Banks  &  Co.'  was  an  asset  of  the  partnership, 
and  if  the  whole  concern  and  the  good  Avill  of  a  business 
have  been  sold,  the  name,  as  a  trademark,  would  have  been 
sold  with  it."  1^ 

With  this  loose  use  of  the  word  trademark  by  such  eminent 
judges  some  forty  years  since,  it  is  not  remarkable  that  the 
bench  and  the  profession  have  not  yet  drawn  the  line  separat- 
ing trademarks  from  tradenames  with  any  degree  of  lucidity. 
The  question  of  mere  definition  is  nearly  always  a  matter  of 
secondary  importance  in  the  progress  of  any  science.  The 
want  of  an  accurate  distinction  between  trademarks  and  trade- 

ll_Bo\vman   v.    Floyd,   85   Mass.  14 — Leather   Cloth  Co.    v.   Ameri- 

76.  '  can  Leather  Cloth  Co.,   11  H.  L.  C. 

12 — Hand,    J.,    in    R.    Guastavino  523,  533. 
Co.  V.  Comerma,  180  Fed.  Rep.  920.  15— Banks    v.    Gibson,    34    Beav. 

13— Leather   Cloth   Co.   v.  Ameri-  566. 
can  Leather  Co.,  4  DeG.  J.  &.  S.  141, 
144. 


1  IIDI'KINS    ON      rKAI)i:.\J.VUKS.  12 

names  has  n«)t  liaiupori'il  llio  ^[rowlli  of  this  l»raiu-li  itf  llic  law; 
if  it  had,  the  distiiu-tion  would  lony:  siiu-c  have  boon  drawn 
by  the  cKiirts.  The  prinoipU-s  involved  in  trademark  eases 
and  tradename  eases  have  b»'en  substantially  identieal.  liut 
witli  their  development  it  has  been  neeessary  to  sharply  de- 
tine  the  teehnieal  tradenuirk,  and  if  it  were  possil)le  to  draft 
as  aeeurate  a  definition  of  trailename  the  result  would  be  to 
measure  the  metes  and  bounds  of  the  field  of  cases  in  Avhich 
relief  will  be  frranted  ajiainst  the  fraudulent  use  of  a  word  or 
j)hrase  used  as  the  distinguishing  identitieation  mark  of  a 
eommereial  enterprise  or  article  of  trade. 

It  is  clear  that  words  of  common  right  ought  not  to  be 
ealled  tradenames.  Thus,  the  word  "cracker"  imprinted  on 
a  soda  cracker  indicates  merely  that  it  is  a  soda-cracker.  As 
the  article  itself  convoys  that  knowledge,  tiie  word  is  super- 
tluous.  Mark  the  cracker  "Uneeda,"  and  an  entirely  differ- 
ent result  follows.  The  word  is  a  trademark.'"'  The  word, 
so  affixed,  moots  the  recmirements  of  all  the  definitions  given 
herein.  It  is  a  distinguishing  indication  of  origin  and  owner- 
ship. Hut  take  an  oxam])le  of  another  kind  of  word  api)lied 
to  a  common  stajile  article  of  nu'rcliaiulise.  "Flour"  stamped 
on  a  sack  of  Hour  is  meaningless.  "Patent  Flour"  means 
something  more.  "^liiinesota  Patent  Flour"  means  i)atent 
flour  nuido  in  ^Minnesota.  Clearly  the  word  "flour"  alone,  and 
the  words  "Patent  F'lour"  together,  can  not  be  called  trade- 
names, though  they  are  names  used  in  ti-ade.  They  are  of 
common  right.  Thoy  can  be  truthfully  ajiplied  to  flour  re- 
gardless of  the  place  where,  or  the  i)orson  by  ^\ilom,  it  is 
j)roduccd.  "Minnesota  Patent  Flour"  is  not  a  trademark.  It  is 
of  common  right  to  all  j)ersons  producing  patent  flour  in  Minne- 
sota. Hut  it  is  a  tradename,  because  it  will  bo  a  medium  of 
fraud  if  persons  producing  flour  elsewhere  than  in  Minnesota 
are  iKTinittcd  to  apply  it  to  their  flour.'^ 

To  use  another  cxamjdo  of  a  very  connnon  class.  Any  one 
can  make  soap  and  mark  it  "Soap."  Any  soap  numufacturor 
can  call  his  soap  "Host  Soap."  A  partiodar  mainifacturer 
adds    his   name    to    this    mark    and    produces   "  I'abhitt 's   liest 

1(V— N'ationnl        HimMiit       Co.       \  17  —  I'illHlmry  ■  \\  iiKlilMirri       Flour 

lUk.r.   Ji.'i    ]•','<]     It.j..    ]Ar,.  MillH  Co.  v.  Kii;.-!.-,  IW  C.  C.  A.  380; 

MCi    I'.'.l.    IN-p.   ens. 


13  I'KEl'ATOKY.  [§4 

Soap."  lie  has  not  made  a  trademark  but  he  lias  made  a 
tradename.'**  Another  per.son  named  liabbitt  entering  the 
market  subsequently  must  clearly  distinguish  his  soap  from 
that  of  the  other  Habbitt. 

An  example  of  a  word  descriptive  of  the  composition  of 
the  article  itself  is  "Cellular  Cloth,"  a  cloth  fabric  having 
cells  in  its  texture.  This  is  not  a  tradename,"*  while  "Camel's 
Hair"  belting  is.'-" 

The  reason  for  the  distinction  lies  solely  in  the  fact  that 
the  latter  words  became  established  in  the  trade  as  designating 
the  goods  of  the  first  introducer.  While  the  two  marks  on  their 
faces  are  in  identically  the  same  category,  the  circumstances 
surrounding  their  commercial  use  have  rendered  the  first 
strictly  of  common  right,  and  the  second  that  sort  of  quasi- 
trademark  which  for  convenience,  and  because  of  the  in- 
adequacy of  our  vocabulary,  mc  are  constrained  to  call  a 
tradename. 

With  all  of  these  distinctions  before  us,  and  having  regard 
solely  to  the  meaning  which  should  attach  to  the  word  "trade- 
name" if  it  is  to  be  accurately  differentiated  from  the  technical 
trademark,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  names  completely  puhlici 
juris  employed  in  commerce  on  the  other,  the  author  submits 
the  following  definition :  A  tradename  is  a  word  or  phrase  by 
which  a  business  enterprise  or  business  location  or  specific 
articles  of  merchandise  from  a  specific  source  are  known  to  the 
jniblic,  and  which  when  applied  to  merchandise  is  generic  or 
descriptive  and  hence  not  susceptible  of  appropriation  as  a 
technical  trademark. 

This  definition,  the  author  confidently  believes,  will  aid  the 
reader  in  properly  classifjnng  and  distinguishing  the  "trade- 
mark" and  "tradename"  cases,  and  that  it  properly  includes 
not  only  commercial  names  other  than  those  applied  to  mer- 

18— Babbitt    v.    Brown,    68    Hun.  Warner    Bros.    Co.    v.    Wicn.r.    218 

olf).      Otlicr   examples   are   the   case  Fed.   Ro]).    G:}.'). 

of  the  "Dr.  A.  Rood  Cushion  Shoe,"  10— Cellular      Clothinjj      Co.      v. 

Dr.    A.    Reed    Cushion    Shoe    Co.    v.  ^Maxton,    L.    R.     (1809)     App.    Ca?. 

Frew,   162  Fed.  Rep.   887;   89  C.  C.  .VH]. 

A.     .577,    modifying    Dr.     A.     Reed  20 — Reddaway  v.   Banham.   L.   R. 

Cushion  Shoe  Co.  v.  Frew,  1.58  Fed.  (1896)    App.  Cas.    199. 
Rep.  552 ;  the  "Warner  Corset"  case, 


§4]  HOIKING    ON      I  li  \lil.M  \I<K>.  14 

chniulisc,  but  those  names  applied  to  merchandise  whieli  thoiitrh 
tliey  are  not  trademarks  liave  aequiretl  a  secondary  meaning 
in  the  trade  and  hence  are  protected  in  eqnity  a^'ainst  their 
use  by  another  in  frandulent  competition. -' 

Thns  .Indj:e  Wolverton,  speaking'  of  the  worda  "Turpentine 
Shellai-"  a|)plied  to  a  wood  lilU'r.  hjus  said,  "As  a  tradename, 
it  may  he  properly  so  employed,  luit  within  itself  it  is  inapt 
for  exclusive  appropriation  as  a  trademark,  Heyond  this,  how- 
ever, words  or  syiidtols  naturally  descriptive  of  the  product, 
while  not  adapted  for  exclusive  use  as  a  trademark,  may  yet 
ac(juire.  by  loiifj  and  ijeneral  usage  in  connection  with  the 
jireparation  and  by  association  with  the  name  of  the  manu- 
facturer, a  secondary  meaning  or  signification,  such  as  will 
cxjjress  or  betoken  the  goods  of  that  manufacturer  only,  and 
in  this  sense  he  will  be  entitled  to  i)rotection  from  an  unfair 
use  of  the  designation  or  tradename  by  others  that  may  result 
in  his  injury  and  in  fraud  of  the  public."  -'- 

It  has  been  asserted  that  "as  a  general  rule  a  trademark 
lias  reference  to  the  thing  sold,  while  a  tradename  embraces 
both   tiie   thing  sold  and  the  individuality   of  the   seller."--' 

This  may  be  true  if  the  tradename  happens  to  be  a  proper 
name ;  otherwise  it  is  an  absolute  mis-statement.  No  such 
distinction  can  be  found  in  the  cases,  or  in  reason,  A  trade- 
mark concerns  the  individuality  of  the  dealer  quite  as  much  as 
a  tradename. 

As  to  the  relative  scoi)e  of  tradenames  as  com]iared  with 
trademarks,  the  (piestion  presented  is  wholly  academic.  From 
a  careful  study  of  the  cases  it  would  seem  clear  that  the  trade- 
mark right  is  the  broader  and  by  far  the  more  valuable; 
though  the  Kansas  court  has  held  the  contrary.-^ 

21— "A   tradonnmr  i\nvn  nut  liuvc  2.3— Gosi-,    .1.,    in    KiistiTii    (hitfit- 

to  Ik>  i<l«'ntical  with  that  of  another  tiny    Co.     v.    Manht-im,     r.<»    Wash, 

in  ord.T  t«.  juKtify  a  court  in  d<ny-  428;    110    Pac.    Rt-p.    2:i;    following 

infritHuw  iKfauw- ralculati'd  to  pro-  Arminj^ton  v.  TalnuT,  21   U.  I.  100; 

line*'  unfair  oomp<tili..n."    LauHin^',  42  Atl.   Rep.   308;   4.1  L.   R.   A.  Ofi; 

J.,    in    Ni-w|K.rt    Sami    Hank    Co.    v.  70   Am.   St.  R<-p.   780. 

Monarch  Sand  Mining  Co.,   144  Ky.  24— "The     diir.rcnpc     Intwcon     a 

7;   137  S.  W.  Hcj).  7H4.  tradi-mark  and  a  tra<l»'nani«'   i«  om- 

22 — Standard    VarniHh    Works    v.  phaHi/.td  in  some  of  tin-  authoritios. 

KJHhf-r,   ir^a  Fed.   R<p.   028,  030.  The    former    reluU-s   chiefly   to    the 


15  I'HKK  A'lOKV.  [§5 

The  English  text-wrilcr,  Mr.  Ki-rly,  lias  iiifliidccl  this  class 
of  words  in  his  treatment  of  " trudenaraes,"  He  says:  'A 
name  which  is  applied  or  attached  to  a  trad<'r's  floods  when 
they  arc  offered  for  sale,  so  as  to  dislin^Miish  th<'iii  from  similar 
goods,  and  to  identify  them  with  him,  or  with  his  successors 
as  the  owners  of  a  i)articiilar  husiiiess,  as  being  made,  worked 
upon,  imi)()rted,  selected,  certified,  or  sold  by  him  or  them,  is 
a  trademark.  And  if  it  is  within  any  of  the  classes  enumerated 
in  sec.  64  (of  the  British  Patents,  Designs  and  Trademarks 
Acts),  it  may  be  registered  as  a  trademark.  But  whether  or 
not  the  name  is  applied  or  attached  to  the  goods,  so  as  to  con- 
form to  the  definition  just  stated,  or  registered  as  a  trademark, 
if  it  is  in  fact  known  in  the  market  as  the  distinctive  name  of 
the  goods  of  a  particular  trader,  no  one  else  may  use  it  for 
dealings  in  other  goods  of  the  same  class  as  those  in  connec- 
tion with  which  it  has  acquired  its  distinctive  significance. 
*  *  *  The  qualified  right  in  the  tradename — a  right  to 
prevent  a  defendant  from  passing  off  his  goods  as  those  of 
the  plaintiff  by  the  use  of  it— exists  only  with  regard  to 
goods  of  the  kind  for  which  the  plaintiff  uses  it,  and  to  which 
the  connection  with  his  business  suggested  by  the  use  of  the 
name  extends."  2"> 

§  5.  Earliest  recognition  of  trademarks. — While  the  reports 
of  the  first  English  trademark  case  are  not  harmonious,  it  is 
probable  that  the  report  of  Popham  is  substantially  correct. 
It  is  as  follows:  "An  action  upon  the  case  was  brought  into 
the  common  pleas  by  a  clothier  that  whereas  he  had  gained 
great  reputation  for  his  making  of  his  cloth  by  reason  of  which 
he  had  great  utterance  to  his  great  benefit  and  profit,  and  that 
he  used  to  set  his  mark  to  his  cloth  whereby  it  should  be 

thing  sold,   and  the   latter   involves  4.S   L.    R.   A.   0.");    70    Am.    St.    Rep. 

also  the  individuality  of  the  maker  7S(?.     That  opinion  is  authority  for 

both  for  protection  in  trade  and  to  the  proposition  that,  in  seeking  an 

avoid  confusion  in  business,  as  well  injunction   in   such  case§,   it  is  not 

as    securing    the    advantages    of    a  necessary     to     show     damages    nor 

good  reputation.     It  is  said  that  a  fraudulent   intent."     Benson,  J.,   in 

tradename,  therefore,  has  a  broader  Harryman    v.    Harrj-man,    144    Pac. 

scope  than  a  trademark.     Tliese  oh-  Rep.   202;    03   Kas.    22.3. 

sorvations  are   found,   in   substance,  25 — Kerly    on    Trademarks,    2nd 

in    the    opinion     in     Armington    v.  ed.,  London,   1901,  p.  475. 
Palmer,  21   R.   I.   100;    42  Atl.  308; 


§6] 


UoiKi.N>    UN     l'KAl>r.M  VUKS. 


16 


known  to  be  his  cloth;  and  another  i-K)tlii(M-  porcoivinp  it  \iscd 

the  sanu*  mark  to  liis  ill-nuide  doth  on  purpose  to  ti« iv.-  liiin. 

atul  it  was  resolved  that  the  aetion  did  well  lie."-"' 

§  G.  The  evolution  of  the  law  of  trademarks.  Tliis  decision, 
rendered  in  15IH).  was  the  first  legal  recognition  of  trademarks. 
The  prowth  of  that  reeofinition  was  very  gradual,  however, 
for  as  late  as  17-42  we  liiid  Lord  llardwieke  sayinfr  that  he 
"knew  no  instance  of  n-straining  one  trader  from  making  use 
of  the  same  mark  with  another."-^  although  the  learned 
ehaneellor  takes  judicial  cognizance  of  the  widespread  use 
of  trademarks,  ohscrving  that  "every  jtarticular  trader  had 
some  ]>articular  mark  or  stamp."  And  a  century  later  Lord 
Langdale  said  :  "It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  a  man  can  acquire 
property  merely  in  a  n;iiiic  ui-  inark."-** 

§  7.  The  relative  protection  g^ven  by  patents  and  trade- 
marks.— "Isually  the  ])rotection  given  by  the  patent  is  far 
greater,  though  of  less  duration  in  time,  than  that  obtained 
by  the  use  of  a  trademark,  because  if  an  article  is  i)atented. 
nobody  but  the  owner  of  the  patent  can  without  his  consent 
make  or  sell  anything  embodying  the  same  i>rineiples  or  ele- 
ments, while  a  trademark  only  secures  one  in  the  use  of  the 
name  or  emblem  adopted  by  him  and  applied  to  the  article."  2* 

I.IO;  33  L.  J.  Ch.  204;  10  Jur.  N. 
S.  55;  9  L.  T.  N.  S.  561;  Cox.  Man- 
ual, Case  No.  215.  Opinion  of 
Wi'sthury,  L.  C,  in  Loatlirr  Cloth 
Co.  V.  Amorican  LcathtT  Clotli 
Co.,  4  Di'G.  J.  &  S.  141;  Lord  Cran- 
worth,  in  House  of  Lords,  s.  c, 
11  II.  L.  C.  533;  Lord  Kinf,'8down, 
in  Iltiuse  of  Lords,  s.  c,  11  H.  L. 
C.  544;  Mcsscrole  v.  Tvnl>er;r,  4 
Alih.  Tr.  N.  S.  410;  3(i  How.  Pr. 
14;  Cox,  470;  Oilman  v.  llnnnc 
well,  122  Mass.  130;  Cox,  Manual. 
Case  No.  541;  Fish  Bros.  Wapon 
Co.  V.  Fish  Bros.  Mfjj.  Co.,  05  Fed. 
Uep.   4.'-)7,  401;    37   C.  C.  A.    140. 

20— Allen,  J.,  in  Dover  Stamp- 
inp  Co,  V.  Fellows.  103  Mass.  101; 
40  N.  F.  T^en.  105;  47  Am.  St.  Rep. 
US;  2R  L.  R.  A.  448. 


26 — Southern  (or  Southerne)  v. 
How,  2  Pojiliam,  144;  Cro.  Jac.  471; 
2   Kolle,  2H;   Cox,  633;    Seb.  Dip.   1. 

27— Hlaiuhard  v.  Hill,  2  Atk. 
484;  Cox,  633;  S«b.  Dig.  2.  Mr. 
Sohastian  ohserves  of  this  de- 
cision :  "The  decision  B<H'ms  in  a 
great  measure  to  have  l)e«'n  founded 
ujMin  a  dn-ad  of  wtting  up  a  mo- 
iiojMily,  the  distinetion  lu-twe»'n  a 
trademark  and  a  patt-nt  not  being 
ch'arly  present  to  his  lordship's 
mind."  Si-bastian,  Trademarks 
(4th  ed.).  p   6. 

28—1842.  Perry  v.  Tru.fitt.  6 
Beav.  66;  1  L.  T.  N.  S.  384;  Seb. 
73;  Cox,  644,  646.  It  is  now  elearly 
f«tabliH|iiMl  that  tin-  ripbt  to  a 
trnd<-mnrk  is  a  prf>porty  ripht. 
Hal!    V     Harr.)WM.    4    P.-O     .T     A     "^ 


17  I'KKKATOKV.  [§M 

§8.  Trademarks  distinguished  from  patents  and  copy- 
rights.—  Wliilc  Iradciiiarks  to  a  dc^M-cc  paiMakr  of  the  natui-c 
of  both  patents  and  cojjyrifjhts,  and  tlic  three  have  many 
povorniiifx  lofjal  priiiciplos  in  comnion,  there  are  w'u\o  difTcr 
cnces  so|)aratinf]:  each  from  tlio  otliors.  As  statod  by  Mr. 
Justice  Miller  in  Trademark  Cascs,^'^  "the  ordinary  trademark 
has  no  necessary  relation  to  inventirm  or  discovery.  The 
trademark  recoj;nized  by  the  common  law  is  fjenerally  the 
growth  of  a  considerable  period  of  use,  rather  than  a  sudden 
invention.  Tt  is  often  the  result  of  accident  rather  than  desifrn. 
and  -when  under  the  act  of  con<?ress  it  is  souprht  to  establish 
it  by  rejjistration,  neither  oriprinality,  invention,  discovery, 
science  or  art  is  in  any  Avay  essential  to  the  riprht  conferred 
by  that  act.  If  %vc  should  endeavor  to  classify  it  under  the 
head  of  writingrs  of  authors,  the  objections  are  equally  stronp:. 
In  this,  as  in  rejrard  to  inventions,  oriprinality  is  required. 
And  while  the  word  icntinqs  may  be  liberally  construed,  as 
it  has  been,  to  include  orifrinal  desigrns  for  en{]^ravin{?s,  prints, 
etc.,  it  is  only  such  as  are  original,  and  are  founded  in  the 
creative  powers  of  the  mind."  And  in  the  House  of  Lords. 
in  1882,  Lord  Blackburn  said,'"  "trademarks  have  sometimes 
been  likened  to  letters  patent  and  sometimes  to  copyrifrlits. 
from  both  of  which  they  differ  in  many  respects.  And  I  think. 
to  borrow  a  phrase  used  by  Lord  Ellenborough  in  Vii'aring  v. 
Cox,^^  with  reference  to  a  different  branch  of  the  law,  'much, 
confusion  has  arisen  from  similitudinary  reasoning  on  the  sub- 
ject.' " 

§9.  Function. — The  function  of  a  trademark  is  to  convey 
to  the  purchaser  knowledge  of  the  origin,  source,  ownership 
or  manufacture  of  the  article  to  which  it   is  applied. ^^     The 

30 — 100  U.   S.   82,  04;   2;')   L.   Ed.  dostitiitc  of  orifrinality."     Mr.   Jus- 

."JSO.     See  also  Taylor  v.  Carpenti-r,  tice  Brown  in   Duer  v.  Corbin  Cali- 

2    Sandf.    Ch.    003;    11    Paige,   292;  inet  Lock  Co.,   140  U.   S.   216,  22:5: 

Cox,  45;  Cox,  Manual,  Case  Xo.  84;  .'?7  L.  Ed.  707.     To  the  same  effect, 

Le\y  V.  Waitt,  21   U.  S.  App.  204;  see  \Vm.  J.  Moxley  Co.  v.  Braun  & 

61  Fed.  Rep.  1008;  10  C.  C.  A.  227;  Fitts  Co.,  03  111.  App.  183. 

Hoyt  V.  Hoyt,  143  Pa.   St.  623;   24  31— Johnston    v.    Orr    Ewing,    7 

Am.  St.  Rep.  .57.5;  Sarrazin  v.  W.  R.  App.  Cas.  210,  228. 

Trby   Cigar   Co.,   03    Fed.   Rep.   624.  32—1  Camp.   360. 

626;  3.5  C.  C.  A.  406.     A  trademark  33 — "The     function    of     a    trade- 

"may    be,    and    usually    is,    wholly  mark    is   to    indicate  to   the   public 


§10] 


mM'KINS   ON    TR.VnKMARKS. 


18 


trademnrk  nood  luMtlicr  iiidicato  the  manufacturer  or  tlu^  place 
(if  tho  article's  inanuracturo,-'^  but  uu\y  indicjite  either  a 
natural  j>roduet  of  the  rartii.  or  the  handlinjr  or  seleetion  of 
the  poods,  or  some  labor  tliat  has  been  pn  lonned  in  eonne**- 
tion  therewith.  It  serves  solely  to  jrnide  tlie  i)ublic  to  the 
troods  it  wants  to  buy,  acting  as  a  perpetual  means  of  idcnti- 
tieation  and  advertisement  of  poods  of  repute. 

^  10.  Nature  of  the  right  to  a  trademark. — The  ri«;lit  to 
a  trademark  is  a  right  of  property,'"'  which  the  state  may, 
in  the  e.xereise  of  its  police  j)ower,  protect  by  appropriate 
penal  legislation.     This   right  of  property  is,  in  the  United 


tho  origin,  manufacture  or  owner- 
ship of  artich'8  to  whicli  it  is  ap- 
plied, and  thereby  secure  to  its 
owner  all  benefit  resultinj,'  from  his 
idcntitication  by  the  puljlie  with 
the  articles  bearinjj  it.  No  person 
other  than  the  owner  of  a  trade- 
mark has  a  right,  without  the  con- 
tmni  of  such  owner,  to  use  tiie  same 


V.   Thomas   Mfg.   Co.,   04    F.-d.    U.p. 
Gal,  GJG. 

"The  sign,  symbol  or  mark  may 
be  purely  fanciful,  and  convey  no 
information  iis  to  the  name  of  the 
producer.  JUit  the  essential  thing 
is  that  it  shall  be  de.^igned  and 
used  to  indicate  the  origin  of  the 
article  and  that  all  articles  having 


on  like  articles,  because  by  so  doin^      the  same  mark   come   from  a  com- 


he  would  in  substance  falsely  rep- 
resent to  the  public  that  his  goods 
wi-re  of  the  manufacture  or  .selec- 
tion of  the  owner  of  the  trademark, 
and  thereby  wouhl  or  might  de- 
prive the  latter  of  the  profit  he 
otherwise  miglit  make  by  the  sale 
f>f  the  goods  which  the  purchaser 
intended  to  buy.  Wiiere  a  trade- 
mark is  infringed  the  essence  of 
the  wrong  cfinsists  in  the  sale  of 
the  goods  of  one  manufacturer  or 
vendor  as  thow  of  anotlu-r,  and  it 
ia  on  this  ground  that  a  court  of 
equity  protects  tradi-marks.  It  is 
not  nec«-itHary  that  a  trademark 
nhould  on  its  face  show  the  origin, 
manufacture    or    ownership    of    the 


mon  source."  Lurton,  J.,  in  Deor- 
ing  Harvester  Co.  v.  Whitman  & 
Barnes  Mfg.  Co.,  91  Fed.  Kep.  .{7(5, 
;iSO;  :V.i  C.  C.  A.  r.aS;  atlirming 
Deering  Ilarvi'ster  Co.  v.  Whitman 
&,  Barnes  Mfg.  Co.,  86  Fed.  Rep. 
764. 

"A  trademark  is  a  trademark 
because  it  is  indicative  of  the  ori- 
gin of  th"  goods."  Denison.  J.,  in 
Merriam  v.  Saalfield,  11)8  Fed.  Rep. 
■M\<),  .■?72;  117  C.  C.  A.  245,  248; 
followed  in  DeVoe  SnulT  Co.  v. 
WolfT,  124  C  C.  A.  302;  20(1  Fed. 
Rep.  420,  423. 

34 — "It  is  not  essential  to  prop- 
erty in  a  trademar!:  that  it  slunild 
indicate    any    particMihir    person    as 


articlcii  to  wliich    it  is  ap|i1ie<l.      It  the   maker   of   the    article   to  whicii 

in     ttufTlcifnt     tliat     by     aHHo<'iation  it    is    attached."      Dimfort'ii,   .1.,    in 

with    durh   articles   in   trade  it  has  Omlillot  v.  Harris,  81  X.  Y.  203. 
arqtilred  with  the  public  an  under-  3;1 — IVrringer   v.    Plate,    20    Cal. 

ntnot]  reference  to  nuch  origin,  etc."  202;    87    Amer.    Dec.    170;    R.   Cox, 

Bradfoni,  .7..  in  n.nniM.n   Mfg.  Co.  324;     Seb.    240;     Bass,    RalclilT    4 


19  i'iii:i'\vT(Mtv,  [§  10 

States,  troatod  as  a  coninion-law  riprlit.   and   in   no   wise   de- 
pendent upon  statutoi-y  law  lor  its  inception. •"•'■ 

"Property  in  trademarks  is  recognized  at  common-law,  and 
may  l)r  and  lias  Ixmmi  made  the  sid)ject  of  Ictrislation  in  tlie 
states,  it  does  not  owe  its  existence  as  a  right  to  any  act 
of  congress.  Legislation,  therefore,  by  congress,  is  the  mere 
regulation  of  a  ])ro-existing  right,  and  is  l)ascd  upon  tiic  iii 
terstate  character  of  the  act.  "•''^ 

Lord  Cranworth  referred  to  this  riglit  as  "a  riglit  which 
can  be  said  to  exist  only  and  can  be  tested  only  by  its  viola- 
tion."*'''' While  it  is  true  that  the  right  can  only  be  tested 
after  it  has  been<violated,  or  its  violation  has  been  threatened, 
it  is  certainly  untrue  that  it  exists  "only  by  its  violation," 
because  there  is  no  violation  of  a  right  not  pre-existing.  Judge 
Folgor,  speaking  for  the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals,  criticised 
this  dictum,  saying,  "but  its  violation  is  when  one  adopts  or 
imitates,  and  applies  to  an  article  of  hLs  manufacture  the  name 
or  mark  previously  used  by  another  as  a  designation  for  his 
production.  *  *  *  It  is  a  matter  of  property,  and  the  profit- 
able use  of  property."^-' 

Mucii  legislation  has  taken  place  tending  to  aid  the  com- 
mon-law remedies  and  afford  more  effective  redress  against 
trademark  piracy,  but  with  the  solitary  exception  of  Cal- 
ifornia '"  it  has  nowhere  been  held  in  the  United  States  that 

Gretton    (Ltd.)     v.    Feigenapan,    OG  .'57 — Dickinson,  J.,  in  Louis  Bir^'- 

Fed.  Rpp.  20(),  212;   Boston  Diatite  doll    Brew.    Co.   v.    Berpdoll    Brew, 

Co.  V.  Florence  Mfg.  Co.,  114  Mass.  Co.,  218  Fed.  Rep.  131,  132. 

69;  Lawrence  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Tennessee  38 — Farina  v.  Silverlock,  6  DeG., 

Mfg.     Co.,     138    U.    S.     o37,     r)48;  M.   &  G.  214,  217. 

34    L.    Ed.    997;    Liggett    &    Myer  39 — Congress    &    Empire    Spring 

Tobacco     Co.    v.     Hynes.     20     Fed.  Co.  v.  High  Rock  Congress  Spring 

Rep.     883;     G.     G.     Wiiite     Co.    v.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  291. 

Miller,   50   Fed.   Rep.   277,   279.  40— ^^^»ittier  v.  Dietz,  00  Cal.  78. 

36 — Trademark   Cases,   100  U.   S.  Tlie  evil  efTect  of  this  decision  has 

82;  25  L.  Ed.  fioO;  Derringer  V.  Plate,  pinco    heen    ohviated    by    the    enact- 

siipra;  Moorman  v.  Hoge,  2  Sawyer,  ment  of  the  present  section  3199  of 

78,  85;    Fed.  Case  No.  9783;   L.  H.  the    Political    Code    of    California, 

Harris  Drug  Co.  v.  Stiicky,  46  Fed.  which    provides    that    "any    person 

Rep.   624,  626;   Battle  v.  Fiulay.  50  who  has   first   adopted  and  used   a 

Fed.  Rep.   106;   Hennessy  v.  Braun-  trademark  or  name,  whether  within 

schweiger,   89   Fed.    Rep.    664;    Sar-  or  beyond  tlie  limits  of  this  state, 

razin  v.  W.   R.   Trby  Cigar  Co.,   93  is  its  original  owner." 
Fed.  Rep.  624,  627 ;  35  C.  C.  A.  496. 


§11]  ll»»l-KINS    ON    TI<\I>KMAI<KS.  20 

fompliaiu'c  with  a  statute  is  a  i»i>MV(juisitc'  to  the  acquisition 
of  a  tradoinark.  The  eontrary  ruh'  obtains  in  Enjjhind;  reg- 
istration lieiiij;  neeessary  to  eutith'  the  owner  to  sue  for  iu- 
fringenieiit."  A  i»eeuliar  elemetit  of  tlie  trademark  riglit 
is  tliat  it  must  l)e  used  as  an  eutirety.^-^  The  owner  of  a 
trademark  can  not  eonvey  to  others  territorial  rijrhts  to  its 
use,"*^  and  a  i)artners  interest  in  the  trademarks  owned  by 
the  partnersliiji  can  not  he  h'vied  upon  l>y  or  suhjeeted  to  tlie 
payment  of  ehnms  of  his  personal  creditors.'*'* 

§  11.  The  test  of  exclusiveness. — The  trademark  right 
must  he  exclusive;  by  this  test  it  stands  or  falls.  As  Judge 
Cochran  has  said,  "what  makes  a  mark  affixed  by  a  seller 
to  goods  jirodueed  or  selected  by  him  a  technical  trademark 
(i.  f..  one  whose  exclusive  use  by  him  in  marking  goods  of 
the  same  or  like  character  will  be  protected)  is  that  when 
it  is  affixed  to  goods  of  that  character  it  amounts  to  a  rep- 
resentation that  they  are  the  goods  of  the  jjcrson  who  has 
adoi)ted  it  as  his  trademark.  If  it  does  not  amount  to  such 
a  representation,  it  is  not  a  technical  trademark."  ""^ 

§  12.  Requisites  of  a  valid  trademark. — As  seen  in  our 
detinition,   a   trademark   must 

(a)  Be  used  in  lawful  commerce; 

(b)  Be  in  some  way  applied  or  affixed  to  a  subject  of  law- 
ful commerce ; 

(e)  Be  di.stinctive,  identifying  the  character  of  the  article 
to  which  it  is  .so  affixed. 

As  comprehensive  and  concise  a  statement  of  the  recjuisites 
of  a  valid  trademark  as  can  be  found  in  the  books  is  as  fol- 
lows: "The  trademark  must  be  used  to  iiulicate  not  the 
quality,  but  the  origin  or  ownership  of  the  article  to  which  it 
is   attached.      It    may   be   any   sign,    mark,    symbol,   word   or 

41 — Tlio  Morc-hnndiKc  ■NturkH  Acts,  tccliirual    trailrmarki ,    boo   Estoa   v. 

1BR7-1R(»4    {r>0  nnd  f.l  Vict,  c.  28).  Williunirt,  21   Fid.   H.p.   180. 

42 — MnnliHttan  Med.  f'o.  v.  \V«iod,  4-1 — 'I'liylor  v.  Bcniis,  4  Hiss.  40(1; 

Pod.  Ceho  \o.  9020;  4  Cliff.  4(51.  Cox,   Manual,    132;    Fed.    Case  No. 

4:i_Sn(Mlt'rHHH    V.    W.Hh,    U    Mo.  1.1770. 

j\pp.  .'iOO.     Per  contra  aw  to  tlif  titlo  45 — BiHW-ll    fliillcd    IMow    Works 

of  a  periodical   puldication    (not  a  v.  T.  M.  BinHcU  TMow  Co.,  121  Fod. 

Rpp.   357,  304. 


21  ritEPATOUY.  [§13 

words,  which   others  have  not  an   ('(lual   ri^'lit   t(t   ('ni]il()y  for 
the  same  j)urpose. ' '  "*" 

These  are  fundamental  conditions  which  are  never  varied, 
and  to  whieli  there  can  be  no  exception.  Tiiere  are  further 
conditions  wliicli  we  will  examine  in  detail  in  a  sidjsefjuent 
chapter. 

§  13.  Perpetual  existence. — The  life  of  a  trademark  Ls  as 
long  as  its  continuous  use  by  the  owner  or  his  assignees.  It 
is  only  terminated  by  abandonment,  whieli  we  will  deal  with 
later. 

"A  trademark  may  increase  in  value  to  its  owners  by  use, 
and  the  law  eould  not  put  a  time  limit  on  the  owner's  right 
to  it  any  more  than  it  eould  ])ut  a  limit  upon  his  right  to  use 
any  other  article  of  property. "  ^'^ 

The  act  of  1881  provided  (§;"))  that  a  certificate  of  reg- 
istry shall  in  the  case  of  articles  manufactured  in  this  country 
remain  in  force  for  thirty  years  from  its  date,  subject  to  re- 
newal for  a  like  jieriod  at  any  time  during  the  six  months 
prior  to  the  exjiiration  of  the  term  of  thirty  years;  so  that 
all  protection  and  benefit  of  that  act  will  be  lost  by  failure 
to  renew  within  the  period  stated.  But  congress  was  careful 
to  provide  further  (§  11  act  of  1881)  that  nothing  in  the  act 
shall  be  construed  as  unfavorably  affecting  a  claim  to  a  trade- 
mark after  the  term  of  registration  shall  have  expired. 

By  the  act  of  1905  (§12),  the  force  of  the  certificate  is 
limited  to  twenty  years'  duration  with  renewal  privileges, 
and  §23  provides  that  nothing  in  the  act  "shall  prevent, 
lessen,  impeach,  or  avoid  any  remedy  at  law  or  in  equity  which 
any  party  aggrieved  by  any  wrongful  use  of  any  trademark 
might  have  had  if  the  provisions  of  this  act  had  not  been 
passed.'' 

§14.  Territorial  limitation. — Unlike  a  patent,  a  trademark 
knows  no  territorial  limitation. 

The  right  of  a  trademark  can  not  be  "limited  to  any  place, 
city  or  state  and  therefore  must  be  deemed  to  extend  every- 

46 — Earl,         Commissioner         of  47— Hoyt   v.   Hoyt.    143    Pa.    623, 

Appeals,  in  Newman  v.   Alvord,  51       22  Atl.   Rep.  755. 
N.  Y.  180,  193. 


§  14]  llolKINS    ON    Tll.\DKM.VKKS.  22 

\vhcro."*^  Tin*  fact  lliat  a  rorporat iciii  (iwiiiii^,'  a  Iradcinark 
fails  to  comply  with  tlu*  foroi^jii  (.'orporatioii  law  of  a  state 
is  no  justification  ft)r  infrinjircnnMit  by  another  within  such 
state,*"  and,  more  broadly  stated,  'tht'  fact  that  i-oniplainant 
has  not  up  to  this  time  (/.  r.  of  the  suit)  extended  its  trade 
to  the  locality  occuiiied  by  the  respondent."  is  no  defense  to 
a  char^'c  of  trademark  infriiifjement.'"' 

The  courts  of  the  I'nited  States,  and  those  of  the  several 
states,  are  open  to  the  owners  of  tradenuirks  of  whatever 
citizenship  or  nationality  who  may  seek  to  i)rotcct  tlicir  trade- 
marks against  piracy,'''  The  act  of  congress  of  1881  provided 
for  the  rcfiistration  of  tra<leniarks  owned  by  aliens  located  "in 
any  f»»ri>ijrn  country,  or  tribe,  which,  by  treaty,  convention  or 
law,  affords  similar  privilej;cs  to  citizens  of  the  United  States" 
(Act  of  1881,  sec.  Ij,  and  substantially  the  same  provision 
is  contained  in  the  Act  of  190'),  sec.  1.  The  ac<iuisition  of  a 
valid  trademark  in  any  i)lacc  carries  with  it  the  ri^'ht  to  use 
the  mark  everywhere.'"-  This  is  subject  to  the  exception 
that  a  foreijrner  doing  l)usiness  in  his  own  country  under  the 
trademark    has   no   common    law    ri^'lit    to    that    ti-adcmark    in 

4S— Kidd   V.   Johnson,   100   U.    S.  lina  Co.   v.   Brnwn.   :i   K.   &  J.   423; 

619;    2.')    L.    Kd.    760;    followed    in  2  Jur.  N.  S.  ili'.t ;  30  L.  T.  tt2;  Seb. 

("oniMdidatcd     Ice     Co.     v.     IIj'g«'ia  ir)l;   Collins  Co.  v.  Cohen,  3  K.  & 

DiHtill.d    Water   Co.,    80    C.    C.    A.  J.  428;   3  Jur.  X.  S.  029;  29  L.  T. 

506;    l.-.l   F.-d.   Rep.    10,   12.  245;    30   L.    T.    62;    5    W.    R.    676; 

49_t'onwilidatcd    Ice   Co.   v,    Hy-  Sob.   ir)2;   Collins  Co.  v.  Reeves,  28 

peia   Distill.d   Wat^r   Co.,  80   C.  C.  L.    J.    Ch.    50;    4   Jur.    X.    S.    865; 

A.  .'i06;    lol    I'Vd.   Rep.   10,   12.  33  L.   T.    101;    0   W.   R.   717;    Seb. 

.'iO—Hypia    Distilled    Water    Co.  164;    C'.lliiri    Co.   v.    Walker,   7    W. 

V.    Conwllidated    Ice    Co.,    144    Fed.  R.   22;    S.  I..    171;    Atlas   Assur.   Co. 

Rep.   139,   142.  V.    Atlas    Ins.    Co.,    138    Iowa,    228; 

51— Stat«-  V.  Cilil.s,  r,i\  Mo.  133;  112  \.  W.  Rep.  232. 
Taylor  v.  ("arpenter  ( 1  i ,  3  Story,  52 — K.xcept  tliat  an  alien  who 
■558;  Cox,  14;  St-b.  78;  Coats  v.  abandons  his  trademark  in  thi.i 
Hfdbrook,  2  Sardf.  586;  Cox,  20;  eonntry  is  not  rev.-sted  witli  the 
S<-b.  79,  Taylor  v.  Carpenter  (2),  ri|iht  to  use  it,  by  tlie  ft)rce  of  sub- 
2  Wood.  &.  M.  1;  Cox,  32;  9  L.  T.  sequent  le>,'islati()n  in  liis  own 
514;  S*-b.  83;  Taylor  v.  Carjientcr  country.  Saxlcbii.r  v.  Kianer  & 
(3),  2  Sandf.  603;  11  Paip-,  2'.l2;  Mend.-lson  Co..  dl  Vnl.  Rep.  536. 
Cox,  45;  S.-b.  84:  I.«m<.inr  v.  Can-  53!  I ;  Sa.xlebmr  v.  Kisner  &.  Men- 
ton,  2  K.  D.  Smith,  343;  Cox,  142;  cI.Ihou  Co.  (2),  179  U.  S.  19,  36; 
fM'b.  125;  Derringer  v.  IMate,  20  45  L.  IM.  60. 
C«l.    292;    Cox.    324;    S.-b.    249;    Col- 


23  I'RiciwTouv.  [§  14 

llic  United  States,  as  against  a  domestic  firm  which  has  estab- 
lished l)UsiMcss  niidor  a  similar  trademark,  adopted  in  good 
faifli,  before  the  alien  had  sold  any  goods  in  this  conntry.'''' 

In  a  I'eeeiit  ease,  an  assi^'iiiiieiil  of  a  jra<leiiiark  limited  to 
certain  s|)eeifie(l  states  has  been  snstained  and  an  infringer 
enjoined  as  to  those  states.  The  doctrine  of  this  section  was 
not  invoked,  iiowevei-,  as  fai*  as  the  opinion  discloses.^*  As 
to  a  corpoi'ate  name,  the  injnnetion  lias  been  limited  in  its 
operation,  to  exclnde  a  defendant  from  doing  business  in  the 
state  of  New  York.''"'' 

In  a  case  involving  the  nse  of  the  word  "Lilliputian"  in  a 
mail-order  business,  a  CMiieago  defendant  was  enjoined  at  the 
instance  of  a  New  York  complainant  because  of  the  occupancy 
by  each  tlirough  the  mails  of  a  common  linsiness  territory.-''''' 

Tlie  riglit  of  property  in  a  trademark  is  a  unique  right. 
The  question  of  the  extent  of  territory  in  which  its  owner  will 
be  afforded  relief  in  equity  against  an  infringer,  must  have 
its  answer  based  upon  the  fundamental  weaknesses  attaching 
to  trademarks  as  property.  To  understand  how,  in  many  eases, 
relief  may  he  denied  to  the  owner,  requires  that  it  be  kept 
in  mind,  as  Lord  Parker,  of  Waddington,  has  recently  said, 
in  the  House  of  Lords,  that  "even  in  the  case  of  what  are 
sometimes  referred  to  as  Common-Law  Trademarks  the  prop- 
erty, if  any,  of  the  so-called  owner  is  in  its  nature  transitory, 
and  only  exists  so  long  as  the  mark  is  distinctive  of  his  goods 
in  the  eyes  of  the  public  or  a  class  of  the  public."  "^ 

If  this  is  true  as  to  the  duration  of  the  life  of  the  trade- 
mark right,  it  is  equally  true  of  the  birth  of  that  right.  Pos- 
sibly it  will  not  do,  in  view  of  the  public  interest,  to  permit 
the  mere  local  user  of  a  trademark  to  enjoin  its  use  by 
another  who  has  adopted  the  same  or  substantially  the  same 
mark  in  good  faith  in  another  locality  where  consumers  have 

53— Richtor    v.    Anchor    RonK-dy  ity   Tna.   Co.,    10   X.    Y.    Supp.    307. 

Co.,    r)2   Fed.    Rep.   455;    alVirnud    in  400. 

Richtor   v.    Reynolds,   59   Fed.   Rep.  ^O— Ball   v.    Best,    135   Fed.    Rep. 

577;   8  C.  C.  A.  220.  -134. 

54 — Griggs,  Cooper  &  Co.  v.  Erie  r)7— A.    G.    Spaldinp    &    Bros.    v. 

Preserving  Co.,   131   Fed.  Rep.   3.')0.  A.    W.   Gamage,  Ltd.,   32   R.    P.   C. 

55 — Emplosers'    Liahility    Assur.  284. 
Corp.,   Ltd.,    V.    Employers'    Liabil- 


§14]  HOPKINS    (»N    TU\1)1..M  VKKS.  24 

no  kuo\y\odi:c  i>r  incaiis  of  know  Icd^'i*  ot"  the  ]»rior  uso.  Hut 
wc  are  daiitrorously  close  to  the  l)ortler-laiul  of  doubt  wlieii 
wo  attempt  to  deline  preeisely  what  tlu'  sinuU,  local  user  of 
a  trademark  does  ae(|uire  by  that  limited  and  meager  use, 
••onsideretl  as  a  matter  of  pure  legal  right.''*  There  are,  as 
.!udge  Deiiisoii  has  put  it,  "two  conflicting  theories  of  trade- 
mark origin  and  right.  •  •  •  and  we  speak  now  only  of 
marks  wjiich  are  so-called  'teclinical"  trademarks.  One  theory 
is  that  the  right  arises  from  adoption.  •  *  •  from  a  kind 
of  creation  or  discovery  followed  by  approjjriat ion.  Whetlier 
the  right  is  perfect  at  tlie  instant  of  adoption,  or  whether  there 
first  must  be  sufficient  nse  upon  the  goods  to  create  for  the 
mark  a  meaning  among  that  i)art  of  the  public  which  begins 
to  purchase,  is  a  detail  which  would  not  usually  be  important. 
According  to  this  theory,  if  the  right  is  once  accpiired  by 
l)rior  ad(»i>tion.  it  is  by  its  very  nature  exclusive  of  all  later 
similar  rights  which  might  otherwise  be  acquired  by  similar 
adojjtion;  and  from  tiiat  theory  it  Avould  seem  to  follow  that 
one  wlio  lirst  adopts  the  mark  and  api)lies  it  to  his  goods  in 
interstate  commerce,  and  who  extends  his  business  into  new 
b)calities.  until,  in  regular  course,  his  business  may  cover  the 
country,  may  jn-event  the  \ise  of  the  mark  by  another  later 
user,  even  though  that  other  has  ado])tcd  the  mark  in  good 
faith,  and  in  his  jiarticular  field  has  given  it  identity  with  his 
goods.  How  much  diligence  on  this  theory  the  first  user  must 
employ  in  extending  his  business  to  get  the  full  benefit  of  his 
initial  right  need  not  now  be  considered.  The  other  theory 
is  that  no  right  is  perfected  until  the  mark  has  been  used  to 
such  an  extent  that  it  has  come  to  have  a  meaning  to  the 
particular  purchasing  jmblic  as  to  which  a  controversy  arises, 
and  that  the  duty  of  the  courts  of  ecpiity  to  enforce  such  rights 
depends  essentially  upon  the  duly  of  protecting  this  i)ublie 
against  being  misled,  l^'rom  this  theory  it  will  follow,  or  it 
may  follow,  that  the  later  adopter,  who  has  brought  it  about 

.')8 — Thiit     H     trndcmark     i.-     not  lio-ii.si'     t(»     list-     a     triuli-miirk     in, 

j»rop«Tty    BH    Buoh    until    it    lian   he-  thcroforo,  void,   sco   IVtroit   Cream- 

<<iin<-    aHB<)ciat<-<l    witli     and     formf*  cry  Co.  v.  Vclvot  Brand  Ire  Cn-am 

part  of   tin-  1.iiMin<HH  in    wliich    it  in  Co.    (Mich.),   ir).*}  N.  \N  .    It.p    I'.C,}. 
•'mpl(iy>-d,       and       tliat       a       naki-d 


25  i'i(i;r\i()i{v.  [§  15 

ill  a  pivon  locality  thai  the  iiiaiU  indicates  to  the  public  that 
the  p:oo(ls  arc  of  his  iiiaimfact in-c,  may  thereby  himself  ae(iuire 
a  tradciiiack  ri^ht  m-  its  e(iiii\aieiit ,  afliniiat  ively  enforceable 
in  that  locality  and  aiimn^'  that  public.  c\-en  a^'ainst  the  first 
pro|)rietor. "  •''■* 

This  latlci-  theory  has  now  received  the  sanclion  of  the 
I'nited  States  Su|)reine  Court,  which  ha.s  declared  that  "where 
two  ])arties  iiulejjcndently  are  emi)loyiiig  the  same  mark  ujjon 
gjoods  of  the  same  class,  but  in  s(»paratc  markets  wholly  remote 
tlio  one  from  the  other,  the  (piestion  of  prior  ap])roi)riation  is 
legally  insignificant ;  unless,  at  least,  it  api)ear  that  the  .second 
adopter  has  selected  the  mark  with  some  design  inimical  to  the 
interests  of  the  first  user,  such  as  to  take  the  benefit  of  the 
reputation  of  his  goods,  to  forestall  the  extension  of  liis  trade, 
or  the  like.""" 

The  danger  of  the  doctrine  thus  announced  is  manifest,  its 
I)ractical  apj)lication  will  be  interesting  to  ob.serve.  When  a 
California  dealer  appropriates  the  mark  of  a  New  York  dealer, 
who  is  to  determine,  and  by  what  proof,  whether  the  act  was 
done  "to  forestall  the  extension"  of  the  first  user's  trade? 
Under  the  rule  so  stated,  the  only  safety  for  the  adopter  of 
a  trademark  in  the  United  States  is  to  immediately  occupy 
everv'  market  in  the  country',  an  operation  calling  for  an  immense 
expenditure,  and  impos.sible  to  any  but  the  vastly  wealthy  cor- 
porations which  are  the  target  for  our  anti-tiMist  laws. 

§  15.  The  necessity  of  user. — There  can,  finally,  be  no  right 
in  or  to  a  trademark  a])art  from  its  use.  "The  mere  sale  of 
a  trademark  apart  from  the  business  in  which  it  has  been 
used  confers  no  right  of  OAvnership.  because  no  one  can  claim 
the  right  to  sell  his  goods  as  goods  mainifactured  by  another. 
To  permit  this  to  be  done  Avould  be  a  fraud  ujion  the  public.''' 
To  quote  from  a  New  York  court.  "There  is  no  such  thing 
as   a  trademark   'in    gross,'   to   use   that   term   by   analogy.      Tt 

o!) — W.  A.  Gaines  &   Co.  v.   Rock  (in — Mr.   Justice   Pitnoy.    in   Han- 

Spring  Distillincr  Co.,  226  Fod.  over  Star  Milling  Co.  v.  Mctcalf. 
Eep.  .').3S;   141  C.  C.  A.  287,  294.  240  U.  S.  403;  60  L.  Ed.  — . 

01— Witthaus   v.    Braun.    44   Md. 
303;   22  Am.   Rep.  44. 


§  Itij 


IIOI'KINS   i»N    tkaukmakks. 


26 


must  be  'appciulnnt '  of  some  particular  business  in  wliicb  it 
is  ai'tually  used  ui)on.  or  in  rejrard  to  speeitied  articles."  "^ 
It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  owner  of  a  trademark  ean  not 
sell  t»'rritori;il  ri;.'hts  in  a  t ratleniaik  to  dilTcri'iit  jtci-sons,  so 
as  to  enable  them  to  make  and  sell  jroods  as  bcinj;  made  by 
liini.'''''  "It  ;roes  without  sayin<r  that  a  trademark  or  tradename 
can  oidy  l)e  aequiri'(l  by  adoption  accompanied  with  actual 
use. ""^  The  invent<n-  of  a  system  of  mainifacturin;^  ^'arments, 
who  lias  never  enprajred  in  their  actual  manufacture  and  sale, 
has  no  trademark  right  in  a  mai-k  to  l)c  applied  to  such  gar- 
ments.'"'* 

§  16.  How  trademark  rights  may  be  acquired. — A  mere 
casual  use.  inti'rruptcd.  or  for  a  brief  period,  w  ill  not  sufTiee 
to  establish  a  trademark  rijjrht  in  the  mark  ; '"'  there  mu.st  be 
such   a   user,   as  to  its  leufith   ami  jmblicity,  as  will  show  an 


(i2 — Wostun  V.  Kctrliam  (2),  T)! 
How.  Pr.  4;').".;  Sd).  4H7 ;  Pinto  v. 
Badman,  8  W.  V.  ('.  ISl;  t'artmell, 
270;  Dixon  Crucilili'  Co.  v.  Gur- 
pfnlu-im,  7  I'liila.  408;  2  Brcwst. 
.-{21;  3  Am.  L.  T.  288;  Cox,  'uyf); 
Seb.  3.31;  Cotton  v.  Gillard,  44  L. 
J.  Ch.  00;  Sfh.  447;  McAndri'w  v. 
Baswtt,  4  Di'C:.  J.  Si  S.  3S();  33  I.. 
.1.  Ch.  r>00;  10  .lur.  N.  N.  550;  10 
L.  T.  N.  S.  442;  12  \V.  R.  777;  4 
N.  R.  123;  Sel).  234;  Kidd  "  v. 
.lolinson.  HM)  r.  S.  (il7;  2.')  L.  Kd. 
7(;0;  W.-Hton  V.  Krtclnmi  (li,  .30  N. 
V.  54  ;  F>«atliiT  Clotli  Co.  v.  American 
I^-atli.r  Clotli  Co.,  4  D.-O.  J.  &  S. 
1.37;  11  II.  L.  C.  523;  Tin-  Fair  v. 
.low  Moral.'g  &  Co.,  82  111.  App. 
40ft. 

03— SnodjiraHH  v.  Wi-Urt,  11  Mo. 
App.  500.  Hut  in  anotlur  caHt'  the 
aHHijrnmc-nt  by  the  Kn;4liMh  puh- 
liHhiT  of  "Chatt<Thox"  of  the  rijflit 
to  pii)>lit«h  a  "Chatterliox"  in  the 
l*nit«-il  Stati'H  wiiH  HUKtaiin-d.  Kuten 
V.  WilhamH,  21  Fed.  Rep.  180.  The 
name,    In-in;.'    ♦'•m«     <(    n     j..ri,,.|ir  h) 


j>uI)liiation,  was  not  a  ti-ehnical 
trademark. 

04 — Kathreiner'.s  Malz  KafTec 
Fah.  V.  Pastor  Kneipp  Med.  C<» ,  27 
C  C.  A.  351;  82  Fed.  Rep.  321.  32o; 
jier  .Jenkins,  .1. 

0.") — .Iae<;er's  Sanitary  \V.  S.  Co. 
V.  Le  Boutillier.  47  Hun,  521.  Thus 
under  tlie  iMi^ilisli  statiites  a  rejjis- 
trant  is  not  entitU-d  to  rejjister  a 
mark  for  goods  in  wliich  he  docs 
not  deal  and  in  which  he  docs  not 
actually  intend  t<^  deal.     .lolin  Bait 

6  Co.  V.  Dunnett,  L.  R.  (1S!)!»)  A. 
C.  428. 

OG— Menende/  V.  Holt.  12.S  U.  S. 
514;  Levy  v.  Waitt  (1),  50  Fed. 
Kep.  1010;  Levy  v.  Waitt  (2),  01 
Fed.  Rep.  1(M)S:  10  C.  C.  A.  227; 
Rrower  v.  Houlton  (1»,  53  Fed. 
Rep.    380;    Rrower    v.    BouIt«m    (2). 

7  C.  C.  A.  507;  5S  Fed.  Rep.  888; 
Macmalian  Pharmacal  C«).  v.  Den- 
ver Chemical  Mfj,'.  Co.,  113  Fed. 
I{ep.  408;  51  C.  C.  A.  302;  Tetlow 
v.  Tappan,  85  Fed.  Rep.  774;  Heub- 
Mn    v,    Adams,    125    F.d.    Rep.   782. 


27 


I'ltKKA'I'oICi 


[§17 


iiitcnl  ion    lo   a(li>|)t    llic    mark    as   a    1  ladi-inark    )'<»i'   a    sprcifK; 
arlii'Ic.''' 

§  17.  Trademarks  as  subjects  of  sale,  assignment  or  be- 
quest.— 111  the  early  adjudieatioiis  llic  assif^Mialjility  of  trade- 
marks was  not  clearly  established.''^ 

It  can  now  be  said,  however,  that  trademarks  arc  ^'cuerally 
assignable  during  the  life  time  of  the  owner  of  the  mark,  and 
capable  of  transmission  at  his  death.  Indeed,  this  rule  is 
the  necessary  and  indispensable  correlative  of  the  rule  that 
trademarks  have  i)er])etiial  existence.  But  tiiere  is  the  neces- 
sary qualification  that  with  the  trademark  must  go  the  good- 
will of  the  business,  the  right  to  select  or  manufacture  the 
article  to  which  the  former  owner  lias  been  in  the  habit  of 
affixing  the  trademark  in  use/'"  Any  other  course  would  tend 
to  mislead  the  public.     It  is  provided  by  section  70  of  the 


G7 — Kolilcr  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Beeshore, 
no  Fed.  Rt'p.  r)72,  ,')70;  8  C.  C.  A. 
215;  Ricliter  v.  Reynolds,  59  Fed. 
Rep.  577,  57!);   8  C.  C.  A.  220. 

68 — See  Corwin  v.  Daly,  7  Bos. 
222;  Cox,  265,  where  the  court 
says,  referring  to  a  name  used  as 
a  trademark:  "The  employer  of 
it  can  neither  give  any  special 
right  to  anotlier,  nor  abandon  it 
to  the  community  so  as  forever  to 
take  away  the  right  of  employing 
it  to  designate  his  wares."  In  an- 
other case  it  has  been  held  that 
one  can  so  sell  liis  name  as  to  de- 
prive himself  of  the  right  to  use 
it  for  his  own  manufacture,  and 
give  the  right  to  anotlier."  Pro- 
basco  V.  Bouyon,  1  Mo.  App.  241. 
In  a  later  case  l)efore  the  same 
court,  however,  the  court  said: 
"We  think  the  answer  to  this 
question  depends  upon  the  effect 
which  the  use  of  the  name,  in  each 
particular  instance,  is  shown  to 
have  upon  the  minds  of  the  pub- 
lic," and  concluded  tliat  if  the  pub- 
lic would  be  led  to  believe  the  as- 
signor was  still  manufacturing  the 


goods,  when  they  were  tlie  manu- 
facture of  anotlier,  the  transaction 
would  be  a  fraud  upon  the  public 
and  tlie  use  of  the  assigned  name 
would  not  be  protected.  Skinner 
V.  Oakes,  10  ^lo.  App.  45;  Cox, 
Manual,  680.  This  dictum  was 
quoted  with  approval  in  Oakes  v. 
Tonsmierre,  4  Woods,  547 ;  Price  & 
Steuart,  817;   49   Fed.   Rep.   447. 

69— Atlantic  Milling  Co.  v.  Rob- 
inson, 20  Fed.  Rep.  217;  Massam 
v.  Cattle  Food  Co.,  L.  R.  14  Ch.  D. 
748;  Ex  parte  Lawrence,  44  L.  T. 
X.  S.  98;  Seb.  630;  In  re  Wellcome, 
L.  R.  32  Ch.  D.  213 ;  Leather  Cloth 
Co.  v.  American  Leather  Cloth  Co., 
4  DeO.  J.  &  S.  137;  33  L.  J.  Ch 
199;  Seb.  223;  Goodman  v.  Meriden 
Brittania  Co.,  50  Conn.  139;  Witt 
haus  V.  Braun,  44  Md.  303;  22  Am 
Rep.  44;  Seb.  492;  Skinner  v 
Oakes,  10  Mo.  App.  45;  'Baylor  v 
Bemis,  4  Biss  406,  Fed.  Case  13779 
McVeagh  v.  Valencia  Cigar  Fac 
tory,  32  OfT.  Oaz.  1124;  Price  & 
Steuart,  970;  Oakes  v.  Tonsmierre, 
4  Woods,  547,  49  Fed.  Rep.  447; 
Price    &    Steuart,    817;    Baldwin   v. 


§17] 


HOPKINS    ON    TKAhKM  AKKS. 


l!S 


Enirlisli  ratiMits.  l)»'si<:iis  iiiid  'rratlfiiiarUs  Art  of  1883  that 
••A  traiU'iuark.  wlu'ii  iv^MstiTfcl,  sliall  !>»'  assi^jtied  and  trans- 
initteil  only  in  oonnrction  with  the  {rooilwill  of  the  bnsiness 
i-onecrned  in  tlu'  particiihir  jrootls  or  chisscs  of  j;oods  for  which 
it  has  been  rcjristcri'd.  and  shall  ho  (Ictfrminable  with  the  pood- 
will."  No  corrospondint;  jn-ovision  existed  in  the  aet  of  eon- 
press  of  1881.  The  Act  of  1905,  sec.  10.  i)rovides  "that  every 
registered  trademark  .  .  .  shall  be  assi<rnable  in  connec- 
tion with  the  goodwill  of  the  business  in  whieh  the  mark  is 

used. 

Inasmuch  as  there  can  be  no  title  in  a  trademark  apart 
from  the  goodwill  of  the  business  in  which  it  is  used,  it  fol- 
lows that,  in  an  as.signment  of  the  business  and  goodwill  of 
the  owner  of  the  mark,  the  title  to  the  trademark,  without 
being  specially  mentioned,  passes  to  the  assignee.""  It  is  not 
so  clear,  liowever,  that  the  purchaser  acquires  the  right  to  use 


\\>u  MirluToux,  2r>  X.  Y.  Supp. 
8.".7;  :iIorj:an  v.  Rogers,  10  Fed. 
Rep.  .')n6:  12  Off.  Ga/.  1113;  Smith 
V.  Imus.  32  Alb.  L.  J.  4").");  Cotton 
V.  Oillaril,  44  L.  J.  Ch.  90;  Smith 
V.  Fair,  14  Ont.  Rop.  720;  Burton 
V.  Stratton,  12  Fed.  Rop.  696;  Trice 
&  Steuart,  608;  Pepper  v.  Labrot, 
8  Fed.  R«p.  20;  Chadwick  v. 
Covc-11,  l.-)l  :Maa9.  100;  23  N.  E. 
Rep.  1008;  Cox,  ^lanual,  716; 
Cooper  V.  Hood,  26  IJ.-av.  203; 
Churton  v.  Douglas,  -lohns.  174; 
Shipwriglit  v.  Clements,  10  W.  R. 
.509;  Soliier  v.  .Johnson,  111  Mass. 
238;  Cregg  v.  Bassett,  3  Ont.  L. 
Rep.  203;  Dant  v.  Head,  90  Ky. 
2ruy;  13  S.  W.  R.p.  1073;  .T.  C. 
Mattingly  Co.  v.  Mattingly,  06  Ky. 
430;  31  S.  W.  Rep.  OSf);  Covert  v. 
Bernat,  l.'.O  Mo.  App.  687;  138  S. 
W.  Rep.   103. 

70 — Shipwright  v.  Ch-ments,  10 
W.  R.  nOO;  Seb.  350;  Congress  & 
Empire  Spring  Co.  v.  High  Rock 
CongreHrt  Sjtring  Co.,  TJ  Barb.  .'■)20; 
Cox,  fiOO;  4.-.  N.  Y.  201;  10  Abb. 
Vt.  N.  S.  348;  6  Am.  Rep.  82;  4 
Am.   [..  T.   108;  Cox,  624;  Seb.  SM ; 


WitthauH  V.  Braun,  44  Md.  303;  22 
Am.   Rep.  44;   Seb.  402;   Morgan  v. 
Rogers,   10    Fed.   Rep.    596;    26   Off. 
Gaz.     1113;     Cox,     Manual,     692; 
:^Ierry   v.    Hoopes,    111    N.    Y.    420; 
Cliurton    V.     Doiiglas,    Johns.     174: 
Fulton    V.    Sellers,    4    Brewst.    42; 
Thomi)son    v.   ^Mackinnon,   2    Steph. 
Dig.    726;    Lippincott    v.    Hubbard, 
28   Pitts.   L.  J.   303;    Burkhardt  v. 
Burkhardt   Co.,  4   Ohio   N.   P.   3.'-)8; 
Listman   Mill   Co.   v.   Wm.   Listman 
Mill  Co.,  88  Wis.  r.U  ;    Prince  Mfg. 
Co.  V.   Prince's   Metallic   Paint   Co., 
39  X.  Y.  S.  R.  488 ;  M.-nendez  v.  Holt, 
128  U.  S.  514;  32  L.  Kd.  520;  liege- 
man V.  Hegeman,  8  Daly,  1 ;  Sarra- 
zin  V.  W.  R.  Irby  Cigar  Co.,  93  Fed. 
Rep.  024;  35C.  C.  A.  496;  Allegretti 
V.    .Allegretti   Chocolate    Cream    Co., 
177    111.    120;    53    X.    K.    Rep.    487; 
iiflirniing    s.    c.    70    111.    App.    581; 
Snyder  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Snyder,  54  Ohio 
St.   80;    43  N.  E.   Rep.   325;   WTiit- 
comb  V.  Converse,  110  Mass.  38;  20 
Am.    Rep.    311.      Above    text    cited 
and  ajjprnved.     President  Suspender 
Co.    V.    Maewillium,    233    Fed.    Rep. 
>33,  437. 


29 


rUKl'ATOKY. 


§17 


the  name  of  the  vojiddr,  lliis  ri^^lit  hciii^  afTinncd  in  some 
casrs'''  and  iicKativi'd  in  otiici-s."-  It  would  seem  to  l«.'  the  law 
that  a  territorial  ri^ht  to  use  a  trademark  can  not  be  assif^ned  ''-^ 
though  in  the  case  of  the  nanu'  ol"  a  iieiiodical  j)ublication 
the  contrary  rule  has  been  aniiouneed.' ' 

The  fact  of  a  trademark  confainin;,''  tlie  name  or  initials 
of  a  formei"  owner  of  a  business  w  ill  not  disentitle  an  assignee 
of  tlie  business  from  its  use.  Ix'cause  the  jjroper  name  is 
treated  as  indieative  of  tlie  business  rather  than  the  j)resent 
owner  of  the  business.^^  But  the  courts  of  the  United  States 
are  inclined  to  insist  that  the  i)ublie  be  notified  of  the  chan<,'e 
of  ownership,  and  this  is  now  the  safer  rule,'"   particularly 


71 — Banks  v.  Gibson,  ,'J4  Beav. 
560;  Levy  v.  Walker,  L.  R.  10  Ch. 
1).  403 ;  VVebstiT  v.  Webster,  3 
Swaiist.  490;  Clark  v.  Leach,  32 
Beav.  14;  Bond  v.  Milbourn,  20  W. 
K.  107;  Tussaud  v.  Tussaud,  38 
W.  R.  440;  Phelan  v.  Collender, 
13  X.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  244;  Hoff  v.  Tar- 
rant &  Co.,  71  Fed.  Rep.  163;  af- 
firmed in  Tarrant  &  Co.  v.  Hoff,  76 
Fed.  Rep.  9.")!);  22  C.  C.  A.  644; 
J.  G.  Mattingly  Co.  v.  IMattingly,  96 
Ky.  430. 

72— Scott  V.  Rowland,  20  W.  R. 
208 ;  Lewis  v.  Langdon,  7  Sim. 
421 ;  Turner  v.  Major,  3  Giff.  442 ; 
Dence  v.  Mason,  41  L.  T.  N.  S.  573; 
Dickson  v.  McMaster,  IS  Tr.  Jur. 
202;  Reeves  v.  Denicke,  12  Abb. 
Pr.  N.  S.  92;  Howe  v.  Searing,  10 
Abb.  Pr.  204;  Cox,  244;  Petersen 
V.  Ilumplirey,  4  Abb.  Pr.  394;  Cox, 
212;  Thynne  v.  Sliove,  SO  L.  T. 
Jour.  84;  Mayer  v.  Flanagan.  12 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  405;  Sherwood  v. 
Andrews,  5  Am.  L.  Reg.  X.  S.  588; 
Seb.  263. 

73— Snodgrass  v.  Wells,  11  :Mo. 
App.  590. 

74— Estes  V.  Williams.  21  Fed. 
Rep.  189. 

75 — Pepper  v.  Labrot,  8  Fed. 
Rep.     29;     LePage     Co.     v.     Russia 


Cement  Co.,  2  C.  C.  A.  555;  51  Fed. 
Rep.  941;  Jennings  v.  Johnson,  37 
Fed.  Rep.  304;  Frazer  v.  Frazer 
Luliricator  Co.,  121  111.  147;  13  X. 
K.  Rep.  639;  McLean  v.  Fleming, 
96  U.  S.  245;  24  L.  Ed.  832; 
Symonds  v.  Jones,  82  Me.  302; 
8  L.  R.  A.  570;  Filkins  v. 
Blackman,  13  Blatchf.  440;  Fed. 
Case  No.  4780;  Weed  v.  Peter- 
son, 12  Abb.  Pr.  X.  S.  178;  Young 
V.  Jones,  3  Hughes,  274;  Fed. 
Case  Xo.  18,159;  Fulton  v.  Sellers, 
4  Brewst.  42;  Weston  v.  Ketcham 
( 1 ) ,  39  X.  Y.  54 ;  Clark  v.  Ins.  Co., 
7  Mo.  App.  71;  Frank  v.  Sleeper, 
150  Mass.  583;  23  X.  E.  Rep.  213; 
Iloxie  v.  Chaney,  143  Mass.  592; 
Russia  Cement  Co.  v.  LePage,  147 
Mass.  200;  17  X.  E.  Rep.  304; 
Brown  Chemical  Co.  v.  Meyer,  139 
U.  S.  .540;  35  L.  Ed.  247; 
Bultf  V.  Ingleheart  Bros.,  70 
C.  C.  A.  76;  137  Fed.  Rep.  492. 
499.  The  fact  that  a  trademark 
includes  the  name  and  portrait  of 
the  first  owner  does  not  render  it 
unassignal)le  to  another.  Ricliniond 
Xervine  Co.  v.  Richmond,  159  V.  S. 
293.  .302:    40  L.  Ed.   155. 

70 — Manhattan  Med.  Co.  v.  Wood, 
108  U.  S.  218;  27  L.  Ed.  706;  Hor- 
ton  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Horton  Mfg.  Co.,  18 


§  17]  IIOI-KINS    ON    TRADK.MAKK.S.  30 

whoro  tlit^  trjulfiniiik  is  a  mark  uf  special  (|ualiti(\s,  duo  to 
suporior  matfrial,  pr«)i'osses.  can'  and  skill  cxorcisi'd  l)y  the 
orijrinator  tluMfof.  or  the  mark  hearing  his  name  "would,  or 
at  least  niifrht.  imply  tlial  his  personal  work  »»r  supervision 
was  employed  in  the  mannfaeture;  and  in  swell  eases  it  would 
he  a  fraud  upon  the  jjuhlie  if  the  trademark  should  he  used 
hy  other  persons,  and  for  this  reason  such  a  trademark  would 
he  held  to  he  unassi^niahle.  •  •  •  ii,,t^  f„|  the  other  liand, 
the  usafjes  of  trade  may  he  sueh  that  no  such  inferenec  would 
naturally  he  drawn  from  the  use  of  a  trademark  which  con- 
tains a  i)erson's  name,  and  that  all  that  purchasers  would  rea- 
sonahly  understand  is  that  {roods  hearing:  the  trademark  are 
of  a  certain  standard,  kind  or  (juality,  or  are  made  in  a  cer- 
tain manner,  or  after  a  certain  formula,  by  jiersons  who  are 
carry injr  on  the  same  business  that  formerly  was  carried  on  hy 
the  person  whose  name  is  on  the  trademark."''  In  the  sale  of 
a  business,  then,  the  {reneral  rule  is  tliat  the  traderaark.s  con- 
nected with  the  business  will  pass  to  the  i)urchaser  without 
being  specified  in  the  l)ill  of  sale,'**  and  in  case  of  a  general 
assignment  or  l)ankiMi]>tey  the  trademarks  also  pass,  to  inure 
to  the  benefit   of  the  creditors  '•'     The  exception  to  each  of 

Fr<l.  K. -p.  SKI;  Alaska  Packers'  Ass'n  10     Fed.     Rop.     nOO.       Trndcmarks 

V.    Alaska    Imp.    Co..    00    Fed.    Rep.  "pa.sa    uiidrr    a    salo    of    the    'assets 

10.3;   Siep-rt  v.  Ahhott    (1),  01   Mil.  and      /joodwill*      of      the      husine.ss, 

270;  Sherwood  v.  Andrews,  ")  Am.  L.  whether      specially      mentioned      or 

Rejr.     X.    S.     r,8«;     Sell.    20.3;     Car-  not."       TTolland,     .1..     in     Knmthal 

michael   v.    Latimer,   11    R.   I.   30.');  \Vat«'rs    v.    Becker,     137    Fed.    Rep. 

Sel>.    r>21  ;     IMllsI)ury    v.    Pillslmry-  040,  0.")2.      A  conveyance  of  "all   of 

Washlnirn   Flour  Mills  Co.,  04  Fed.  the   Imsiiicss   and    assets"    transfers 

R<-p.  841;    12  C.   C.   A.   432;    Peoph-  tlie     trademark     of     that     Imsiness 

V.    Mcdins,     10    N.     Y.     Supp.     130;  witliout     speeial     mention.        R.     .1. 

Lemk<'    v.    Diitz,    121    Wis.    102;    OS  INynolds  T.ihaeeo  Co.  v.  Allen  Bros. 

N.  \V.  Rep.  !»3(i.  Tohacco  Co..  l.")!  Fed.  Rep.  810.  823. 

77 — Charh'H    Alhn,    .1.,    in     Iloxic  In     a     conveyance,     the     expression 

V.   Chaney,   143  Mass.   .'«!t2,    10  N.  K.  "trad«'  ri;.'hts"  will  suirice  to  convey 

Itep.  713.  tradenames    used    in    the    Imsinoss. 

78 — Shipwrijiht    v.    ('lemtiits,     IM  II(rin;,'llalIMiir\  in      Safe     Co.      v. 

W.    R.   .".00;    Wilm.r    v.   Thomas,   74  llall's  Safe  Co..  208  V.  S.  .'»."»4,  .'iflO; 

Md.    48.".;     13    !..    H.    A.    380;    Scdis  .'.2  L.  Fd.  010.  020. 
Cigar   Co.    v.    P(./o.    10    Colo.    388;  70— n.}:.man      v.      He^ri-man,      8 

2.'»   Am.    .'^t.    Rep.    270;    Lau;;hman'H  Daly,  1  ;   lJo;.'ers  v.  Taintor,  07  Mass. 

Appeal.  128  Pa.  I;  18  Atl.  Rep.  41.".;  201;   Warren  v.  Warnn  Tiiread  Co., 

">   (      \'     \     .'•'•'•      \|i.r"!in    \     l;..i-iT«,  1.34  Mass.   247;    Iludson   w   Oslu.rne, 


31 


I'HKFATOUV 


[§17 


tliosc  rules  arises  where  the  trademark  depends  upon  the 
seeret  processes  or  individual  skill  of  its  owner  for  its  value."" 
Trademarks  may,  in  connection  witli  the  },'oodwill  of  tin; 
husiiu'ss  whei-ewith  they  are  eoinieeted,  be  transmitted  hy  be- 
quest.'''  This  naturally  leads  to  the  result  that  several  persons 
may  hy  hecpiest  (as  they  nuiy  upon  dissolution  of  a  co-partner- 
ship) become  j)ossessed  of  the  rif,'ht  to  u.sc  the  same  trademark. 
As  Avhere  a  decedent,  a  watchmaker  usinj?  "J)ent,  London" 
as  a  mark  on  watches  which  he  manufactured  at  three  several 
shojjs  in  London,  be(pieathed  the  business  of  two  of  these  shops 
to  one  person  and  the  third  shop  to  another.  It  appears  to 
have  been  held  here  that  each  legatee  had  a  several  right  to 
the  use  of  the  trademark.^-  The  rights  of  the  partners  in  the 
use  of  the  firm  trademarks  ui)on  dissolution  have  been  tlius 
defined  by  Judge  Hughes:  "Rights  in  trademark  are  analogous 
to  rights  in  the  good  will  of  a  i)artnershi|).  In  the  absence  of 
express  stij)ulation  at  the  timo  of  dissolution,  each  ])artner 
may  go  on  and  use  the  trademark  of  the  firm."'*^  It  is  clear, 
however,  that  where  a  mark  is  a  common  design  for  the  pur- 


:{!)  L.  J.  Cli.  70;  Cotton  v.  Gillanl, 
44  L.  J.  Ch.  00;  Ex  parte  Fosa,  2 
DcG.  &  J.  2.30;  Bury  v.  Bedford,  4 
DeG.  J.  &  S.  3.")2:  Ex  parte  Youn-.', 
Seb.  5.37 ;  Longman  v.  Tripp,  2  Boa. 
&  P.  X.  R.  G7 ;  Hammond  v. 
Bninkor,  0  R.  P.  C.  301;  Cartm.-ll, 
142;  Lippincott  v.  Iluhliard,  2S 
Pitts.  L.  J.  30.3;  Bnrkliardt  v. 
Burkhardt  Co.,  4  Ohio  X.  P.  3.")8; 
Batchollor  v.  Thomson,  80  Fed.  Rep. 


S2— Dent  v.  Turpin,  2  J.  &  H. 
1.30;  30  L.  J.  Ch.  40.-,;  7  Jur.  N. 
S.  673;  4  L.  T.  X.  S.  0.37;  0  \V.  II. 
.-)48.  Mr.  Cox  ol)serve3,  "Tliis  case 
is  to  he  taken  as  of  an  exceptional 
(liaract<-r;  it  is  not  in  accord  witli 
settled  principles."  Cox,  Manual, 
1!m;. 

S3 — Youny  V.  .Jones,  Fed.  Case 
Xo.  18,1.59  3  Huphes,  274;  Price  & 
Steuart,    InO.      And    to    the    same 


630;   Sarrazin  v.  ^V.  R.   Irby  Cigar       effect,   see    Caswell    v.    Hazard,    121 


Co.,  3r,  C.  C.  A.  400;  03  Fed.  Rep. 
624,  620.  Tlu^  Bankruptcy  Act  of 
1808,  §  70a.  provides  that  tiie  trus- 
tee in  bankruptcy  siiall  be  vested 
by  operation  of  law  with  the  title 
of  the  bankrupt,  as  of  the  date  he 
was  adjudged  a  bankrupt,  to  all 
"interests  in  patents,  patent  rigiits, 
copyriglits.  and  trademarks." 

80— /?c  Swezey,  02  How.  Pr.  21;'). 

81— McLean  v.  Fleming,  00  V.  S. 
24.-,;  24  L.  Ed.  832;  Ihnver  v.  Dan- 
nenhofTer,  82  X'.  Y.  490,  502. 


X.  Y.  484;  24  X.  E.  Rep.  707;  Haz- 
ard V.  Caswell,  03  X.  Y.  2.',0, 
2r)2;  Huwer  v.  DannenliolTer,  82 
X.  Y.  400,  502;  Banks  v.  fJibson,  34 
Beav.  566;  .34  L.  J.  Cli.  501;  6  X. 
R.  373;  13  W.  R.  1012;  11  Jur.  X. 
S.  680;  Sel).  248;  Condy  v.  Mitchell, 
.37  L.  T.  X.  S.  268;  37  L.  T.  N.  .S- 
700;  20  \V.  R.  269;  Seb.  561;  Tay- 
lor V.  Bothin,  Fed.  Case  Xo.  13.780, 
15  Off.  Gaz.  908;  Price  &  Steuart, 
5  Sawy.  584;  Wright  v.  Simpson, 
1G5.     In  this  connection  Mr.  Justice 


§17 


IIOl'KINS    0\    TKADKM  AUKS. 


32 


pose  of  a  foiiiiiiou  aih  (Mil  lire  used  hy  scxoral  iiulcjUMitliMlt 
ileulers  or  inaimiacturt'is  in  a  joint  •'iilcrprisc,  a  iiiaik  be- 
lunging  to  m'itlicr  iiidividiially.  but  ri'i)rosenting  the  enter- 
prise of  ull  loiiccriM'd.  for  tin*  purposes  of  their  joint  adven- 
ture, the  tracU'Uiark  ran  be  useil  oidy  so  b)iijr  as  all  the  parties 
remain  interested  in  the  enterprise;  when  it  terniinates  the 
funetion  and  lif*-  of  the  ti-adeniarli  also  terniinati'.*' '  If  the 
business  and  {rood will  of  a  i)ai'tnersliip  ai'e  sold  upon  dis- 
solution tlie  trademark  {^oes  with  the  other  assets.^"  Another 
question  is  j^resented  Avhere  one  j)artner  retires  from  the  firm, 
if  the  retirin<;  partner  re-en{jages  in  business  and  eontinues 
to  use  the  trademark,  it  has  been  lield  that  tiiat  faet,  even  if 
the  mark  is  applied  by  him  to  a  spiirious  artiele.  is  evidence 
of  his  intention  to  retain  his  interest  in  the  trademark.*^"  If 
upon  dissolution  one  partner  takes  the  whole  business  by  agree- 
ment, the  valuation  of  the  retiring?  partner's  interest  must  in- 
elude  his  interest  in  the  trademarks  of  the  partnership,  which 
jiass  with  the  froodwill.'*^ 


Kradlry  wiid:  "In  Imldiii;,'  tliiit  it 
is  in'ct'ssary  to  tin-  valitlity  of  a 
tradi-mark  tliat  tin-  olaimant  of  it 
must  ln'  t>ntitli'(l  to  an  cxilusivc 
ri^iht  to  it,  or  proptTty  in  it,  we 
do  not  mean  to  say  tliat  it  may 
not  btdong  to  more  than  one  per- 
son, to  be  enjoyed  jointly  or  sever- 
ally. Copartners,  upon  a  dissolu- 
tion of  j)artner8liip,  may  stipulate 
that  eacli  of  them  may  use  the 
trademarks  of  the  firm,  and  tlwro 
may  he  many  otlier  cases  of  joint 
and  wveral  owm-rship;  hut  siieli  eo- 
ownerb  will  to;^etlH'r  he  entitled  to 
the  exclusive  use  of  the  trademark, 
and  jterhapH  each  of  them  will  he 
entitled  to  such  exclusive  use  as  to 
all  other  persons  exci-pt  their  as- 
wjciates  in  ownership."  New  York 
Cement  Co.  v.  Coplay  Cemi-nt  Co., 
4.'.  Fed.  Rep.  212;  to  tlie  same  eflTect. 
Lepou  V.  Kottler,  KtO  N.  Y.  Supp. 
770. 

H4~.ffe  Jones.    fiM    L.    T.    1,    Curt 
mell,   )Hl);    Hohinnon    v.    I'iiilav.  and 


Ward  V.  Tvohinson.  L.  M.  0  Ch.  D. 
■IS7;  :i!t  I..  T.  :WH;  27  \V.  11.  2!M; 
Cartmell,  29.").  Tliese  cases  arose 
between  mereliants  in  Manchester 
and  corresponding,'  houses  in  Man- 
illa and  Ran;.'ooii.  The  trademarks 
were  compt)site  marks,  eontainin;^ 
crests,  names  of  the  individuals 
\\Titt»-n  in  Chinese  characters,  coatti 
(if  arms,  and  other  j>ersonal  intlicia 
of  the  jiarties  interested. 

8.") — Armistead  v.  HIaekwell.  1 
()(T.  Oaz.  (iO:};  Sel).  :i!l'.l;  15o},'ers  V. 
Taintor.  !t7  Mass.  201;  Sel).  283; 
Hradhury  v.  Dickens.  27  Ih-av.  fiS; 
2.S  L.  .1.  Ch.  (5({7;  :i.T  L.  T.  r)4 ;  Seb. 
17.'{;  Hanks  v.  Cibson,  34  Bcav. 
.".tiC;  11  .lur.  N.  S.  U80;  34  L.  J. 
(  h.  .V.n  ;  l.t  W.  K.  I(tl2;  U  N.  R. 
27.{. 

H(5— \Vri;.dit  v.  Simpson.  1.")  Off. 
Caz.  )KIS:   Price  4  Steuart.   IH"). 

87 — Hanks  v.  riibson.  ."U  Heav. 
.-.(I(t;  11  .lur.  N.  S.  (ISO;  :<»  K.  .r. 
Cli.  .V.ll  :  12  W.  K.  1012 ;  (i  N.  H. 
lil'.i;  Sel).  218;  Ca^'c  v.  Canada   Pub. 


i}3  riCKKATOHV.  [§17 

Tradomiirks  upon  tlie  death  of  llioir  owuor  pass  with  his 
other  jx'i'sonalty  to  liis  jxTsoiial  rc|)rcseiitativ('s.''''  There 
shouhl,  (if  <'()iirse,  l)e  a  coiivcn  aiicf  ol'  the  drccdcMt  "s  title  by 
adiniiiisl  i-at  ion  ;  and  when-,  as  in  lloniuhn  r.  Llaij'l;  tliere  is 
IK)  adiiiiiiistration,  and  <i  relative  .siMi|)ly  continues  business 
and  uses  the  tradeniarU.  lie  |ii()l)al)ly  ac(|nirt's  no  title  to  the 
tradeniai'k  therel)y.  At  all  events,  in  that  ease,  wliere  the 
deeeased's  son  so  used  the  trademark  and  subsequently  sold 
his  business  with  its  ^roodwill  to  a  third  party,  it  was  held 
that  the  son  had  aecpiired  no  title  capable  of  beinj;  transferred 
to  such  third  party. ''"  The  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania,  how- 
ever, has  distinctly  held  that  where  a  man's  sons  continued 
to  use  his  trademark  after  )iis  death  (there  havinpr  been  no 
evidence  of  administration  upon  liis  estate)  and  subsequently 
separated,  each  eontiiuiinj;  in  business  and  using:  the  trade- 
mark, they  were  entitled  to  an  injunction  aprainst  a  stranp:er 
imitating  that  trademark,  ui)on  a  bill  in  equity  in  which  they 
joined  as  complainants.  The  subject  is  not  as  fully  discussed 
by  the  court  as  it  should  have  been.  The  language  of  Lord 
Cran worth  in  Leather  Cloth  Co.  r.  American  Leather  Cloth 
Co.^o  is  quoted  in  the  opinion,  as  follows:  "Difficulties,  how- 
ever, may  arise  where  the  trademark  consists  merely  of  the 
name  of  the  manufacturer.  When  he  dies,  those  who  succeed 
him  (grandchildren  or  married  daughters,  for  instance), 
though  they  may  not  bear  the  same  name,  yet  ordinarily  con- 
tinue to  use  the  original  name  as  a  trademark,  and  they 
would  be  protected  against  any  infringement  of  the  exclusive 
right  to  that  name.  They  would  be  so  jiroteeted,  because 
according  to  the  usage  of  trade  they  would  be  understood  as 
meaning  no  more  by  the  use  of  their  grandfather's  or  father's 
name  than  that  they  were  carrying  on  the  manufacture 
formerly  carried  on  by  him."  In  the  course  of  its  oi)in- 
ion  the  Pennsylvania  court  observes:  "It  was  urged,  how- 
Co.,  11  Can.  S.  C.  n.  .inO:  0  Out.  stantially  tlic  sam.-  state  of  facts 
Rep.  68;    11  Out.  App.  402.  and   the  same  lioldinj,'   in   Sinpleton 

88— Croft  V.  Day,  7  Beav.  84;   h'r       v.   Rolton,   3   Donjr.  20.1;    Cox,   634; 
Farina,  44  L.  T.  X.   S.   09;   CiMett       Seh.  4. 
V.  Read,  9  Mod.  450.  00—11  H.  L.   C.   523. 

80— Hovenden  v.  Lloyd.   18  W.  R. 
1132;     Sel).    337.      There    was    sub- 


§17] 


HDI'KINS    ON    TH\I>KMA1{KS. 


34 


ever,  that  concodiiif;  this  symbol  to  have  been  a  valid  trade- 
mark in  tlio  hands  of  .li>ssi»  Darliiifjtoii  (prandfatlicr  of  com- 
plaiiuiMts).  or  even  of  flared  (his  son),  that  upon  tlir  death 
of  the  latter  it  ceased  to  be  the  jtrdpfrly  (»f  any  one,  and  tluit 
its  nse  by  several  members  of  the  family  of  the  latter  destroyed 
its  distinctive  features  and  left  it  open  t(»  the  i)id)lie  to  ajtpro 
priate  it.  We  can  not  assent  to  this  pi-uposition." '•"  It  mi^rht 
be  supr^rested  that  in  eases  of  this  character  (i.  c,  where  no 
administration  is  had  upon  the  estate  of  a  deceased  owner  of 
a  trademark)  its  nse  by  relatives  in  a  similar  bnsiness  is 
practically  an  adoption  <lf  novo  of  the  niarU,  left  open  to  the 
world  for  appropriation  by  its  owner's  death. 

Where  the  owner  of  a  trademark  takes  i)artners  into  the 
business  in  which  it  is  employed,  the  title  to  the  trademark 
ordinarily  is  merged  into  the  partnership  assets.'-'-  The 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  apparently  held  to  the 
contrary,"-'  but  the  facts  were  that  the  owner  of  the  mark 
owned  the  premises  in  which  the  business  was  conducted, 
and  took  two  of  his  clerks  into  partnership.  He  did  not  con- 
vey the  realty  to  the  firm,  and  upon  dissolution  there  was 
correspondence  between  him  and  the  withdrawing;  partners 
which,  in  the  languafrc  of  Mr.  Justice  Field,  "discloses  be- 
yond question  their  knowledge  of  the  transfer  and  recogni- 
tion of  his  power  to  make  it;"  referring  to  his  subsequent 
sale  of  his  business  and  his  trademark  to  another.     It  would 


01 — Paxnn,  .T.,  in  Pratfs  Appeal, 
117  Pa.  St.  401.  412.  "TIh-  reason 
why  a  trademark  may  pass  'witli- 
out  administration,'  as  su^'frested 
by  Paxon,  J.,  in  Pratt's  Appeal,  117 
Pa.  St.  401,  sec-ms  to  be  that  a 
trademark  can  have  no  value  ex- 
cept in  connection  with  the  biisi- 
nesH  to  which  it  attaches;  and  as 
creditors  are  not  tisually  in  condi- 
tion to  realize  the  value  of  the 
trademark,  either  l)y  carryiu};  on 
the  buHincHs  themsi-lveB  or  by  sell- 
ing to  one  who  will,  its  chief  ele- 
ment as  an  asM-t  is  wanting'.  Kiit 
it  wems,  also,  that  cases  Biay  arise 
in    wliich    the    trademark    of    a    de- 


ceased testator  or  intestate  is  of 
value  to  creditors,  or  a  subject  of 
contention  amonj;  lu'irs,  when  ad- 
ministration may  lieconie  neces- 
sary." Woerner.  .Vdniinistration, 
0.3r>,  note  8. 

•)2— Weston  v.  Ketcham  (2),  SI 
How.  Pr.  4r)r»;  Filkins  v.  Rlackman, 
V.\  Blatchf.  440.  44(5;  Fed.  Case 
No.  •',7S(i;  Sohier  v.  .lohnson.  111 
Mass.  2:{S,  242;  llury  v.  Hedford, 
4  DeO.  .T.  &  S.  .1.V2-H7I;  Con.ly  v. 
Mileli.-U.  :t7  L.  T.  N.  S.  2(;H;  Moore 
V.  HawHon,  ISf)  Mass.  204;  70  N.  E. 
i:ep.  (;4. 

11.}— Kidd  v.  Johnson.  100  U.  S. 
(117,  Ol'»;   2.')  L.   Kd.  7<i!>, 


35  I'RPJ^ATORY.  [§17 

seem  from  this  decision,  then,  tliat  the  partner  who  oripinully 
owns  the  mark  may  by  agreement  jjermit  the  use  of  the  trade- 
nuu'k  by  tlie  firm  during  its  existence,  reserving  the  title  to 
the  trademark  1(»  himself  in  the  event  of  dissolution. 

In  a  recent  case  it  has  been  hold  that  "When  a  trademark 
or  tradename  is  owned  by  oi\r.  \\\\(i  enters  into  a  partnershij) 
with  another  for  the  manufacture  of  the  article  designated, 
the  title  of  the  trademark  does  not  pass  to  the  i)artnership 
except  by  exi)ress  agreement.""*  A  like  ruling  has  been 
made  as  to  the  trademark  of  one  of  the  incorjjorators  of  a 
corporation."-''  In  each  case  the  title  of  the  mark  is  a  ques- 
tion of  fact,  and  title  to  ])ersonalty  usually  follows  posses- 
sion. Use  by  a  partnership  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  owner- 
ship by  the  partnership. 

The  federal  supreme  court  has  held  that  when  a  i)artner 
retires  from  a  fiim,  assenting  to  or  acquiescing  in  the  reten- 
tion by  the  other  j)artners  of  the  old  place  of  business  and 
the  future  conduct  of  the  business  by  them  under  tiie  old 
name,  the  goodwill  (including  the  title  to  the  firm's  trade- 
marks) remains  with  the  latter  as  a  matter  of  course.'*'"' 

It  is  imi)()rtant  to  note,  in  considering  the  assignability  of 
trademarks,  the  doctrine  first  announced  hy  .Judge  Shipman, 
that  "The  right  to  use  a  trademark  can  not  be  so  enjoyed  by 
an  assignee  that  he  shall  liave  the  right  to  affix  the  mark  to 
goods  differing  in  character  or  species  from  the  article  to 
which  it  was  originally  attached."""  And  where  the  trade- 
mark involved  the  use  of  the  assignor's  name,  it  was  said: 
"Where  an  individual  parts  with  a  right  to  the  use  of  his  own 
name  in  any  given  connection,  the  courts  should  rot  extend 
the  contract  by  which  he  does  so  beyond  its  necec.";ary  scope. 
It  eertaiidy  will  not  be  held  that  a  man  has  tied  himself  up 
so  as  to  prevent  the  use  of  his  own  name  any  further  tlian  the 
clear  terms  of  the  agreement  show  his  intention  to  do  so."'*^ 

94 — Kirkpatrick,    J.,    in    Grcacen  Xo.   4,780.     This  rule  is  apain  laid 

V.  Bell,  115  Fed.  Rep.  S/iS,  5'A.  down   in   Chattanoopa  Medicine  Co. 

95— Cutter  v.  Giidebrod  Bros.  Co.  v.  Thedford    ( 1 ) ,  49  Fed.  Rep.  949, 

(2),  61  X.  Y.  Supp.  225.  952;    Chattanoopa    Medicine   Co.   v. 

96— IMenendez  v.  Holt,   128  U.  S.  Thedford   (2),  58  Fed.  Rep.  347. 
514,  522;  .32  L.  Ed.  52(>.  98 — Xewman,  J.,   in  Chattanoopa 

97_Filkin3      V.      Blackman,      13  Medicine    Co.    v.    Thedford    (2),    58 

Blatchf.      440,      444;       Fed.      Case  Fed.   Rep.   347,  349;    reversed  upon 


§17]  llOI'KINS    ON    TKMtKM.VKKS.  36 

One  who  lias  jissij,'iit'il  citlicr  liis  t raiiciiiark  ••'■'  or  tfatlc- 
naiue  •  ^vill  l)o  cnjoiiu'd  from  a^raiii  usiiij;  tlu"  mark,  or  iiaiuc 
liiinsolf;  if  \\c  makes  such  an  assi;:imifiit  to  a  »'or)»orati()ii 
with  a  rt'Vfi'sioii  to  liiiii  if  llu'  corpoi-at  ion  ccast's  to  exist,  lie 
ran  not  niaki'  a  valid  assi^'inncnt  of  the  mark  to  another  dur- 
inj;  the  lifi'  of  the  corporal  ion. - 

The  assijjnee  of  a  tradenuirk  iloes  not,  mei-cly  hy  virtue  of 
the  assijriunent,  obtain  a  i-i^dit  to  enjoin  infrin^'ers  'f  the 
mark.  He  must  show  that  he  has  actually  a])plied  it,  com- 
mercially, to  goods  of  the  class  for  which  it  is  claimed  as  a 
trademark.-' 

While,  as  we  have  seen,  a  tratlemark  is  assignable  only  in 
connection  \\\{\\  the  goodwill  of  the  business  in  which  it  is 
used,  it  does  not  follow  that  both  must  be  conveyed  by  the 
same  instrument  or  at  the  same  time ;  and  under  the  English 
Patents,  Trademarks  and  Copyright  Act  of  1883  it  has  been 
lield  that  the  registration  of  an  assignment  of  a  trademark 
need  not  be  contemporaneous  with  the  assignment  of  the 
goodwill.^  It  is  i)()ssible  that  the  originator  of  a  manufac- 
turing business  and  the  person  who  i)urchases  that  business 
may  each  thereafter  liave  a  right  to  the  limited  use  of  the 
tradename  and  trademark  used  in  connection  with  that  busi- 
ness.^ Where  such  a  state  of  facts  arises,  either  the  vendor  or 
jnirchaser  can  assign  his  right  to  the  use  of  the  tradename  and 
trademark,  and  cither  will  be  enjoined  U])on  the  application  of 
the  other  from  using  the  words  "only  genuine"  in  connection 
with  the  name  or  mark.'' 

till-  {.'round  of  unfair  competition  \>\  Filkins    v.    Blackman.     \.\    lUatclif. 

defendants,    in     Cliattanoo^ia    Mt-di-  440,  44r>;    I'\-d.   Case   .\o.  4.7S(i. 

fine   Co.   v.    Tli.dford,    14    (".    V.    A.  A— In  re  \\clk-omr,  L.   R.   32  Ch. 

101;  60  Fed.   Kc]..    '.44.  D.  21:};   :\   R.   \\  V.  7C>;    '>'.  L.  .1.  Ch. 

09— Hury    v.    R.-dford.    4    D.C    -F  :.42;    :.4    L.  T.    4!»:{ ;    :M    W.    R.   4r>.3; 

&    S.   :i.'.2;    Rurkliardt  v.    Rurkiuirdt  Cartni.-ll.  ;{42. 

Co.,  4  Ohio  N.  1*.  :jr)8.  r>— Fisli    Bros.    W  a^-on    Co.    v.    La 

1 — Churton    v.    I)ou;,'laH,    .Johnson  Relic   \Va;,'on    Works,   82   Wis.    546; 

(Enjj. ),  174.  I'i^h  RroH.  Wajjon  Co.  v.   Fish  Bros. 

2_IVtrolia    Mf};.    <'o.    v.    R.H    A  ^U^i.    Co..    S7     Fed.     Rep.    201;     af- 

Ro^art  Soaji  Co.,  07    Fed.   Itcji.   7H1.  firni<-d.   Jt.".    \-\-i\.    Kcp.    I.".7 :   ."17    C.  C. 

784.  A.   \M\. 

.1— Walton    V.    Crowl-y,    Fid.   Cane  (5 — Finli    Rron.    \\  a^'on   Co.   v.   Fish 

No.     17,i:<:C.     :i    Rlatchf.    4«o.    44H;  RroH.   Mfg.  Co.,  87    Fed.   Rep.  203. 


37  4'Ki:fat<)Ky.  [§  17 

In  a  case  where  ;i  ttjidcinark  was  used  by  a  manufacturer  in 

En^'land  and  also  by  a  lirni  in  tlio  I'nitod  States  in  which  In; 
was  a  partner,  the  use  of  the  trach'inark  havin<;  he^Min  in  b(ith 
j)hi('es  ahonl  the  same  tiiiic.  iiiid  if  liaviii^  h<'iM»iMc  a  distinctive 
mark,  i(h'ntifyiiif:  tlie  artieh*  mannl'aeturcd  in  the  I'nited  States, 
tin*  Enj^lish  maniifactiii'ei'  retired  fr-om  the  AnuM'iean  honse. 
Upon  liis  .snhs(M|n<'iit ly  attempt  iiijr  to  use  it  in  a  separate  busi- 
ness of  the  same  kind  in  this  couidry,  it  was  hehl  that  his  suc- 
cessors in  the  old  firm  had.  upon  his  retirement,  succeeded  to 
the  exclusive  ri<rht  to  use  tjie  trademark,  as  part  of  the  busi- 
ness, and  he  was  enjoined  fi'om  usiuf;  the  mark  in  his  new  estab- 
lishment in  the  I'nited  States."  This  ease  is  but  a  practical 
application  of  the  doctrines  we  have  just  considered,  to  an 
unusual  state  of  facts. 

Whenever  the  alien  owner  of  a  trademark  has  abandoned 
its  use  in  the  United  States  by  neglecting  to  assert  his  rights 
as  against  infringers  in  this  country,  the  public  has  a  right  to 
use  that  mark,  of  which  it  will  not  be  divested  by  the  operation 
of  a  law  subsequently  enacted  by  the  country  of  w^hich  the 
former  owner  is  a  citizen."  A  trademark  applied  to  mineral 
paint  produced  from  a  deposit  on  a  particular  piece  of  land 
Avill  pass  to  a  purchaser  of  the  land  as  an  incident  to  the  realty,'* 
as  will  a  trademark  applied  to  the  water  of  a  particular  spring'" 
or  the  right  to  use  words  designating  a  particular  building  rather 
than  thp  business  conducted  therein,''  or  the  rjght  to  use  a 
mark  which  has  come  to  desigiiate  the  product  of  a  mill  or 
factory  rather  than  of  the  proprietor. '- 

In  a  case  where  the  plaintiff  had  assigned  the  right  to  use 
his  trademark  to  the  defendant  for  a  term  of  years,  for  a  share 
of  the  profits  of  defendant's  business,  and  during  the  term  re- 
engaged in  the  use  of  the  mark,  in  an  action  by  the  plaintiff 
upon  the  contract  it  was  held  that  the  plaintiff  could  recover 

7 — Batdiclor     v.      Thompson,     Sfi  0 — Princo    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Prince's 

Fed.  Rep.  t>.30.  Metallic  Paint  Co.,   15  N.  Y.  Supp. 

8 — Saxlchner    v.    Eisner    &    Men-       24n;  Cox,  Manual,  721. 
delson   Co.    (2),   91   Fed.   Rep.   ri.36;  10— Hill    v.    Lockwood.    32    Fed. 

Saxlehner    v.    Eisner    &    Mendelson       Rep.  389. 

Co.     (3),    170   U.    S.    1!>,    36;    4,')   L.  11— Armstrong'    v.    Kleinhaus,    S2 

Ed.  60.  Ky.  .•?()3. 

12— Atlantic   Millinp   Co.   v.    Rob- 
inson, 20  Fed.  Rep.  217. 


§  IS]  irOPKINS    ON    TltADK.MAKKS  38 

the  profits  iliu'  liini  iiikUt  the  contraft,  ami  tlit^  (loffiulaut  was 
allowed  (lalua^'l^s  for  tlu«  bivarh  of  the  roiitrart.  Tlic  validity 
of  tlu'  assijfHineiit  appoars  not  to  have  Ix-cii  (|ii»'stioiu'd.'-' 

Thero  is  an  exi'optiou  to  the  jrciifral  nilr  that  a  trademark 
can  not  be  assifrned  save  in  connet'tion  with  a  business;  where 
the  mark  is  associated  with  the  i)rodn('t  of  a  secret  j)rocess, 
the  mark  necessarily  «roes  Avitli  an  assijriniuMit  of  the  process.'* 
Thus  the  Court  of  Ajipeals  of  New  York.  si)eakinpr  throufjh 
O'Brien.  J.,  lias  said,  "There  are  doubtless  some  trademarks 
that  consist  of  words  that  identify  an  article  ]>roduced  by 
some  secret  process  and  without  the  use  of  wliich  the  article 
could  not  be  described.  Tn  other  words  the  luime  used  may  be 
inherent  in  the  article  itself  and  is  not  used  as  in  this  case  to 
distinfruish  one  cijrar  from  another.  The  celebrated  cordial, 
which  is  in  use  the  world  over,  known  as  'Chartreuse'  is  a 
sample  of  a  trademark,  the  bare  assi<rnment  of  which  mipht 
confer  upon  the  assifrnce  the  ri^dit  to  nuinufacture  and  sell 
that  article."''' 

The  doctrine  of  a  later  case  is  that  wliere  trademarked  poods 
are  made  under  a  formula,  and  tlioir  nianufm'ture  abandoned, 
one  who  lawfidly  actpiires  knowlcdfre  of  the  formula  may 
apply  the  trademark  to  its  jjroduct,  as  aprainst  one  who,  in  the 
interim,  has  applied  the  trademark  to  a  spurious  article  not 
made  by  the  formula."'  The  decision  so  luildinpr  was  subse- 
quently reversed  upon  the  facts;'"  but  the  legal  rule  is  believed 
to  be  sound. 

§  18.  Assignability  of  distillery  brands  and  the  like.— Trade- 
marks used  at  a  i)articular  jiroducinj;  cstablishnuMit  upon  the 
articles  i)roduccd  at  the  csta])lislmicMt  nuiy  be  lawfully  assifrned 
and  transferred  with  the  establislmuMit.  Of  sueh  a  mark  it 
has  been  said  that  "its  subsecpicnt  use  by  the  person  to  whom 
the  establishment  is  transferred  is  considered  as  oidy  indicat- 

13 — C'cM'    V.    Bradh-y.   0    OfT.    fJaz.  IC— \\'.  \.  Caiiifn  &   Co.  \.   Kalin, 

.".41;    F<-<1.  Cant'  No.  2.!>ll.  1"»')  F.-d.  Krp.    (i:J!». 

14 — Tuttli'  V.   Blow,   17t>   Mo.   l.'.S,  17— Kaliii  v.  W.   .\.  Cain.-s  i  Co., 

173;   Falk  v.  Am.Tifan  WVkI  ImlicH  Itil   r.<l.  li-i..  4nr>;  8S  C.  C.  A.  437; 

Trading  Co..   1«0  N.   Y.   44r);    iJald-  ./.    W.    A.    Caiii.-H    *    Co.    v.    Rock 

win   V.    Von    MiiluToux.    25    N.    Y.  Spring  DiHt.  (  u..   Ml  C.  C    A.  287; 

Supp.  K->7,  «.'.1>.  22(1    Fed.    H.-ji.    .'..U. 

l."". — Falk    V.    AriKricim    W  i-nt    In- 
di.H  Tradinj,'  Co.,   IKU  .\.  Y.  445. 


39  I'REFAT(JRV.  [§  li^ 

iug  that  tlio  goods  to  which  it  is  allixcd  uro  maimfacturcd  at 
tlie  same  phice  and  arc  of  tlie  same  character  as  those  to  which 
the  mark  was  attached  hy  its  ()rif,Mnal  desif^Mier. "'''  This  nih- 
has  been  applied  to  brands  consistin'?  in  whoh*  or  in  j)art  of 
proper  names.  Thns,  in  the  leadin},'  case,  the  brand  was  "S.  X. 
Pike's  Majinolia  Whiskey,"'"  and  in  another  case  the  brands 
■were  "J.  G.  IMattinjjIy  &  Sons,  Standard  lioui-bon"  ;ind  "J.  U. 
Mattinfjfly  &  Sons,  Pnre  Rye."-" 

§19.  Unfair  competition.^! n  1877,  the  American  writer, 
]\Ir.  Charles  E.  Coddin^'toii,  in  his  excellent  digest  of  trade- 
mark cases,  remarked  that  "The  interference  of  courts  of 
equity,  instead  of  ])ein«ir  founded  ujion  the  theory  of  protection 
to  the  owner  of  tradenuirks,  is  now  sui)ported  mainly  to  ]jre- 
vent  frauds  upon  the  public. 21  If  the  use  of  any  words,  numer- 
als or  symbols  is  adopted  for  the  purpose  of  defrauding  the 
public,  the  courts  will  interfere  to  protect  the  i)ublic  from  such 
.fraudulent  intent,  even  though  the  person  asking  the  inter- 
vention of  the  court  may  not  have  the  exclusive  right  to  the 
use  of  these  words,  mimerals  or  symbols.  "22  jjp  added  that 
this  rule  was  fidly  supported  by  four  cases,  two  English  and 
two  American,  which  he  cited. ^'^  Since  that  time,  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  doctrine  so  expressed  has  grown  steadily  and  cer- 
tainly, so  that  it  now  demands  treatment  as  a  specific  branch 

18— Mr.  Justice  Field  in  Kidd  v.  22— Coddinpton,  Dipest,  §  30. 

Johnson,  100  V.   S.   017;    2rt   L.  Ed.  23—1809.     Lee  v.  Haley,  21  L.  T. 

709.  X.    S.    .'-,46;    18  W.   R.    181;    L.   R.  5 

19— Kidd   V.   Johnson,    100   U.    S.  Cli.    155;    39    L.    J.  Ch.    284;    22   L. 

617;   25  L.  Ed.  769.  T.   X.   S.   251;    18  W.  R.   242;    Seh. 

20— J.  G.   Mattinply   Co.   v.   Mat-'  325. 

lingly,  17  Ky.  L.  Rep.   1;  27  S.  W.  1872.     Wotlierapoon   v.   Curie,   22 

Rep.    985;    J.    G.    Mattin|,'ly    Co.    v.  E.  T.   X.  S.  200;    18  W.   R.  562;   42 

IMattingly,    90    Ky.    4:50;    31    S.    W.  L.  J.  Ch.    130;    23   L.  T.  X.   S.  443; 

R«^P-  279.  18  W.  R.  942;  L.  R.  5  H.  L.  508;  42 

21 — The  writer  erred  in  ascrihinp  E.  J.  Ch.    130;    27  E.  T.  X.   S.   393; 

this  as  the  only   reason.     The  pre-  Seh.  329. 

vention    of    fraud   upon    the    person  1S72.       X^ewman    v.     Alvord,     49 

■whose  poods  are  pirated  is  equally  Barl>.   588;    35  How.   Pr.   108;    Cox, 

important  and  copent.     Humplirey's  404;    51    X.   Y.    189;    10   Am.    Rep. 

Specific  iled.  Co.  v.   Wenz,    14  Fed.  588;    Scb.    282. 

Rep.  250;  Skinner  v.  Oakes,  10  Mo.  "  1877.  Kinney  v.  Basch,  Seb.  542. 
App.  45. 


§20]  HOl'KlNy    ON    TK\I)1;M  \KKS.  40 

of  tlie  law.  separate,  apart  t'lMiu.  but  iiicliuliii;r  the  iiarrowri* 
uiul  strictly  tofhiiii-al  law  of  ti-adfiiiai-ks.-'  "'I'lu'  tciKU'iii-y 
of  tlie  courts  at  tho  i)resont  time  seems  to  be  to  rcstriel  the 
scope  of  the  law  applieable  to  tcehnieal  trademarks,  and  to 
extend  its  sc()|)e  in  eases  of  unfair  competition. "-•'• 

§20.  Historical. — In  1742,  in  lilmwliard  v.  Hill,  a  decision 
of  no  authority  and  of  no  particular  use  cxeei)t  to  illustrate 
the  slow  prowth  of  the  law  of  trademarks,  Lord  Ilardwicke 
observed,  referrinp  to  Southern  v.  Ifou;^'^  "It  was  itot  the  single 
act  of  niakinpr  use  of  the  mark  that  was  sufficient  to  maintain 
the  action,  but  doinp  it  with  a  fraudulent  desi<rn,  to  i)ut  off 
bad  cloths  by  this  means,  or  to  draw  away  business  from  the 
other  clothier."-'  The  chancellor  so  cnnb'ly  exj^ressed  (but 
disaj)))rovin<rly')  the  first  rei)oi-ted  judicial  i-cfereuee  to  the 
law  of  unfair  competition.  In  1896,  T^ord  Cliaiicellor  Ilals- 
bury.  addressiufr  the  House  of  Lords,  said  "For  myself,  T 
believe  the  princii>le  of  the  law  may  be  very  plaiidy  stated, 
and  that  is.  that  nctbody  has  any  ri<rht  to  represent  his  goods 
as  the  poods  of  somebody  else."-'*  This  sentence  is  a  terse 
statement  of  the  fundamental  maxim  of  unfair  comjietition. 
The  English  courts  have  long  recognized  the  rule,  and  it  may 
be  foujid  re]>eated  in  various  ])hraseology  by  all  the  English 
courts  within  whose  jurisdiction  trademark  and  analogous  cases 
have  come. 

It  is  more  diflRcult  to  trace  the  growth  of  this  doctrine  in 
the  American  decisions,  rhancellor  Randford  in  1825,  in  an 
action  concerning  the  right  to  the  name  of  a  i)criodical, 
observed,  "The  injury  for  which  redress  is  given  •  •  • 
results  from  the  imjiosture  jiracticed  upon  the  customers  of 
an  existing  establishment,  or  upon  the  public."-"'  so  recog- 
nizing the  rule  which  Mi*.  Toddington  failed  to  recognize. 

24 — "Tin-   law  of   unfair  cdmiM-ti-  2(\ — Smitlu-ni     \.     IInu.     l*iij)hnm, 

tion   in  well  Kcttlcd.      It  in  only   tli<-  Ml;     Cn..    .Ia<-.     171:    J     15-. 11.'.    '2S; 

appliration  of   that   law  t<»  iiidivid-  Sih.   1. 

ual     oatM'H     wliicli     ri-'iiiin-H     <liscu><-  27 — lUaiu-liard     v.     Hill,     2     Atk. 

Hion."        LacomtM-,     .F..      in      W'altir  IS4;    S«'l>.   2. 

UakiT    4    Co.    V.    SandcrH,    SO    K<-d.  2S— Ilcddaway   v.    Raidiam,    L.    H. 

K«-p.  8K{»,  HJH  ;  20  ('.  C.  A.  22(1.  (IsiMli    Aj.pral   CawH.    l!H>-2(t4. 

2.'» — liakt-r,     J.,      in      Church      4  20— .Snowdcn    v.    Noah,    HopkiiiH* 

Dwijjlit   Co.    V.    HuBB,  m>    Fed.    Rep.  Ch.  K.  347;  Cox,  1;  Sth.  41. 
270-278. 


41  riiKivvTtjKv.  [§20 

Twelve  years  later,  in  ^rassadmsctts,  it  was  said  that  "Im- 
position, falsehood  and  fraud,  on  tlie  part  of  the  defendant, 
in  passing  ofl'  his  own  medicines  as  those  of  the  plaintiff, 
would  he  a  }>:r()und  of  action."'"' 

In  1840  Chancelloi-  Walwortii  was  i)rescntcd  ^\  ith  an  ap])lica- 
tion  for  an  injuticl  ion  to  restrain  the  use  of  the  words  "New 
Era"  as  the  name  of  u  n(>wspa|)er,  the  eomi)lainant  beinpj  the 
j)roi)rietor  of  a  rival  periodical  denominated  "Democratic  Ile- 
jmblican  New  Era."  He  denied  the  application,  and  in  the 
course  of  his  opinion  said:  "The  allcfjation  in  the  complain- 
ant's bill  of  complaint  is  that  the  defendant  has  assumed  the 
name  of  the  complainant's  newspaper  for  the  fraudulent  pur- 
pose of  imjiosinpr  ujion  the  public,  and  supplanting  him  in  the 
goodwill  of  his  established  ])apcr,  by  simulating  the  name  and 
dress  thereof;  with  the  intent  to  cause  it  to  be  understood, 
and  believed  by  the  communitj'',  that  the  defendant's  news- 
paper was  the  same  as  the  complainant's,  and  thereby  to  in- 
jure the  circulation  of  the  latter.  If  this  were  in  fact  so,  I 
should  have  no  difficulty  in  making  this  order  absolute.  For 
although  the  business  of  jiublishing  newspapers  ought,  in  a 
free  country,  to  be  always  open  to  the  most  unlimited  com- 
petition, fraud  and  deception  certainly  are  not  essential  to 
the  most  perfect  freedom  of  the  press.  *  *  *  ^s  the  names 
of  party  newspapers,  in  these  days,  have  no  necessary  con- 
nection with  the  principles  which  they  advocate,  and  are  manu- 
factured as  readily  as  the  upav  names  if  not  the  new  principles 
of  political  parties,  there  could  be  very  little  excuse  for  the 
editor  of  a  newspaper  who  should  adopt  the  precise  name  and 
dress  of  an  old  established  paper,  which  would  be  likely  to 
interfere  with  the  goodwill  of  the  latter  by  actually  deceiving 
its  patrons."  ^i 

Not  until  1888  did  the  United  States  supreme  court  give 
distinct  recognition  to   the  law  of  unfair  competition.^-   and 

30 — Thomson    v.     Winclicstor,     lit  Hd.     f).'}.');     Co.x,    Manual,     70").       In 

Pick.  214;   Sel).  of).  this    case    Mr.    Justice    Field    said 

31— Bell   V.    Locke,    8    Paij,'.-,    7.>;  (128     U.     S.     at     p.     604),     "The 

Cox,  11;   Sol).  (').').  case     at     bar     can      not     be     sus- 

32 — Goodyear         India        Rubber  tained    as    one    to    restrain    unfair 

Glove    Mffi.    Co.    V.    Goodyear    Rub-  trade.        Relief     in     such     cases     is 

bcr     Co.,     12S     r.     S.     598;     32    L.  jrranted    only    where    the   defendant, 


§20] 


IIOI'KINS    ON    TKADK.MAKKS. 


42 


three  years  later  Mr.  t'hiof  Justice  Fuller  aiiiiouiu'od  the  ilm-- 
trine  clearly  and  uneciuivocally,  in  these  terms:  "Tlie  juris 
diction  to  restrain  the  use  of  a  trademark  rests  ujjon  tiie 
grounds  of  the  i»laintilT's  jiroperty  in  it,  and  of  the  ilefendant's 
unlawful  use  thereof.  If  the  absolute  right  belonged  to  plain- 
tiff, then,  if  an  infringement  Averc  clearly  shown,  the  fraudulent 
intent  would  be  inferred,  and,  if  allowed  to  bf  rebutted  in 
exemption  of  damages,  the  further  violation  of  the  right  of 
property  would  lu^vertheless  be  restrained.  It  seems,  however, 
to  be  conteiuled  tluit  jilaintiff  was  entitled  at  least  to  an  in- 
junction, upon  tlie  ]iriiifiples  ap|)liciiltl('  to  eases  analogous 
to  trademarks;  that  is  to  say,  on  the  ground  of  fraud  on  the 
public  and  on  the  ])laintiff,  ]ierpetrated  by  defendant  by  in- 
tentionally and  fraudulently  selling  its  goods  as  those  of  the 
jilaintiff.  l^idoubtedly  an  nufair  and  fraudulent  competition 
against  the  business  of  the  i)laiiitiff — conduct  with  tlie  intent, 
on  the  part  of  the  defendant,  to  avail  itself  of  the  reputation 
of  the  plaintiff  to  ]ia]m  off  its  goods  as  plaintiff's — would,  in 
a  proper  case,  constitute  ground  for  relief."-''' 

With  this  decision  the  doctrine  of  unfair  competition  may 
be  regarded  as  being  fiiuilly  established  in  the  Ignited  States; 
and  as  based  not  only  on  fraud  on  the  i)ublic,  but  on  the 
plaintiff.^^ 


liy  liis  mark,  si^ms,  lahcls,  or  in 
other  ways,  rcprt-sents  to  tlu>  i)uli- 
lic  tliat  tin-  ^'oods  sold  l)y  him  are 
tiios*'  mamifactiircd  or  j>roduo«'d 
l)y  the  phiiiitiir,  thus  j)almin<,'  otT 
Ilia  poods  for  those  of  a  diflVront 
manufacturor,  to  the  injury  of  the 
phiintifT."  Citing  McLean  v.  Fh-m- 
inp,  ««  U.  S.  245;  24  L.  Kd.  828; 
Sawyer  v.  Horn,  1  Fed.  Uep.  24;  4 
HupheH,  2.'{!t;  I'erry  v.  Tniefit.  C 
Beavun,,  6*5;  Croft  v.  Day,  7  Heavan, 
H4. 

Indeed,  McLean  v.  Fhminp  may 
Ih-  properly  regarded  as  the  firrt 
caw  in  which  the  federal  Hiipreme 
court  made  any  m<'ntion  of  the 
dfK'trine.  Tliis  wntenee  occurs  -in 
the   opinion:    "Nor   is   it   necessary, 


in  order  to  ^rive  a  ri;;ht  to  an  in- 
junction, tliat  a  s|)eciric  trademark 
should  lie  infrin^'ed;  hut  it  is  suffi- 
cient that  there  was  an  attempt  on 
the  part  of  the  resfiondent  to  palm 
off  his  poods  as  the  poods  of  the 
complainant."  McLean  v.  Fleminp, 
1)6  U.  S.  245;   24  L.  ed.  828. 

33— Lawrence  Mfp.  Co.  v.  Ten- 
n.'ssee  Mfp.  Co..  LJS  U.  S.  .'»37;  34 
L.  Kd.   1)07;    Cox.    ^^anlull,  720. 

34— "The  law  relatinp  to  this 
suhject  is  wi'll  understood.  Xo 
man  has  a  ripht  to  use  nann-s. 
symhols,  sipns  or  marks  whidi  are 
intended,  or  calculated,  to  repre- 
sent that  his  husiness  is  tluit  <>r 
another.  No  man  should  in  this 
way     i)c    permitted     to     appro|»riate 


43 


rilEFATORY. 


[§20 


the  fruits  of  nnotlior'fl  iiKhintry,  or 
impoHc  liis  goodH  iijx)!!  tlw  pultlic 
by  inducing  it  to  hclicvp  tliat  tlicy 
are  tlie  goodB  of  some  one  else. 
If  A  presents  his  goods  in  such  a 
way  tliat  a  customer  who  ia  ac- 
quainted with  the  goods  of  B  and 
intendn  to  purcliuse  tliem  is  in- 
dueed  to  taki'  tlie  goods  of  A  in- 
stead, lielieving  them  to  hv.  tlu! 
goods  of  B,  A  is  guilty  of  a  fraud 
which  deceives  tlie  public  and  in- 
jures his  competitor.  Where  the 
goods  of  a  manufacturer  have  be- 
come popular  not  only  because  of 
their  intrinsic  wortli,  but  also  by 
reason  of  the  ingi-nious,  attractive 
and  persistent  manner  in  which 
they  have  been  advertised,  tlie 
goodwill  thus  created  is  entitled  to 
protection.  The  money  invested  in 
advertising  is  as  much  a  part  of 
the  business  as  if  invested  in  build- 
ings, or  machinery,  and  a  rival  in 
business  has  no  more  right  to  use 
the  one  than  the  other — no  more 
right  to  use  the  machinery  by 
which  the  goods  are  placed  on  tlie 
market  than  tlie  machinery  which 
originally  created  them.  No  one 
should  be  permitted  to  step  in  at 
the  eleventh  hour  and  appropriate 
advantages  resulting  from  years  of 
toil  on  the  part  of  another." 

"The  action  is  based  upon  decep- 
tion, unfairness  and  fraud,  and 
when  these  are  established  the 
court  should  not  hesitate  to  act. 
Fraud  should  be  clearly  proved;  it 
should  not  be  inferred  from  re- 
mote and  trivial  similarities.  Ju- 
dicial paternalism  should  be  avoid- 
ed; tiiere  should  be  no  ofTicious 
meddling  by  the  court  with  the  pet- 
tj-  details  of  trade;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  its  process  should  be 
promptly   used   to   prevent   an   hon- 


est buflinesn  from  being  destroyed 
or  invaded  by  diHlioiiest  means." 
Coxe,  .1.,  in  llilson  Co.  v.  Foster, 
80   Fed.    Rej).   H{)(5-8!)7. 

"The  fundamental  rule  is  that 
one  man  has  no  right  to  put  ofl 
iiis  goods  for  sale  as  tlie  goods  of 
a  rival  trader;  and  he  can  not, 
tlierefore  (in  the  language  of  Lord 
Laiigdale  in  the  ease  of  Perry  v. 
Truefit,  0  Beavan,  (5(i-73),  'be  al- 
lowed to  use  names,  marks,  letters 
or  other  indicia  by  which  he  may 
induce  purchasers  to  believe  that 
the  goods  which  he  is  selling  are 
the  manufacture  of  another  per- 
son.' "  Lord  Kingsdown  in  Leath- 
er Cloth  Co.  (Ltd.)  v.  American 
Leather  Cloth  Co.  (Ltd.),  11  H. 
L.  C.  358;  followed  in  Johnston  v. 
Orr-Ewing,  7  App.  Cas.  219-220. 

"The  courts  have  evolved  out  of 
the  technical  law  of  trademarks  a 
just  doctrine,  well  founded,  and 
known  as  the  law  of  unfair  trade, 
the  underlying  principle  of  which 
is  not  only  sound  and  broad  but 
eminently  more  concerned  with  tiie 
justice  of  the  cause  than  was  our 
ancient  jurisprudence  with  refer- 
ence to  infringements  of  the  trade- 
mark." 

Xortoni,  J.,  in  Grocer's  Journal 
V.  .Midland  Pub.  Co.,  127  Mo.  App. 
36();  105  S.  W.  Rep.  312;  quoted 
with  approval,  IMcGrew  Coal  Co.  v. 
Mcncfee,  162  Mo.  App.  209;  144  S. 
W.  Rep.   869. 

"The  gradual  but  progressive  ju- 
dicial development  of  the  doctrine 
of  unfair  competition  in  trade  has 
shed  lustre  on  that  branch  of  our  ju- 
risprudence as  an  embodiment,  to  a 
marked  degree,  of  the  principles 
or  high  business  morality,  involv- 
ing the  nicest  discrimination  be- 
tween    those     things     which     may, 


§20] 


HOPKINS   ON*    TR.\nEMARKS. 


44 


It  has  been  hold  in  somo  oases  that  in  casos  of  uiifaii*  com- 
j>ctiti()n  tho  privato  rij;ht  of  action  is  ii(»t  based  upon  fraud 
or  imposition  upon  tho  i»uhlio.  hut  is  niaintainod  soh'ly  for  tlie 
protection  of  tho  |)roporty  rijjhts  of  ooniphiinant.'-' 


unci  thus*'  \vlii«h  iiiay  not.  I>«'  dom' 
in  tin*  ei»ur!*«>  of  lioiutralilc  rivulry 
in  laisini'Hs.  T\nn  »l««'triiii'  rt'8t« 
(in  titc  linmd  proptisition  iluit 
tHjuity  will  not  jM-rmit  imy  om*  to 
palm  olT  lii»  p<mk1s  on  tlic  ]»ul)lio  as 
those  of  another.  The  law  of 
trademarks  is  only  one  lirnneh  of 
the  doctrine.  But  while  th<'  law 
of  trademarkH  is  Imt  part  of  the 
law  of  luifair  eompetition  in  trade, 
yet  when  tlie  two  are  viewi-d  in 
eontradistinetion  to  each  other  an 
essential  dilTen-nce  is  to  Ik?  ob- 
8er\ed.  The  infrin;,'ement  of  trade- 
marks is  the  \  iolation  liy  one  per- 
son of  an  »-.\elusive  right  of  an- 
other person  to  the  use  of  a  word, 
mark  or  symhol.  Unfair  competi 
tion  in  trade,  as  <listin;iuislied 
from  infrin;;ement  of  trademarks, 
doi'S  nftt  involve  the  violation  of 
any  exclusive  ri;iht  to  the  use  of 
u  word,  mark  or  symhol.  The 
word  may  he  purely  generic  or  de- 
»criptiv«',  and  the  mark  or  symbol 
indicative  «inly  of  style,  si/e,  shape 
or  <|uality,  and  as  such  open  to 
public  UHL'  'like  the  adjectives  of 
the  language,'  yet  there  may  be 
unfair  com|M-tition  in  trade  by  an 
improper  us*-  of  such  word,  mark 
or  hymb<d.  Two  rivals  in  Imsi- 
ness  competing  with  each  otlier  in 
the  same  line  of  goods  may  have 
an  <-<|ual  right  to  us*-  the  same 
Mdrds,  marks  or  symliols  on  simi- 
lar articles  produced  or  sold  by 
them  resjM'ctively,  yet  if  such 
M*onli«,  marks  fir  symbols  were 
uiM-d  by  on<'  of  them  In-fore  th<? 
other     and     by      association      bavu 


(■(im<>  to  in<licati-  to  tlie  puldic  that 
the  goods  to  whieli  tliey  are  ap- 
jilied  are  of  the  jiroduction  of  the 
former,  the  latter  will  not  be  per- 
mitte<l,  witli  intent  to  mislead  the 
jmblic,  to  use  such  wonls,  marks 
or  symliols  in  such  a  manner,  by 
trade  dress  or  otherwis*',  as  to  de- 
ceive or  be  ca]>able  «)f  deceiving 
the  piiblic  as  to  tlie  origin,  manu- 
facture <ir  ownership  of  the  arti- 
cles to  which  they  are  applied;  and 
the  latter  nuiy  be  recpiired,  when 
jising  such  words,  marks  or  sym- 
bols, to  jilace  <in  articles  of  his 
uwn  Jiroduction  or  tlie  packages  in 
Mliich  they  are  usually  sold  some- 
tiiing  clearly  di-noting  the  origin, 
manufacture  or  <iwnership  of  such 
articles,  or  negativing  any  idea 
that  tiiey  were  produced  or  sold 
by  tile  former."  Hradfonl,  .1.,  in 
Deimison  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Thomas  Mfg. 
Co.,  94  Fed.   Rep.   (bll-GoD. 

"Tho  power  of  courts  of  equity  to 
restrain  unfair  competition  is  a  very 
ben»'ficent  one,  and  is  fouiuled  upon 
a  basis  <if  sound  business  moral- 
ity. •  •  •  x„  arliitrary  ruh'S 
have  ever  been,  nor  ever  can  be, 
laid  down  by  which  courts  of  equity 
will  furnish  this  protection.  To 
establisli  such  rules  wojild.  like 
definitions  in  the  law,  furnisli  the 
means  by  which  fraud  could  suc- 
cessfully a«'(iini|ilish  its  ends." 
Cray,  .1.,  in  Ludlow  Valve  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Pittsburg  Mfg.  Co.,  KKi  Fed. 
Hep.  20.  29;  92  C.  C.   A.   (10. 

.'{.'> — Anu-rican  Washboard  Co.  v. 
Saginaw  Mfg.  Co..  1()3  Fed.  Rep. 
281;  43  C.  C.  A.  2X1 ;    M  L.    K.  A. 


45  1'ki;fat(jkv.  [§21 

§21.  Property  right  as  the  basis  of  the  action  for  unfair 
competition. — in  view  of  tlie  lu-l^uloiis  conditidn  of  Die  Aincr- 
ii-aii  cases  as  to  the  nature  of  the  ri^lit  which  is  at  the  basis 
of  the  action  for  unfair  competition  in  trade,  it  may  be  well 
to  set  out  liere  tlie  Eutrlish  doctrine.  That  doctrine  has  been 
rather  slowly  evolved,  but  it  is  now  to  be  considered  as  es- 
tablished by  the  oi)ini()n  from  which  the  followin^^  is  an 
extract : 

"The  proposition  that  no  one  has  a  right  to  represent  his 
goods  as  the  goods  of  somebody  else  must,  I  think,  as  has 
been  assumed  in  this  case,  involve  as  a  corollary  the  further 
])ro])osition.  that  no  one,  Avho  has  in  his  hands  the  goods  of 
another  of  a  particular  class  or  quality,  has  a  right  to  rep- 
resent these  goods  to  be  the  goods  of  that  other  of  a  different 
quality  or  belonging  to  a  different  class.  Possibly,  therefore, 
the  principle  ought  to  be  restated  as  follows: — A  can  not, 
without  infringing  the  rights  of  "R,  represent  goods  which  are 
not  B's  goods  or  B's  goods  of  a  particular  class  or  quality 
to  be  B's  goods  or  B's  goods  of  that  particular  class  or  quality. 
The  Avrong  for  which  relief  is  sought  in  a  ])assing-off  action 
consists  in  every  case  of  a  representation  of  this  nature. 

"The  basis  of  a  passing-off  action  being  a  false  representa- 
tion by  the  defendant,  it  must  be  proved  in  each  case  as  a 
fact  that  the  false  representation  was  made.  It  may,  of 
course,  have  been  made  in  express  words,  but  cases  of  ex- 
press misrepresentation  of  this  sort  are  rare.  The  more  com- 
mon case  is,  where  the  representation  is  implied  in  the  use 
or  imitation  of  a  mark,  tradename,  or  get-up  with  which  the 
goods  of  another  are  associated  in  the  minds  of  the  public, 
or  of  a  particular  class  of  the  public.  In  such  cases  the  point 
to  be  decided  is  whether,  having  regard  to  all  the  circumstances 
of  the  case,  the  use  by  the  defendant  in  connection  with  the 
goods  of  the  mark,  name,  or  get-up  in  question  impliedly 
represents  such  goods  to  be  the  goods  of  the  plaintiff,  or  the 
goods  of  the  plaintiff  of  a  particular  class  or  quality,  or,  as 
it  is  sometimes  put,  whether  the  defendant's  use  of  such  mark, 

eotl;     Slielloy    V.     Sporry,    121    Mo.       IT)")  Mo.  App.   412;    135  S.  W.  Rep. 
App.  429;  99  S.  W.  Rep.  488;  A.  J.       503. 
Reach    Co.    v.    Simmons   Hdw.    Co., 


§21]  irjPKlNS    ON    rUADKMAKKS.  46 

name  or  pet-up  is  cnloulnted  to  deceive.  It  would,  however, 
be  im])ossihlo  to  pnumerato  or  classify  all  the  possible  ways 
in  wiiich  a  man  may  nuiko  the  false  representation  relied  on. 

"There  appears  to  be  considerable  diversity  of  opinion  as 
to  the  nature  of  the  ripht,  the  invasion  of  which  is  the  sub- 
ject of  what  are  known  as  passinpr-ofT  actions.  The  more 
general  oiiinimi  nj^ponrs  to  bo  that  the  ripht  is  a  ripbt  of 
]>roperty.  This  view  naturally  demands  an  answer  to  the 
question — jiroj^crty  in  what'  Some  authorities  say  property 
in  the  mark,  name,  or  pet-up  improperly  used  by  the  de- 
fendant. Others  say,  ])roperty  in  the  business  or  <jondwill 
likely  to  be  injured  by  tiie  misrepresentation.  Tjord  ITerschell 
in  licdilmraif  v.  Banhom-  (L.  K.  [1000]  A.  (\  189)  expressly 
dissents  from  the  former  view  ;  and  if  the  rij;ht  invaded  is 
a  right  of  jiroperty  at  all,  there  are,  T  think,  strong  reasons 
for  preferring  the  latter  view.  Tn  the  first  place,  cases  of 
misrejiresentation  by  the  use  of  a  mark,  name,  or  get-up  do 
not  exhaust  all  possible  cases  of  misrepresentation.  If  A 
says  falsely,  'These  goods  I  am  selling  are  B's  goods,'  there 
is  no  mark,  name,  or  get-up  infringed  unless  it  be  B's  name, 
and  if  he  falsely  says,  'These  are  B's  goods  of  a  particular 
quality',  where  the  goods  are  in  fact  B's  goods,  there  is  no 
name  that  is  infringed  at  all.  Further,  it  is  extremely  difficult 
to  see  how  a  man  can  be  said  to  have  property  in  descriptive 
words,  such  as  ' Camel  Hair'  in  the  case  of  Ecddaway  v.  Bail- 
hwn  (L.  R.  [1906]  A.  C.  199)  where  every  trader  is  entitled  to 
use  the  words,  provided  only  he  uses  them  in  such  a  way  as 
not  to  be  calculated  to  deceive.  Even  in  the  case  of  what 
are  sometimes  referred  to  as  Common  Law  Trade  !Marks  the 
property,  if  any,  of  the  so-called  owner  is  in  its  nature  transi- 
tory, and  only  exists  so  long  as  the  mark  is  distinctive  of  his 
goods  in  the  eyes  of  the  public  or  a  class  of  the  public.  Indeed, 
the  necessity  of  proving  this  distinctiveness  in  each  ease  as 
a  step  in  the  proof  of  the  false  representation  relied  on  was 
one  of  the  evils  sought  to  be  remedied  by  the  Trade  Marks 
Act  1875,  which  eon f erred  a  real  right  of  property  on  the 
owner  of  a  registered  mark.  I  had  to  consider  the  matter  in 
the  ease  of  Burhrrn/a  v.  Crrrding  (26  R.  V.  C.  09:0  and  I  came 
to  the  same  conclusion."  ^^"' 

:\r,a—lA>u\  Tnrk.T,  in  Spalding  &  BroB.  v.  Gamagc«  (Ltd.),  n2  R.  T.  C. 
2S4,  IIouiM-  of  IxirdH,  inir>. 


47  i'KKi'\T(»i{v.  [§  22 

§  22.  Unfair  competition  distinguished  from  trademark  in- 
fringement. It  can  liai'dly  \)c  (loiiljtcd  that  at  its  iiic('j)tion 
the  doctrine  of  inilair  (Mimpetition  was  devised  to  protect 
the  public,  I'athcr  tiiaii  to  rccoj^iiizc  any  vested  right  in  the 
complainant.  lie  liad  adopted  a  t,'eo^'raphical  name,  a  generic 
term,  or  woi-ds  otlicfwisc  juihlici  juris,  to  desitrnate  his  wares. 
Perhaps  he  had  no  device,  synil)ol  oi-  iiiai-k  whatsoever,  ])ut 
relied  upon  the  shai)e,  form  or  color  of  his  packa^^es.  He  had, 
at  all  events,  none  of  those  methods  of  distinguishing  his 
goods  from  those  of  other  nu'rchants  which  the  law  recognizes 
as  a  right  of  ])roiierty  and  denominates  "trademark."  Yet 
his  goods  had  a  fixed  cpiality  and  were  sought  for  by  the  public. 
AVhen  his  comj)etitor  endeavored  to  ])alm  off  other  goods  as 
his  uj)oii  the  ])ublic,  the  chancellor  would  say  as  Lord  Lang- 
dale  said:  "My  decision  does  not  dejjend  on  any  i)eculiar  or 
exclusive  right  the  plaintiffs  have  to  use  the  name  of  Day  & 
jNIartin,  but  upon  the  fact  of  the  defendant  using  those  names 
in  connection  with  certain  circumstances,  and  in  a  manner  cal- 
culated to  mislead  the  public,  and  to  enable  the  defendant  to 
obtain,  at  the  expense  of  l^ay's  estate,  a  benefit  for  himself, 
to  which  he  is  not  in  fair  aiul  honest  dealing  entitled. "^^ 

The  true  theory  of  unfair  competition  has  not  always  been 
as  clearly  stated  by  the  courts  as  it  should  be.  One  line  of 
decisions  bases  this  doctrine  and  the  right  to  injunctive  re- 
lief ui)on  the  protection  of  the  public  from  fraud.  On  the 
other  hand,  Judge  Thayer  has  stated  that  relief  is  granted 
"To  restrain  the  defendants  from  perpetrating  a  fraud  which 
injures  the  complainant's  business,  and  occasions  him  a  pecuni- 
ary loss."  3"  ' 

It  is  very  clear  that  equity  intervenes  in  the  protection  from 
fraud  of  both  the  complainant  whose  business  is  or  may  be 
injured  by  the  unfair  and  fraudulent  competition,  and  the 
}iublic  who  are  the  consumers  of  his  merchandise.^'* 

36 — Croft    v.    Day,    7     Boav.    84;  S.  .-)!)S ;  ;{2  L.  Ed.  .">;{.->•.  Cox,  Manual. 

Seb.  76.  TO.").      And    to    tlie    same    i  ffect    set* 

37— Carson  v.  Ury,  30  Ynl  K.-p.  I'i.-ro.  v.  Cuittard,  68  Cal.  68,  71. 
777;    Cox,    Manual,    709;    following'  38 — Lawrence    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Ten- 

Goodyear   India  Rubber  Glove  :Mfg.  nesseo  Mfg.  Co.,   138  U.  S.  537;   34 

Co.  V.  Goodyear  Rubber  Co.,  128  U.  L.   Ed.  097. 


§  22] 


noi'KINS   ox    TKAOKMARKS. 


48 


In  it  sfnso  it  is  not  exact  to  separate  the  doctrines  of  trade- 
mark iMfriiij?emeiit  and  unfair  conipctition.'''-*  The  underlyinjj: 
doctrine  is  the  same — the  control  of  rrami,  ^'icat  or  petty,  by 
the  intervention  of  eciuity;  '"  and  yet,  without  a  dear  under- 
standing; of  the  (h)ctrines  of  unfair  comj)etition,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  read  intellitrcntly  the  tradename  eases  whicli  have  so 
long  been  treated  either  as  Ixinf;  "  trademark  "  cases,  or  cases 
"analopous  to"  trademark  cases.  We  have  discussed  else- 
where the  use  of  jiroper  names  as  trademarks,  aiul  from  an 
examination  of  tlu^  cases  tlie  careful  stndcnl  will  conclude  that 
jiroper  nanu^s  are  not  trademarks,  and  tiiat  there  shoidd  not 
be  such  a  tliiufr  as  a  teclmical  tradeiuune.  A  name  whicli  is  not 
a  trademark  is  jiot  entitled  to  prot(M'tion  as  a  trademark.'*' 
It  is  only  entitled  to  protection  when  it  is  fraudulently  used 
by  another.  Thus,  in  the  case  of  "Dent,  Tjondon,""*-  which 
we  have  before  referred  to.  Dent  is  a  proper  lunue  aiul  London 
a  frenrrraphical  word.  They  are  entitled  to  ])rotcction  aprainst 
fraudulent  use,  but  only  for  the  same  reasons  aiul  in  the  same 
sense  that  the  size,  shape,  color  and  dcsi^'u  of  labels  or  pack- 
ages are  entitled  to  j^rotection  ajrainst  fraudulent  use.  This 
is  true  of  many  cases  which  have  been  decided  by  the  courts 
as  trademark  cases. 


39 — See  nott-  to  Scliciicr  v.  ^fllll.'r, 
20  C.  C.  A.    IC.l. 

40 — Unfair  competition  is  essen- 
tially  fraudulent  and  therefore  pe- 
culiarly within  the  jurisdiction  of 
•Hjuity.  Morrirt  v.  Alstedter,  1")('>  N. 
"^  Y.  S.  110.3. 

41 — "After  a  careful  connidera- 
tion  of  the  various  caws  hearinj^ 
on  the  Huhject,  the  concluHion  was 
reached  in  Draper  v.  Skerrett,  110 
Tt'd.  Rep.  200,  that,  to  justify  a 
court  of  jHjuity  in  interfering,'  in  an 
allep'd  case  of  unfair  eomprtitioii, 
there  must  he  Hom<-tiiinj;  more 
than  the  mere  duj>lication  !>>  the 
one  party  of  the  other's  (rude- 
name,  and  that  tliis  was  to  he 
found  in  the  di'ceptive  uw  of  imi- 
tative metiiods  of  <lisplay,  or  other 


device  hy  which  the  puhlic  are  led 
into  huyinfx  the  infrinfjer's  jjoods 
where  they  intended  to  huy  those 
(if  tlie  original  producer;  the 
fraud  so  j)eri)etrated  heing  a  legiti- 
mate j,'round  for  equitalile  interfer- 
«'nce,  and  the  practical  liasis  of  it. 
It  is  hy  this  standard  tliat  the 
complainant's  ri^ht  to  relief  in 
the  present  instance  must  be 
judjjed.  Stevens  I..inen  NN'orks  v, 
Don  &  Co.,  121  Fed.  Rep.  171; 
Allen  R.  Wrisley  Co.  v.  Iowa  Soap 
Co.,  122  Fed.  Hep.  7!I0,  r,9  C.  C.  A. 
r)4."  Arciil.ald,  J.,  in  Ileide  v.  Wal- 
lace A  Co.,  120  Fed.  Rej).  040,  Or)0: 
Allirme.l   OH    C.   C.   A.    10.    \:\->    Fed. 

Kej..  ;uo. 

42— Dent  V.  Turpin.  ao  L.  .?.  Ch. 
4!i:. ;    Seh.    100;    Autr.  j..   .'U . 


49  I'KKFATOHV.  [f--^ 

It  should  be  c'loarly  uiulcistood,  tlicn,  that  tlic  hnv  of  irado- 
marks  is  merely  a  subdivision  of  the  law  of  unfair  eompeti- 
tion ;  and  that  the  broader  and  more  eomprchensive  doctrines 
of  the  latter  have  been  evolved  to  restrain  fraudulent  com- 
petition in  all  its  finises  of  misrepresentation  of  identity.  In 
the  huijruafro  of  the  Supreme  Toiirt  of  Wisconsin,  "unfair  com- 
petition ill  trade  is  not  confined  to  the  imitation  of  a  trade- 
mark, but  takes  as  many  forms  as  the  ingenuity  of  man  can 
devise.  Tt  may  consider  the  imitation  of  a  sifrn,  a  tradename, 
a  label,  a  Avra|»p('i-.  a  jiackajre,  or  almost  any  other  imitation 
])y  a  business  rival  of  some  distln<ruis]iinfr  earmark  of  an  estab- 
lished business,  -which  the  court  can  see  is  calculated  to  mis- 
lead thr  pnl)lic  and  lejid  ]iurchasers  into  the  belief  that  they 
are  buyin<r  the  f^'oods  of  the  first  maiuifacturer."  ^^ 

The  fact  is  that  there  has  always  existed  the  willingness 
of  cfpiity  to  kceji  the  zeal  of  competinpr  traders  within  the 
bounds  of  fairness. ^^  In  the  very  early  case  of  f^incjlfton  v. 
Bolton,  where  both  parties  made  and  sold  a  compound  which 
they  styled  "Dr.  Johnson's  Yellow  Ointment,"  Lord  Mansfield 
said:  "If  the  defendant  had  sold  a  medicine  of  his  own  under 
the  ])laintiff's  name  or  mark,  that  would  be  a  fraud  for  which 
an  action  would  lie.  But  here  both  the  plaintifT  and  defendant 
use  the  name  of  the  oriprinal  inventor,  and  no  evidence  was 
piven  of  the  defendant  havinpr  sold  it  as  if  jirepared  by  the 
plaintiif."  ^•"  Ro  that  even  at  the  early  date  of  the  rendition 
of  that  opinion  (17S3)  the  remedy  for  unfair  competition  would 
have  been  applied  upon  a  proper  state  of  facts;  /.  e..  if  the 
defendant  had  sold  his  jroods  as  the  {roods  of  the  plaintiff. 

In  1810  Lord  Eldon  said:  "There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this 
court  would  interjiose  aprainst  that  sort  of  fraud  which  has 
been   attemj^tod    by  settinpr  up   the   same   trade   in   the  same 

4.1 — Winslow,    J.,     in     ^fanitoAvoc  served     that     "A     court     of     oquHy 

Malting'   Co.   v.   ^lihvaukco   Maltin'T  koops    pare    witli    the    ra])id    strides 

Co.,    lin   Wis.     >4.'?,    07    X.    W.   Rep.  of    the    sharp    eompetitors    for    tlie 

380.  prize    of    ptihlic    favor,    and    insists 

44 — This   l)ranch   of  the  law   is  a  that    it    shall   be    won    only   hy   fair 

most  interesting  illustration  of  the  trade."     R.    Heinisoh's   Sons  Co.   v. 

unlimited  adaptability  of  equity  to  Boker.   80   Fed.    Rep.   7fi").    768. 
cope    with    fraud     in     every     form.  4.5 — Sinfjleton  v.  Bolton,  3  Doug. 

Judge  Townsend  has  accurately  ob-  20.T :    Cox,   024 ;    Seb.   4. 


§  22]  noi'KiN's  ON    lu- APi.M  \uKs.  50 

place,  under  the  sunie  sijjn  or  iiaine,  the  i)nrty  plvlnpr  liimself 
out  as  the  same  perst)ii.  "  '"■  It  was  by  analofjous  reasoning 
that  the  same  learned  jii»l<:(',  six  years  later,  enjoined  the 
piracy  of  Lord  Hyron's  nanif,  ii|)|>li('d  In  pocins  not  of  liis 
composition.^" 

In  IS.'JG  Lord  LanjjdaK*  cMJoiiifd  ;i  (K-fiMulant  Ironi  iisin}^ 
omnibuses  ])ainted  like  the  j^laintifF's.  and  driven  and  managed 
by  servants  dressed  in  livery  lil<e  that  of  the  jdaiiitiff's  s(>rv- 
ants.^"* 

So  that  the  doctrine  was  old  when  Mr.  .Justice  Clifford  said 
from  the  bench  of  the  federal  supreme  court,  "Xnr  is  it  neces- 
sary, in  order  to  give  a  rigiit  to  an  iujunetion,  that  a  sjiecific 
trademark  shoidd  l)e  infringed:  l)ut  it  is  sufficient  that  the 
court  is  satisfied  tliat  there  was  an  attempt  on  the  i)art  of  the 
respondent  to  jialm  off  his  goods  as  the  goods  of  tlie  com- 
j>lainant."  ''• 

The  whole  question  of  fairness  in  trade  is  ]>eculiarly  within 
the  jirovinee  of  ecjuitable  jurisdiction;  trademark  infringement 
is  but  one  form  of  unfair  competition.  I'nfair  competition  is 
the  equivalent  term  for  the  ''passing  ofT"  of  the  English""* 
and  the  *' Concurrence  dclojfalc"  of  the  French  decisions.'"' 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  there  is  this  jiracti- 
cal  distinction  between  the  issues  in  cases  of  technical  trade- 
mark infringement  and  cases  of  unfair  competition  where  no 
technical  trademark  is  involved;  the  court  is  to  be  guided  to 
its  conclusions  not  by  reference  to  any  arbitrary,  fanciful  and 
distinctive  device  to  which  the  plaintiff  has  a  property-  right. 
But  it  is  for  him  to  determine,  in  the  light  of  all  the  facts,  whether 
or  not  an  unfair  competition  has  been  instituted  by  the  resjiond- 
ent.  Judge  Kirkpatrick,  in  referring  to  this  question,  has  said: 
"Recognizing  the  i)rinciple.  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  simi- 
larity (of  the  competing' articles^  which  will  warrant  llie  iiiter- 

4fi_Cr„ttw«ll     V.     Lye.     17     Vi-h.  4ft— Knott    v.    Mitr^rnii.    2    Kcon. 

.335;    1    Row.    123;   S.-l..    17.  213;    Sob.    57. 

47— Ivonl    Byron    v.    .lolmBton.    2  4J)— McL.nn  v.  Fleming'.  00  U.  R. 

M«T.   20;    SH).    23.      Th.T.-    mny    I..-  245;   24   L.   Ed.  82ft. 

unlawful    inti-rfrn-nc*'    with    ii   roni  50— U'vrr    BroH.     ( T.td.  I    v.    Hcd- 

|(lfiirumt'H    liiiHincHH    hy    rmiHpiracy  in(;fi<'ld,  RO  L.  T.   100. 

U,  drivr  l.im   from  tli-  field.     Kvon-  51— I'ouillct.     Miiniu.H    do     Fab- 

Hon    V.    SpHldiM)/,    l.'>0    r.-d,    517,    82  riquc   ct   d."   hi   Concurrence   Hcloy- 

r.   r.    A.    2r.3.  hIi-   (4tli  cd.),  BOCK.  459  ct  acq. 


51 


I'HKF  A'lOHV. 


[§22 


ference  ol'  the  court  must  bo  (letcniiincd  by  tbe  oirfunislances 
of  eaeli  case."'"'-  While  fraud  is  ])rcsumed  from  the  wrong- 
ful use  of  a  trademark  it  must  be  j)rovcn,  directly  or  by 
inference,  in  all  cases  of  unfair  competition  wliicli  do  not  in- 
volve a  technical  trademark.'"'' 

Whatever  the  rule  nuiy  be  as  to  tiie  showing  to  be  made  by 
the  successful  com})]ainant  upon  the  acco\inting,  it  is  well 
settled  that  "it  is  not  necessary  that  the  public  should  be 
actually  deceived  in  order  to  afford  a  right  of  action.  All 
that  is  required  is  that  the  infringement  (to  warrant  injunc- 
tive relief)  should  have  a  tendency  to  deceive.  "'^^ 

But  it  is  true  of  both  classes  of  cases  that  where  the  de- 
fendant's conduct  is  calculated  to  mislead,  "it  is  not  essential 
that  any  ])articular  person  should  have  been  actually  mis- 
lead,""'"' nor  is  it  necessary  to  prove  that  the  defendant's 
goods  have   actually  been  sold  as   the   plaintiff's.'**' 

As  the  Supreme  Court  of  Wisconsin  has  said  "In  respect  of 
imitation  being  established  and  such  imitation  being  well  cal- 
culated to  deceive  it  is  not  necessary  to  show  by  specific  proof 
that  purchasers  have  been  actually  deceived.  A  court  of  equity 
will  act  before  the  injurious  consequences  of  the  unfair  com- 
petition have  made  themselves  manifest,  if  the  imitation  is 
established,  and  the  consequent  deception  seems  certain  to  re- 
sult, "s^ 


52— Kroppf  V.  Furat,  94  Fed. 
Rep.  150. 

53— Church  &  Dwijjht  Co.  v. 
Russ,  09  Fed.  Rep.  270-279.  "The 
deceitful  representation  or  perfid- 
ioua  dealing  must  be  made  out 
or  be  clearly  inferable  from  the 
circumstances."  Mr.  Chief  Justice 
Fuller,  in  Lawrence  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Tennessee  Mfg.  Co.,  138  U.  S.  537- 
551.  To  the  same  effect  see  Scriven 
V.  North,  67  C.  C.  A.  34S,  134  Fed. 
Rep.  366,  affirming,  with  modifica- 
tion, Scriven  v.  North,  124  Fed. 
Rep.  894. 

54 — Dallas,  J.,  in  O'Connell  v. 
National  Water  Co.,  161  Fed.  Rep. 
545,  88  C.  C.  A.  487,  affirming  Na- 
tional Water  Co.  v.  O'Connell,  159 


Fed.  Rep.  1001.  Following  Shaw 
V.  Pilling,  175  Pa.  78,  87,  34  Atl. 
Rep.  446;  Consolidated  Ice  Co.  v. 
Ilygeia  Distill.d  Water  Co.,  151 
Fed.  Rep.    10,   12,   80  C.  C.  A.  506. 

55 — Dallas,  J.,  in  Bickmore  Gall 
Cure  Co.  v.  Karns,  134  Fed.  Rep. 
833,  835;  67  C.  C.  A.  439;  and  to 
the  same  efl'ect  see  Scheuer  v. 
Mullor,  74  Fed.  Rep.  225,  20  C.  C. 
A.  161 ;  Swift  &  Co.  V.  Brenner, 
125  Fed.  Rep.  826. 

56— Devlin  v.  McLeod,  135  Fed. 
Rep.    164,    166. 

57 — Winslow,  J.,  in  Manitowoc 
Malting  Co.  v.  Milwaukee  Malting 
Co.,  119  Wis.  543,  97  N.  W.  Rep. 
389. 


§22] 


nolKINS    ox    TKAnr.MAKKS. 


r^o 


As  wo  have  luitoil.  the  policy  of  llu-  law  is  to  encourage 
legitimate  eompetition.  Thus  it  has  hceu  lu'ld  that  a  iiuiinifae- 
turer  under  a  i)atent  ean  not  eomplain  of  the  competition  of 
a  former  employe  who  has  patented  an  invention  in  the  same 
art  and  is  manufaeturin[r  under  iiis  patent.'''' 

This  rule  that  fraud  must  he  proven  in  cases  of  unfair  com- 
l)etition  is  exemplified  by  reference  to  the  cases  cited  in  the 
foot-note,  where  such  comparisons  have  been  made  by  the 
courts,  resultinj;  in  a  findinj:  that  the  competition  of  the  re- 
spondent was  fair/'"  and  others  where  the  facts  have  led  the 
court  to  the  contrary  conclusion."" 

With  the  exception  of  this  feature,  the  same  ti;eneral  rules 
of  law  and  jirocedure  prevail  in  this  class  of  cases  as  obtain 
in  proceedings  to  restrain  trademark  infringement.  Thus,  an 
injunction  to  restrain  an  unfair  competition  has  been  expressly 
denied  upon  the  ground  that  the  complainant  was  guilty  of 
laches  and  acquiescence.^^ 

Federal  jurisdiction  in  cases  of  unfair  comi)etiti()n  must  of 
course  be  i)redicated  upon  the  general  rules  fixing  the  juris- 
diction of  the  federal  courts,  so  that  those  courts  can  not  enter- 
tain such  an  action  arising  between  citizens  of  the  same  state."^ 

Roaonstoiu',  70  X.  J.  Eq.  6.38 ;  02  Atl. 
Rep.  44(5;  Warren  Bros.  v.  BarU-r 
Asphalt  Pavinn;  Co.,  145  Mich.  7!'. 
108  X.  \V.  Rop.  C.r)2;  Ban/lmf  v. 
Chase,  i:)0  Cal.  ISO.  88  Pac.  Rep. 
704;  Perll)erg  v.  Smith,  70  N.  J.  Eq. 
038,   02   Atl.   Rep.   442. 

00 — Draper  v.  Skerrett,  04  Fed. 
Rep.  012;  Anheiiscr-BuBch  Brewing 
Ass'n  V.  Fred  Miller  Brewing  Co., 
87  Fed.  Rep.  804;  Block  v.  Stand- 
ard Distilling:  Co.,  05  Fed.  Rep. 
07H;  .Mle;:retti  Chocolate  Cream 
Co.    V.     K.ll.r.    S.->    Fed.    Rep.    043; 

City    of    Carl.shud    v.    Tihhetts,    T)! 

F.-d.   Rep.   8.')2. 

01— T.a    Rejmldique    Francaiw    v. 

Scliultz,  04   Fed.   Rep.   500.   '.01. 
(i2— Illinois    Wateli    Cane    Co.    v. 

Kl^'in   Nat.  Watch  Co..  04   F.-d.   Rep. 

007072.      .\nd    wr    Air  Brush    Mfy. 

Co.  V.  Thayer.  84  Fed.  l<«-p.  040. 


.")8 — American  Coat  Pad  Co.  v. 
Phoenix  I'ad  Co.,  113  Fed.  Rep. 
629,  51  C.   C.   A.   330. 

,r,ri_Kroppf  V.  Furst,  94  Fed. 
Rep.  150;  Putnam  Nail  Co.  v.  Aii- 
aahle  Horsenail  Co.,  53  Fed.  Rep. 
.390;  Sterling  Remedy  Co.  v.  Eu- 
reka Mfg.  Co.,  70  Fed.  Rep.  704; 
N.  K.  Fairlmnk  Co.  v.  Luckel,  King 
&  Cake  Soap  Co.,  88  Fed.  Rep.  094 ; 
Klotz.  V.  lleeht,  73  Fed.  Rep.  822; 
Investor  Puh.  Co.  v.  Doliinson,  82 
Fed.  Rep.  50;  C.  F.  Simmons  Med. 
Co.  V.  Simmons,  81  Fed.  Rej).  1«>2; 
I>a  Repuhlique  Francaise  v. 
Schultz,  94  Fed.  Rep.  500;  Vita- 
8Cop«'  Co.  V.  i;'nit<'<l  Statt's  Phono- 
graph Co.,  83  Fed.  Rep.  30;  Brown 
V.  Dowher,  147  N.  Y.  047;  Mnmm 
V.  Kirk,  40  Fed.  Rep.  589;  .laros 
Hygienic  T'ndi-rwcar  Co.  v.  Simons, 
•10       F--d        ]<'•]>      '27''.        I'.nrll..  r;'      v. 


r)3  I'KKFATORY.  [§  23 

Fraudulent  intent  is  presumed  where  the  defendant  peraists 
in  usiufr  an  imitative  dress  after  lie  has  hrcn  notified  of  its 
similarity,  even  if  his  first  adoption  and  iiso  of  the  dress  was 
innocent."^ 

§  23.  Trade  slander  and  libel. — The  question  whether  equity- 
will  enjoin  coinpetin^'  traders  from  pnblishintr  libelous  or 
slanderous  matter  eoneerniiijr  their  eompetitor's  business  has 
been  frequently  presented  to  the  courts.  In  an  early  ease  Lord 
Eldon  said:  "The  jiublieation  of  a  libel  is  a  erime,  and  I  have 
no  jurisdiction  to  ])revent  the  commission  of  crimes,  except, 
of  course,  such  cases  as  belonpr  to  the  protection  of  infants, 
where  a  dealinpr  with  an  infant  may  amount  to  a  erime — an 
exception  arising;  from  that  peculiar  jurisdiction  of  this 
court."''-*  Ho-w  far  this  doctrine — whieli  extended  to  all 
forms  of  libel — has  been  modified  by  the  federal  courts  of 
the  United  States  is  an  involved  question,  the  discussion  of 
which  would  not  be  relevant  to  this  book. 

But  at  an  early  date  Lord  Cottenham,  in  refusinpr  to  enjoin 
libelous  statements  uttered  of  the  plaintiff's  literary  work, 
said  that  the  proper  remedy  lay  in  an  action  at  law.**'^  And 
the  Enfjlish  courts  have  subsequently  held  that  where  matter 
has  been  held  libelous  in  an  action  at  law,  the  repetition  of  the 
libel  would  be  enjoined  in  equity.*"'"  In  one  case  where  the 
court  refused  to  enjoin  a  defendant  from  circulating  an  adver- 

63— Lament,     Corliss    &    Co.     v.  ton,  L.  R.  1  H.  L.  C.  363;  Bullock 

Hershey,   140  Fed.  Rep.  763.  v.    Chapman,   2    DeG.   &    Sm.    211; 

64 — Gee  v.   Pritchard,   2   Swanst.  Browne     v.      Freeman      (2),     Cox, 

402.      To   the    same    eflfect   see    (re-  Manual,     424;     Prudential     Assur- 

fusin<T    an    injunction    against    the  ance  Co.  v.  Knott,  L.  R.   10  Ch.  D. 

exhibition     of     a     painting     falsely  142;    Fisher  &   Co.   v.  The   ApoUin- 

purporting  to  be   a   copy  of  a   pic-  aris  Co.,  L.   R.    10  Ch.   D.  297-209; 

ture    by    the    plaintiff)     Martin    v.  Ward  v.  Drat,  Cox,  Manual,  607. 

Wright,  6  Sim.  297;  refusing  to  en-  6.") — Seely  v.  Fisher,  11  Sim.  .IRl  ; 

join  a  publication  by  defendant  of  10    L.    J.    Ch.    N.    S.    274. 

a  statement  disparaging  the  plain-  66 — Saxby    v.    Easterbrook,    Cox, 

tiff's  literary  work,   Seely  v.   Fish-  Manual,  606;    Hinrichs  v.   Berndes, 

er,  11  Sim.  581;   10  L.  J.  Ch.  N.  S.  Cox.    Manual,    594;    Tliorley's   Cat- 

274.      And   see   Clark    v.    Freeman,  tie  Food  Co.  v.  Massam,  L.  R.  46  L. 

11    Beavan,    112;    Fleming  v.   New-  J.  Ch.  713. 


§23]  HOPKINS    ON    TKADKM  AKKS.  54 

tisemont  nmonp  the  plnintifT'5?  customers  wliicli  cliar^'Otl  the 
plaintilT  with  iiifriiifriiijr  his  traili'inarks.  the  court  iiitiinatod 
that  tlio  injunction  iiiif;ht  have  boon  {^ranted  if  malice  had  boon 
shown.'"''  It  may  now  l)c  rojrarded,  however,  as  the  settled 
law  of  Kn;:hind  that  "the  court  will  interfere  by  injunction 
where  statements  arc  made  with  reference  to  the  infrin^jement 
of  a  patent,  or  the  invasion  of  a  trademark  and  the  like,  if 
it  is  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court  that  these  state- 
ments are  untrue.""** 

The  same  doctrine  would  seem  to  obtain  in  this  country. 
Tt  is  libelous  to  pultlish  of  a  dealer  in  school  books  that  he 
deals  in  "antiquated  books''  and  ])ooks  which  are  "disprraee- 
ful  trash.'"""  And  it  has  been  held  libelous  per  ac  to  publish  of 
another  dealer  of  the  same  name  (Davey)  "tliat  an  unscrupu- 
lous procer  of  the  same  imme,  in  the  immediate  vicinity,  adver- 
tises 'Davey's  teas  and  coffees,'  with  a  view  to  deceive  the  pub- 
lic, and  nuiy  sol!  an  inferior  article."  ""  Judge  Lacombe  has  laid 
df>wn  the  broad  jiroposition  that  "every  lepral  oecujiation  from 
which  pecuniary  benefit  may  be  derived  creates  such  special 
susceptibility  to  injury  by  janprua^e  chargrinnr  unfitness  or  im- 
])rf>per  conduct  of  such  occupation  that  such  laufxuafre  is  action- 
able, without  proof  of  special  damajre. "  "'  It  is  the  necessary 
corollary  of  this  rule  that  a  disparajrinf?  statement  concerning 
the  poods  sold  by  another,  whether  under  a  trademark  or  not. 
rau.st  be  of  a  character  to  charpe  him  with  business  incapacity 
or  improper  conduct  of  his  business  before  it  can  come  within 
the  class  of  matter  that  is  slanderous  or  libelous  per  se.  For 
if  the  words  used  apply  to  the  ]>laintiff's  merchandise  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  constitute  an  imputation  of  his  improper  con- 
duct in  or  want  of  capacity  for  his  business,  they  will  be  libel 
ous  or  slanderous  jtrr  sr.~' 

(J7 — Cdllf-v    V.    Hurt.    7     K.     I'.    (  .  C!) — .AnnTicnn   Hook  Co.   v.  (^ntcs. 

101.  H.-.  r,.ri.  H.p.  7'2n-7:i4. 

OR— Chitty,    J.,     in     .\nil.TH<.n    v.  70— Dnvtv    v.     Davoy,    .'iO    N.    V. 

Li«'Jiij»'H  Kxtrnrt  of  Meat  Co.,  4.'»  L.  Siipp.    1(U. 

T.   N.   S.   7r.7-7.'".H;   and  to  the  Bam.'  71— Ohio     &     Miftfl.     Ry.     Co.     v. 

•  fTwt,  Hal84y  v.  Hrothcrhood.  4.'')  L.  PrcsB  Pub.    Co..   48    Fed.    Rep.    20fi. 

T     \.    S.   640;    Kmpiri'   Typrwttin^'  72 — So  wIhtc  in  a  criminal  pros- 

Marhino  Co.  v.   LinotyjM-  Co.,  7!>  L.  rrution   undor  tlio  Orc^'on  Codi-  thr- 

T.   N.  S.   8.  wordu    applied    to    tlic    property    of 


55  rni;i\i()in .  [§  23 

The  truth  is  always  a  defense  in  aetions  of  this  character. 
Thus  where  the  i)hiiiitiff  had  l)()Uf,'lit  the  goods  in  question  from 
the  defendant  and  advertised  them  for  sale,  the  publication  of 
an  advertisement  by  the  defendant  that  read  as  follows:  "An 
opinion  of  Shawknit  hose  should  not  be  formed  from  the  navy 
blue  sloclvin<;s  advertised  as  first  (juality  by  (phiintifT),  since 
we  sold  (plaintiff)  sonu'  lots  which  were  dama^'cd  in  the  dye- 
house,"  was  held  not  libelous,  in  the  nhsence  of  a  showing  of 
its  untruth.'-'  Aiul  a  wide  latitude  is  allowed  in  criticism  of 
chattels  where  tlie  fads  are  not  ^jiis-stated.  So  it  is  not  libelou.s 
to  attack  the  theories  advaiu-ed  in  a  book  even  with  sarcasm 
and  ridicule,  if  there  is  no  niisrepi-esentation  of  what  is  set 
fortli  in  the  book ;  "^  and  a  criticism  of  one  of  the  pictures 
of  an  artist  stating  that  it  is  not  good  of  its  kind  is  not  libelous, 
where  it  does  not  attack  him  in  his  professional  character  gen- 
erally."''•  So,  it  has  been  held  in  England  that  no  action  will 
lie  against  a  defen(.lant  trader  for  stating  falsely  and  mali- 
ciously that  his  goods  are  sujierior  to  those  of  the  plaintiff, 
even  though  the  plaintiff  suffers  special  damage  therefrom."" 
and  no  false  statement  directly  dis])araging  the  jdaintiff 's  goods 
is  actionable  in  the  absence  of  proof  of  special  damage.'^' 

Where  an  alleged  libel  consisted  of  a  charge  that  the  plain- 
tiff had  no  right  to  use  a  certain  trademark,  it  Avas  held  to 
be  a  slander  of  title  and  not  a  libel  upon  the  plaintiff;  that 
the  burden  was  upon  the  plaintiff  to  prove  malice,  falsity  and 
special  damage,  and  that  the  cause  of  action  survived  the 
plaintiff's  death. ^■'* 

The  remedy  for  libel  or  slander  affecting  the  title  to  a  trade- 
mark dcjiends  upon  whether  there  is  a  threatened  continuance 
of  the  publication  of  the  libelous  or  slanderous  matter.  "Courts 
of  equity  have  no  jurisdiction  of  libel  or  slahder  affecting  title 
to  property  or  propei'ty  rights,  or  any  other  slander  or  libel, 

till'    jirosocuting   witness   in    such   a  74 — Dowliii;,'   v.    Livinfrstono,    108 

manner  as  to  expose  him  to  hatred,  Mieh.   '.V2l ;   (id  X.   \V.  Rep.  2"2.'). 

contempt     or     ridicuh',     they     were  7') — Rattersby  v.  Collier,  54  X.  Y. 

held  to  be  a  libel  upon  him.     State  Su])p.    'M\:i. 

V.    Mason,    :?S    Pae.     IJep.     ]-M:     ^tl  7(1 — Ihibbnck     v.     Wilkinson     (C. 

Or.    273.  A.K  L.  R.    (1898)    1   Q.  B.   86. 

73_Boynton     v.     Shaw     Stocking:  77— Mellin  v.  White,  L.  R.  (1895) 

Co.,   14()    Mass.  21!);    1.")   X.   K.    Rep.  A.  C.    l.')4. 

507.  78— Hatehard   v.   Mege,   L.    R.    18 

Q.   R.   D.   771-775. 


§24] 


lini'KINS    (tV    TK\I>1".M  VKKS. 


56 


unless  threatened  or  apprclKMulcil  n'ltctition  mnkes  preventive 
relief  jiroin-r  and  uei-essary.  Tlu"  rcinody  for  past  injuries 
of  that  iiatiirt'  is  imderstood  to  he  wholly  at  law."  •'•' 

§  24.  Arc  trademark  rights  monopolistic  in  character? — In 
some  jurisdietions,  tiiere  has  heeu  a  tciideiu'y  to  rej;ard  trade- 
mark rij;hts  as  otT»'nsivt'  monopolies,  ami  to  that  fact  may  he 
a«'<'ri*dit»'d  the  line  of  decisions  which  have  con-strued  technical 
trademark  rijrhts  very  narrowly.**" 


79 — \Mioolor,  .1.,  in  rnlnicr  n. 
TraviTs,  '20  Fi-d.  Ki'p.  .">0l  To  tin- 
siinu  otTivt,  wf  Francis  v.  I-'liiui, 
118  U.  S.  ;J8.");  30  L.  Kd.  l(i.'>; 
MontjxonnTy  Ward  &  Co.  v.  South 
Dakota  i-tc.  Ass'n.,  l.")ti  Fed.  Kt-j). 
413;  Evert'tt  Piano  Co.  v.  ilaus, 
200  Fod.  Rep.  718;  119  C.  C.  A. 
102:  Victor  Safe  &  Lock  Co.  v, 
DiriKlit,  77  C.  C.  A.  437 ;  147  Fed. 
Hep.  211;  Marlin  Fire  Arms  Co. 
V.  Shields,  171  N.  Y.  384;  Balti- 
more Life  Ina.  Co.  v.  CJleianer,  202 
I'a.  380;  Whiteliead  v.  Kiston,  119 
Mass.  484. 

80 — "Monopolies  of  any  sort 
have  never  htn-n  favorites  with  the 
law.  Tliey  wer*'  held  l)y  th«'  com- 
mon law  to  he  against  puldic  p<d- 
icy,  hecause  ajrainst  common  ri^rht. 
Tile  (grants,  charters,  h-tters  patent 
or  other  form  of  device  or  assur- 
ance Ity  the  sovereign  for  their 
creation  were  declar«'d  hy  tlie  act 
of  Parliament  of  21  .lae.  I,  c.  3,  to 
!»»•  'utt4'rly  void  and  of  none  effect, 
and  in  no  wiw  to  be  put  in  use 
and  operation.'  Notlung  short  of 
the  'omnipol<-nce  of  |)arliinnent' 
is  able  to  exclude  a  sul)jeet  from 
trade  in  Kngland.  7  Bac.  Ahr.  ji. 
23.  Two  I  xceptions  to  this  geni-ral 
rule  were  given  hy  the  early  text 
WTit<TH:  First.  'It  siM-meth  clear 
that  the  king  may,  for  a  reason- 
ahle  time,  make  a  go<Kl  grant  to 
any  one  of  the  sole  uh4-  of  any  art 
InvcnU-il   or   first   brought   into  the 


realm  liy  tlie  grantee.'  Second. 
Tlie  king  may  grant  to  particular 
jiersons  tlie  sole  use  of  some  par- 
ticular «'mj>loymi'nts,  as  'of  print- 
ing tile  Holy  Scriptures  and  law 
1  looks'  etc.  Tlie  somewliat  curious 
reason  given  for  the  si-cond  ex- 
ception is  that  an  unrestrained 
lil>erty  to  print  the  books  to  which 
it  relates  might  be  'of  dangerous 
conse(jurnces  to  the  ])ublic.'  To 
tliese  exceptions  a  third  must  now 
be  added,  viz.  tlie  right  of  a  trades- 
man to  the  exclusive  uw  of  such 
signs,  words  or  symbols  as  he  may 
have  adopted  and  used  in  his  busi- 
ness to  distinguisli  artich-s  of  his 
own  production  from  all  similar 
articles  produced  by  other  per- 
sons. These  exceptions  dt)  not  im- 
jiair  tile  force  «if  the  general  rule, 
'Exceptio  ptnbat  rrgulnm  de  rcbua 
vott  cxccptia.'  The  rule  is  unre- 
stricted liberty  in  the  practice  of 
all  arts  and  trades,  and  in  the  use 
of  tlie  methods  by  which  they  are 
conducted.  He  who  asserts  the 
riglit  to  an  exclusive  privilege  in 
any  department  of  business  must 
bring  himself  under  the  protection 
of  some  recognized  exception  to 
tlie  rule.  The  plaintiffs  in  this 
•  ase  claim  an  exclusive  jirivilege 
under  till-  third  exception,  viz.  the 
right  to  the  sole  use  of  a  certain 
trademark  a(lo|)ti-d,  used,  and  reg- 
istere<l  by  tlntn:  and  they  alleg<« 
that     tlu'     (lefelldlintH     liavi-     ildupted 


57  JMfKKATOKY.  [  §  -"i 

This  tondonpy  is  erroneous.  Wlion  tho  Rtatuto  of  Monopo- 
lies, 21  Juc.  1,  c.  'S,  was  enacted,  in  lG2."i,  tratleniarks  liad  never 
been  legally  recognized/'  Tiie  statute,  therefore,  could  have 
no  possible  reference  to  trademark  rights.  The  later  decisions 
which  refer  to  trademarks  as  being  monopolistic  in  character 
have  been  based  upon  a  misconception  of  what  constitutes  a 
tradenuirk.  Resulting  as  it  does  from  the  mere  effort  of  the 
])roducor  oi-  liandlcr  of  an  article  to  identify  his  goods  to  the 
l)urchas('r,  it  is  merely  a  medium  of  authentication,  and  while 
the  owner's  title  to  it  is  necessarily  exclusive,  it  is  in  no  sense 
a  monopoly.  The  effort  of  an  infringer  to  invade  that  right 
is  not  a  laudable  attempt  to  break  a  monopoly,  but  an  offense 
against  society,  and  it  has  been  likened  by  the  courts  to  the 
criminal  offenses  of  forgery  and  counterfeiting.  Thus,  Judge 
Rives  said,  "That  any  imitation  of  a  trademark,  calculated 
to  deceive  the  unwary  customer,  differs  from  absolute  forgery, 
not  in  the  nature,  but  rather  in  the  extent  of  the  injury. "^^ 

The  Supreme  Court  of  ^Missouri  has  said  that  "If  by  fraud- 
ulent means,  other  parties  are  permitted  to  counterfeit  and 
forge  and  simulate  these  trademarks  *  *  *  the  com- 
munity is  imposed  on  and  cheated."  ^"^ 

The  distinction  has  been  emphasized  by  a  Scottish  court  in 
the  following  language: 

"i\[onopoly  is  not  the  thing  for  which  the  one  party  struggles 
and  which  the  other  resists.  On  the  contrary,  fair  trading 
is  all  for  the  protection  of  which  the  law  is  invoked ;  and  the 
public,  as  well  as  the  manufacturer  or  merchant,  are  concerned 
that  infringement  of  trademarks  and  trade  designations  should 
be  prevented.  For  there  is  a  double  wrong :  the  public  are  or 
may  be  deceived,  and  the  trader  whose  trademark  or  trade 
designation  is  infringed  is  or  may  be  injured."  ^^ 

and    are    now    iisin<,'    a    trademark  81 — Except   in    Southern  v.   How, 

which    is    an    imitation    of,   and   an  2  Popham   144.      Sec  ante,   §  5. 
infringement   upon,   their   own.      It  82 — Blackwell  v.  Armistead,  Fed. 

becomes     important,     therefore,     to  Case  Xo.   1474,  3  Huphes,   163. 
learn  just  wliat  the  plaintifTs"  trade-  83 — Wa<:ner,  J.,  in  State  v.  Gibbs, 

mark    is,    and    then    to     determine  56   Mo.    133,    136. 
whether     it     has    been     improperly  84 — Lord   Craifrhill  in  Dunnachie 

imitated  by  the  defendants."     Wil-  v.    Young    &    Sons,   Ct.    Sess.    Cas. 

liams,    J.,    in   P.    C.    Weist    Co.    v.  4th    Ser.   X  874. 
Weeks,  177  Pa.  412;  35  Atl.  Rep.  093. 


§25]  HOPKINS    ON"    TKADKMAUKS.  58 

§  25.  Title. — Tlu'  <:('iu'riil  rule  lias  boon  stated  by  Mr.  Justice 
riitTonl  tt»  be  that  "tradonuirks  arc  an  oiitiroty,  aud  arc  in- 
capable of  exclusive  use  at  different  j)laces  by  more  than  one 
iiulependcnt  jjroprietor. " ''''  But  this  rule  i.s  subject  to  excep- 
tions; or.  rather,  the  word  "exclusive."  as  used  by  Mr.  Justice 
Clifford,  must  not  be  con.strued  to  mean  that  tliere  can  not 
be  joint  and  several  ownershij)  of  a  trademark.  ^Ir.  Justice 
l^radley  has  said  at  circuit  that,  "  In  holding'  that  it  is  necessary 
to  the  validity  of  a  tradenmrk  or  tradename  that  the  claimant 
must  be  entitled  to  an  exclusive  rifrht  to  it,  or  property  in  it, 
■\ve  do  not  mean  to  say  that  it  may  not  belong  to  more  than 
one  person,  to  be  enjoyed  jointly  or  severally.  Co-partners, 
upon  dissolution  of  a  partnership,  may  stipulate  that  each  of 
them  may  use  the  trademarks  of  the  firm,  and  there  may  be 
nuiny  other  cases  of  joint  and  several  ownership ;  but  such 
co-owners  will  together  be  entitled  to  the  exclusive  use  of  the 
trademark,  and  perhaps  each  of  them  will  be  entitled  to  such 
exclusive  use  as  to  all  other  j^ersons  except  their  associates 
in  ownership."  •"^'^  Judge  Swan  has  said  that  a  trademark  "may 
be  the  subject  of  ownership  by  two  or  more,  without  impair- 
ing tlie  claim  of  its  owners  to  redress  for  its  unlawful  use  by 
others."  **' 

As  indicated  in  the  last  ojnnion,  general  and  several  owner- 
shiji  arises  frecjuently  upon  the  dissolution  of  ^partnership, 
where  the  assets  are  divided  or  the  trademark  is  not  sold  with 
the  other  assets,  even  in  the  absence  of  a  sjiecial  agreement.^'"' 

Joint  and  several  ownershiji  may  also  be  created  by  con- 
sent.*'" It  may  also  be  created  by  assignment.""  And  a  con- 
tract for  the  purjiose  of  establishing  and  defining  the  resjiective 
trademark  rights  of  the  parties  to  it,  and  ])roviding  for  the 
addition  of  other  matter  to  the  trademark,  in  order  to  pre- 
vent confusion  between  the  goods  of  the  parties,  has  been 
su.stained  upon  grounds  of  public  j^olicy."' 

fi.'i— Manhattan  Med.  Co.  V.  Wood,  No.  l.'J.TSd;  Vouii^'  v.  .Tones,  F.-d. 
Vi-d.  Caw   !t(l20.  Caw    N<..    ISlf)!). 

80 — New  York   &    R.    Cement  Co.  SO— Emerwon      t.       HH(lj,'er,       101 

V.  Copliiy  C.ni.nt  Co.,  4.'')  Fed.  Rep.       Mam.  82;  Pratt'H  App.  117  Pa.  401. 
212.  510 — FIhIi  Bros.  Waj,'on  Co.  v.  I-a- 

87_Clevi'land   Stonp  Co.   v.    Wal         Itelle  Wa^'on  WorkH,  82  Wia.  546. 
lace,  r,2  Fed.  Uep.  4.11 -4.3n.  01— WaukeHlia  TT.  "SI.  Sprinpp  Co. 

88 — Taylor    v.    Bothin,   Fed.  Case       v.    HyK'-i"    S.    1).    Water   Co..    1  I    C. 

C.  A.  277,  (;:{   F.<I     H.-p.   r.)H. 


59  I'KliFATOitV.  [§26 

§  26.  Licenses. — The  extent  to  which  licenses  for  the  use  of 
trademarks  may  be  granted,  has  not  yet  been  definitely  settled, 
although  the  courts  have  repeatedly  recognized  their  existence 
and  enforced  them.  Tims,  relief  by  injunction  was  granted 
by  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  in  Texas,  notwithstanding 
the  defense  that  the  complainant  had  granted  a  license  to 
another  to  use  the  trcndemai'k  within  the  state  of  Texas;  Judge 
Sabin  remarking,  "The  fee  to  the  trademark  still  remains  in 
the  complainant,  and  any  injury  to  it  will  ."instify  injunc- 
tion." "2  And  in  a  more  recent  case.  Judge  Has^el  construed 
a  conveyance  of  "the  absolute  and  exclusive  use"  of  certain 
trademarks  in  and  to  certain  states,  reserving  the  right  to  the 
personal  use  of  the  mark  by  the  person  executing  the  convey- 
ance, to  be  sufficient  to  entitle  the  grantee  in  the  conveyance 
to  maintain  suit  against  an  infringer.'^^ 

It  is  to  be  regretted,  that  in  the  ease  last  referred  to,  the 
court  did  not  go  fully  into  the  question  whether  exclusive  con- 
temporaneous rights  to  the  same  trademark  may  exist  in  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  same  country.  The  latter  question  is  wholly 
undetermined,  and  is  probably  the  most  important  question 
concerning  the  tenure  of  trademark  rights,  which  has  not  yet 
been  adjudicated.  Tn  a  recent  case.  Judge  Dallas  has  treated 
the  question  of  licensing  the  use  of  a  trademark  exactly  as  if 
it  were  a  license  under  a  patent,  wholly  on  the  authority  of  the 
well  established  line  of  decisions  in  patent  cases,  that  where 
there  is  an  exclusive  licensee  of  the  right  to  use  a  trademark, 
he  is  a  necessary  party  to  a  bill  for  its  infringement.  Tn  this 
case,  however,  the  mark  was  used  upon  a  patented  article 
during  the  life  of  the  patent,  and  the  license  granted  covered 
both  the  patent  and  the  trademark  rights.'^* 

Where  the  defense  is  interposed  to  an  action  for  infringe- 
ment, that  the  defendant  has  had  a  license  for  its  use,  that 
defense  is  met  by  showing  that  the  licensing  agreement  has 
been  revoked,  and  defendant  has  been  notified  by  the  plain- 
tiff that  the  license  has  been  terminated."^ 

02— Mo!do    N"er\'e    Food    Co.    v.  04— Wallaoh      v.      Wipmore,     87 

Baumliach,    32    Fod.    "Rep.    20rv2in.  Fed.  Eop.  400. 

93— GrifTfrs,  Cooper  &  Co.  v.  Erie  O.'S— Martha    Wasliinjrton    Croam- 

Progervinp  Co.,  131   Fed.  Rep.  359,  ery  Buttered  Flour  Co.  of  the  Uni- 

362.  ted  States  v.  Martien,  44  Fed.  Rep. 


§  -*7J 


lUH'KlNS   ON    TKADEMAUKS. 


60 


In  an  artiun  fi)r  the  recovery  of  lieetiso  foos,  the  defendant 
is  estopped  to  deny  the  validity  of  the  mark.'"' 

§27.  Trademarks  as  subjects  of  taxation. — (Joodwill  being 
a  proper  subject  of  taxation,-''  and  trademarks  beiiijx  ineident 
to  the  goodwill  of  tlie  business  in  whieli  they  are  employed, 
the  latter  as  well  are  subject  to  taxation."'*  In  New  York  the 
action  of  the  state  cnmptrctller  in  includin^r  the  value  of  a 
trademark  of  a  foreign  corporation  in  estiniatiiif?  the  value  of 
its  eapital  stock  employed  within  the  state  of  New  York  may 
be  reviewed  on  certiorari.^*'* 


473;  y.lMin  V.  .1.  H.  Winchcll  & 
Co..  203  Mb8s.  75.  8!)  N.  K.  Rep. 
ISO.    ISfi. 

fl«— Hilson  V.  Libhey,  44  N.  Y. 
Supr.   Ct.    12. 

07 — Soe    S  102,    and    casos    cited. 

98 — Stati'  rx  rrl  Ppcncerian  Pen 
Co.   V.    Ki-lsvy,    105   App.    Div.    132. 


90 — State  rx  rrl  Spencerian  Pen 
Co.  V.  Kelsey.  in.")  App.  Div.  132. 
In  Kentucky  trademarks  are  held 
not  taxable,  because  poodwill  "has 
never  been  considered  property  for 
the  purposes  of  taxation."  Barker, 
J.,  in  Com.  v.  K.  I).  &  W.  Co., 
UG   S.    W.    Rep.    70. 


CHAPTER  TI. 
THE  ACQUISITION  OF  A  TRADEMARK. 

§28.  Who  may  acquire. — Generally  speakinf,'  any  person* 
capable  of  holding  title  to  personal  property  may  acquire  the 
right  to  a  trademark.  In  j)raoti('o.  by  far  the  greater  i)ortion 
of  all  trademarks  are  held  by  manufacturers.  Tliere  are,  how- 
ever, many  j)ersons,  not  manufacturers,  who  use  trademarks 
as  a  means  of  identifying  the  subject-matter  of  their  com- 
merce. First  among  these,  in  their  natural  order,  are  those 
who  apply  geographical  names  as  trademarks,  to  the  natural 
products  of  the  earth.  This  may  be  done,  of  course,  only  by 
the  owner  of  its  sole  place  of  production, 2  as,  if  the  product 
were  accessible  to  others,  there  could  be  no  exclusive  right  to 
the  trademark,  except  to  identify  the  person  who  handled 
the  product  on  its  way  to  the  consumer. 

This  leads  us  to  the  second,  and  larger,  cla.ss  of  those  who 
can  acquire  trademark  rights,  though  they  are  not  manu- 
facturers. Many  mercantile  houses  who  merely  select  mer- 
chandise, use  trademarks  upon  the  goods  they  so  select,^  and 
these  are  valid,  because,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Chief  Justice 
Fuller,  the  marks  so  used  are  equivalent  to  a  certificate  that 
the  goods  so  marked  are  the  genuine  article  which  has  been 

1 — "A   corporation   is   cntitlt'd   to  14  Eq.  348;   Braliam  v.  Bcacliim.  7 

have    its    trademark    as    well    as    a  Ch.   D.    848;   47    L.   .7.  Cli.   .348;    38 

private    individual,    and    may    sue  L.   T.    N.    S.    640;    26    W.    R.    6."»4; 

for   its   infrin^'cment."     Fenner,   J.,  Seb.     /iSfl ;     Hill    v.     Lockwood,     32 

in  Insurance  Oil  Tank  Co.  v.  Scott,  Fed.   Rep.  389;   City  of  Carlsbad  v. 

33    La.   Ann.    046.  Schultz.  7S   Fed.  Rep.  460;   City  of 

2 — Conprcss     &      Empire     Sprin-,'  Carlsbad  v.   Kutnow,   71    Fed.    Rep. 

Co.  V.  High  Rock   Coufrress   Spring  167,    18  C.   C.  A.  24;    affirming  68 

Co.,  45  N.  Y.  291-302;   10  Abb.  Pr.  Fed.   Rep.   794;    Northcutt  v.    Tur- 

N.  S.  348;  6  Am.  Rep.  82;  .57  Barb.  ney,    101   Ky.  314;    41    S.   W.   Rep. 

."126;  Cox,  ,")00;  Dunbar  v.  Glenn.  42  21.     To  the   same  effect   see  Atlan- 

Wis.     118;     Seb.     .->20;     ^^^leeler    v.  tie     Milling     Co.     v.     Robinson,     20 

.Johnston,    3    L.    R.    Jr.    284;    Apol-  F.-d.    Rep.   217. 

linaris  Co.  v.   Norrish,  33  L.  T.  X.  .•?— D.witt  v.   Matliey.    IS   Ky.   L. 

S.    242;    Radde   v.    Norman,    L.    R.  Rep.  2. ".7,  3,-)  S.  W.  Rep.  1113. 

61 


§  '2S] 


llOIKINS    i»N    TRADK.M  AUKS. 


62 


determinoil  by  tin*  so  In- tors  to  possess  a  eei'tain  degree  of 
excellence,  evidencing  that  the  skill,  knowledjre  and  judgment 
of  the  selectors  have  been  exercised  in  ascertaining  that  the 
particular  goods  so  marked  are  possessed  of  a  merit  rendered 
definite  by  their  examination  and  of  a  uniformity  rendered 
certain  by  their  select  ion.  •  Slightly  aiuilogous  to  this  class  of 
cases  are  those  where  the  members  of  a  trades  union 
adopt  a  label  to  be  used  by  the  workmen  who  compose  the 
union,  upon  the  goods  manufactured  by  them.  In  a  number 
of  cases  their  right  to  the  |)i-ote('tion  (»f  this  label,  as  a  trade- 
mark, has  been  denied, •'•  wliile  in  others  the  right  is  aflirmed.*^ 


4— Monondoz  v.  Holt,  128  J.  S. 
.'■.14-r»20;  32  L.  Kd.  r.2«;  Levy  v. 
Waitt  (1),  TiC  Fed.  Rep.  1016;  Levy 
V.  Waitt  (2),  C.l  Fed.  Rep.  1008, 
10  C.  C.  A.  227;  Hirscli  v.  Jonas,  L. 
R.  .3  Ch.  1).  r>S4.  'iSi'i;  In  re  Aus- 
tralian Wine  Importers  (Ltd.),  41 
Ch.  D.  278-281;  Tliompson  &  Co.  v. 
RolM-rtson,  C't.  Sess.  Cas.  (4th  ser. ) 
XV,  880;  2ri  Scot.  L.  Rep.  040; 
Yale  Ci^'ar  Mf;;.  Co.  v.  Yule,  :10  ()»T. 
(.Jaz.  1183;  Wood  v.  Liinibert,  L.  R. 
32  Ch.   D.   247. 

.'i — A'x  partf  Cij^ar  Makers'  Ass'n, 
10  Off.  Gaz.  ».")8:  Schneider  v.  Wil- 
liams, 44  X.  J.  Kq.  3!»1;  Ci-ar 
Makers'  Union  v.  Conhaim,  40 
Minn.  720  (the  last  case  l)y  a 
divided  court,  three  denyin;^  the 
rijiht  of  trademark  and  two  af- 
firmin;;  it)  ;  McVey  v.  Brendel,  144 
I'a.  St.  235;  Co.\,  Manual,  Case  No. 
730;  Weener  v.  Brayton,  ir)2  Mass. 
101,  25  N.  K.  Rep.  40,  8  L.  R.  A. 
640;  Cox,  Manual.  Case  No.  712; 
State  V.  Berlinslicimer,  «J2  Mo. 
A  pp.    105. 

V> — Allen  v.  McCarthy,  :t7  Minn. 
34!>;  aflirminj.'  thi-  decision  of  thi? 
lower  court  l>y  an  eipially  divided 
bench;  Bloi-t*-  v.  Simon,  10  Ahh.  X. 
C.  88;  People  v.  Fisher.  57  X.  Y. 
Sup.   Ct.    652;    Cigar  Makers'    Pro- 


tective Union  v.  Lindner,  3  Ohio 
St.  Dec.  244;  Strasser  v.  Moonelis, 
108  N.  Y.  Oil;  Tracy  v.  Banker, 
170  Mass.  206;  Beehe  v.  Tolerton 
&  Stetson  Co.,  117  Iowa  593,  '.tl  X. 
W.  Rep.  005;  Bulena  v.  New  man, 
31  X.  Y.  Supp.  44'.t;  Ci},'armakers' 
International  Union  of  America  v, 
(Joldher},',  57  Atl.  Rep.  141;  Cohn  v. 
People,  140  111.  4S(i;  37  X.  E.  Rep. 
(iO;  State  v.  IIaj;en,  (J  Ind.  App. 
107,  33  X.  E.  Rep.  233:  Hctterman 
V.  Powers,  102  Ky.  133,  43  S.  W. 
Rep.  180.  In  Carson  v.  Ury,  Judge 
Thayer  remarks:  "It  is  no  douht 
true  that  the  luiion  label  does  not 
answer  to  the  definition  ordinarily 
;;iven  to  a  technical  trademark,  be- 
cause it  does  not  indicate  with  any 
de;,'ree  of  certainty  by  what  par- 
ticular |»«'rstm  or  tirm  the  cijiars  t«> 
wiiicli  it  may  l)e  atli.xed  were  man- 
ufactured, or  si-rve  to  distin^rtiish 
the  jjoods  of  one  ci^^ar  manufac- 
turer from  the  f,'<M)ds  of  another 
manufacturer,  and  because  the 
eompliiiiiHiit  •ip|)ear8  to  have  no 
vciiiliMc  interest  in  the  label,  but 
merely  a  ri^dit  to  use  it  on  cigars 
of  his  own  make,  so  lon^'  and  only 
so  Ion;,'  as  he  rmuiins  a  memlnT 
of  tl.i"  union.  In  each  of  tliese  re- 
spects   the    label    lacks   tlie    charac- 


63 


TIIK    ACt^lISrno.N    OK    A    TRAORMAFtK. 


§29 


The  cases  rclatiiif^  to  tlie  infriii^'cinciit  of  union  labels  must 
be  read  in  the  lif^lit  of  the  rule  that  "neither  at  eomnion  law 
nor  by  the  general  principles  of  equity  was  a  man  entitled,  at 
least  in  the  absence  of  actual  fraud,  to  protection  in  the  ex- 
clusive use  of  a  label  for  goods,  u'lless  it  were  oik;  which  he 
was  using  to  distinguish  some  visible  commodity  owned  or 
traded  in  by  him.  This  was  equally  true  of  an  association 
of  men."  *  *  *  (The  statutes  for  the  protection  of  union 
labels  are)  "designed  to  create  both  a  new  right  of  action  and 
a  new  cause  of  action."  ^ 

Importers  "^  or  exporters  "  may  have  trademarks  to  identify 
the  goods  passing  through  their  hands,  and  it  has  been  held 
that  a  bleacher  who  finishes  goods  manufactured  by  another 
has  a  right  to  a  trademark  applied  to  goods  so  treated  by 
him.'" 

§29.  User. — There  can  be  no  i-ight  in  a  trademark  until 
it  has  been  used.     Tender  the  English  act  "  an  jipplication  for 


tcristics  of  a  valid  trademark."  In 
•the  case  at  bar,  the  complainant 
being  a  manufacturer  of  cigars,  he 
was  granted  e<iuital)le  relief  on 
the  ground  of  unfair  competition. 
Carson  v.  Ury,  an  Fed.  Rep.  777, 
5  L.  R.  A.  014;  Cox,  Manual,  Case 
No.  709.  As  to  criminal  prosecu- 
tion for  infringement  of  union  label 
see  State  v.  Bishop,  128  Mo.  373. 
As  to  the  sufTiciency  of  proof  in 
such  a  prosecution  under  the  Massa- 
chusetts statute  of  1895  (C.  462, 
§4),  see  Commonwealth  v.  Rozen, 
176  Mass.  129;  .-)7  X.  E.  Rep.  223. 
That  tlie  right  to  use  a  union  label 
may  be  conferred  liy  a  union  ujMin 
an  affiliated  trades  council,  and 
both  properly  joined  as  plaintiffs 
in  an  action  to  enjoin  the  un- 
authorized use  of  the  label,  see 
Lynch  v.  John  Single  Paper  Co., 
101   N.  Y.   Supp.   824. 

7 — Baldwin,  J.,  in  Lawlor  v. 
Charles  If.  ^^lerritt  &  Son,  78  Conn. 
630,  63  All.  Rep.  .639.     In  the  sub- 


sequent history  of  this  case  a  judg- 
ment for  the  defendants  was  affirmed 
upon  the  ground  that  §  4907,  Con- 
necticut Gen.  Stats,  of  1902,  had 
not  l)een  complied  witii  in  tluit  the 
label  did  not  announce  that  plain- 
tiff's liats  were  made  by  members 
of  the  union,  but  rather  that  they 
were  madt;  or  sold  by  the  union 
itself.  Lawlor  v.  Merritt,  79  Conn. 
399,   65   Atl.   Rep.   295. 

8— Godillot  V.  Hazard,  44  X.  Y. 
Super.  Ct.  427. 

9 — Robinson  v.  Finlay,  L.  R.  9 
Ch.    D.   487. 

10— /n  re  Sykes,  43  L.  T.  X.  S. 
()2fi. 

11 — See.  75,  Patents.  Designs  and 
Trademark  Act,  18S3,  amended 
1888,  51  and  52  Vict.,  c.  50;  In  re 
Hudson's  Trademark,  3  R.  P.  C. 
155;  32  Ch.  D.  311;  55  L.  J.  Ch. 
531;  55  L.  T.  228;  32  W.  R.  616; 
Cartmell,  168;  Edwards  v.  Dennis, 
30  Ch.  D.  454. 


§  -IM 


IIOrKINS    ON    TRADKM  AltKS. 


(i4 


registration  of  a  trademark  is  deemed  to  be  equivalent  to  pub- 
lie  use  of  the  trademark.  Hut  even  this  is  uiereiy  to  supply 
a  eonstruetive  inslt-ad  of  llio  actual  user  recjuired  at  eoniinun 
law.'-  and  tlie  jreneral  lulc  is  not  affeeted  by  that  statute.'^ 
The  exclusive  rifrht  to  the  use  of  a  trademark  is  accpiired  only 
by  priority  of  ai)i)ropriation.  The  claimant  of  a  trademark 
must  have  been  the  first  to  use  or  employ  the  same  on  like 
articles  of  production.'^  A  sinrrle  instance  of  user,  with  accom- 
panying circumstances  evidencing  an  intent  to  continue  that 
use,'**  is  suflfieient  to  establish  the  right  to  a  trademark;  there 
is  no  refpiircmcnt  that  the  use  shall  continue  for  any  pre- 
scribed or  definite  length  of  time.'*'  It  is  immaterial  that  the 
first  use  of  the  mark  was  accidental,  for  a  trademark,  in  the 
language  of  the  TTnited  States  Supreme  Court,  "is  often  the 
result  of  accident  rather  than  design."  '" 

On  the  other  hand,  the  use  of  a  mark  may  be  "so  transi- 
tory, spasmodic,  and  inconsiderable,"  as  not  to  vest  title  in 

12 — fndtT  till-  act  of  1870  it  was  The    length    of    time    required    to 

hold  that  n'jristration  was  equiva- 
lent to  puhlic  use  of  a  trademark. 
In  re  Dutcher  Temple  Co.,  Comr. 
Dec.  1871,  p.  248.  See  sections  7 
and  11  of  the  act  of  1881;  Wm. 
RopTs  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Rofiers  &  S. 
1^1  fg.  Co.,   11    Fed.   Rep.   495. 

13 — Singer  Manufacturing  Co.  v. 
Wilson,  2  Ch.  D.  434-440;  Lowell 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Lamed,  Cox,  Manual, 
No.   428. 

14 — J.  R.  Wutklns  Med.  Co.  v. 
Sands,  83  Minn.  326,  86  X.  W.  Rep. 
340. 

l.'i — Columbia  Mill  Co.  v.  Alcorn, 
l.'>0  U.  S.  460;  37  L.  Kd.  1144;  Tet- 
low  V.  Tappan,  8.'.  Fed.  Rep.  774; 
Hyman  v.  Soils  Cigar  Co.,  4  Colo. 
Ai)p.  47");  American  Washlxjurd  Co. 
V.  Saginaw  Mfg.  Co.,  43  C.  C.  A. 
233.  103  Fed.  Rep.  281;  Welsbach 
Light  Co.  V.  Adam,  107  Fed.  Rep. 
463. 

16 — Shaver  v.  Shavt-r,  r>4  lowu, 
208;  37  Am.  Rep.  194;  Hull  v. 
BarrowH,  HI  L.  J.  Ch.  548;  Seb. 
215. 


establish  the  right  of  trademark. 
— "The  interference  of  a  court  of 
equity  can  not  depend  on  the  lengtli 
of  time  the  manufacturer  has 
used  the  trademark."  Romilly, 
M.  R.,  in  Hall  v.  Barrows,  32  L. 
J.   Ch.   548. 

The  right  exists  "the  moment 
the  article  goes  into  the  market 
so  stamped."  Westbury,  L.  C,  in 
I^IcAndrew  v.  Hassett,  4  DeG.  J. 
&  S.  380-38(5. 

The  right  dates  from  the  time 
when  tlie  actual  occupation  of  the 
market  with  goods  bearing  the 
mark  began.  Levy  v.  Waitt,  61 
Fed.  Rep.  1008-1011,  10  C.  C.  A. 
227;  compare  \V.  A.  Gaines  &  Co. 
V.  Roek  Spring  Dist.  Co.,  226  Fed. 
Rep.  run,  538  (C.  C.  A.  6),  and 
Hanover  Star  Mill  Co.  v.  Metcalf. 
240  U.  S.  403,  60  L.  Kd.  — . 

17— Mr.  Justice  Miller  in  Trade- 
mark Cases,  100  U.  S.  82;  2.">  L. 
Va\.    550. 


65  Tin:   vcQUisiTiON  op  a  trademark.  [§'W 

its  user  as  against  one  whose  use  has  been  "long-continued, 
notorious,  and  universally  reeofi^nized."  '** 

§30.  Affixing  the  mark. — As  stated  in  onr  definition,  the 
mark  must  be  affixed  to  the  subject  it  serves  to  identify.  "It 
may  be  either  affixed  to,  or  impressed  upon,  the  goods  them- 
selves by  means  of  a  stamp  or  an  adhesive  label,  or  it  may 
be  made  to  accompany  the  goods  by  being  impressed  or  made 
to  adhere  to  an  envelope  or  ease  containing  the  goods."  ^^ 
It  has  been  held  in  England  that  a  trademark  may  be  water- 
marked,2"  and  a  measuring  stick  with  an  octagonal  head,  used 
as  a  core  for  rolls  of  carpet,  has  been  held  to  be  of  itself  a 
valid  trademark. 21  The  question  of  the  mode  of  affixing  is 
purely  practical,  and  one  package,  parcel  or  bottle  of  mer- 
chandise may  bear  a  number  of  trademarks.  A  very  large 
percentage  of  the  liquors  imported  into  the  United  States  from 
Europe  bear  not  only  the  trademark  of  the  producer,  but  also 
that  of  the  bottler:  and  in  many  cases  another  trademark, 
that  of  the  capsule  manufacturer,  is  to  be  found  impressed 
in  the  metallic  capsule.  In  like  manner  a  complicated  machine 
may  bear  many  trademarks,  indicating  the  manufacturers  of 
the  wheels,  axles,  oil-cups,  bearings,  etc.,  and  the  machine  as 
a  whole  bear  the  comprehensive  trademark  of  the  maker  who 
has  selected  these  several  parts  and  assembled  them. 

A  trademark  can  not  be  acquired  by  merely  using  the  mark 
in  advertising. 22 

§31.  Registration  not  a  means  of  acquiring. — With  the 
solitary  exception  of  the  California  case  of  Whittier  v.  Dietz,"^^ 
it  has  nowhere  been  held  in  the  United  States  that  the  right 

IS— Heiibloin  v.  Adams,   125  Fed.  21— Lowell    ISIfp.    Co.    v.    Larnod, 

■Rop.    7S2,   7S.").     And    see  ante,   sec.  Cox,    Manual,    Xo.    428;    Fed.    Case 

14.  Xo.  8570. 

19— Sir     G.     Jessel,     :M.     R.,     in  22— Hazelton    Boiler    Co.    v.    Ha- 

Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  2  Ch.  D.  zelton    Tripod   Boiler   Co.,    142    111. 

434.  404,  30  N.  E.  Rep.  339.     St.  Louis 

20 — Alexander    Pirie    &     .'^lons    v.  Piano   Mfg.    Co.    v.    Merkel,    1    Mo. 

Goodall,    L.    R.     (1891)     1    Ch.    D.  App.   .^05. 

35-41 ;   holding   a   watermark   to  be  23 — 00    Cal.     78.       Tliis    decision 

a   "brand"    within   the   meSninf,'    of  led   to   the    enactment   of   the   pres- 

sec.    64,   subsec.    2    (c)    of  the   Pat-  ent    section    3190    of    the    Political 

onts.      Designs      and      Trademarks  Code     of     California      (March     12, 

Act,  1883.  1885),   providing  that  "An     person 


§31 


nOl'KINS   OH    TUAnKMAKKS. 


66 


to  a  trademark  is  i-reatod  by  reijistration.-^  Section  1  of  the 
act  of  1905  provides  tluit  owners  of  trademarks  nsed  in  com- 
merce may  obtain  rejristration  of  sucli  trailemarks  by  com- 
plying with  the  requirements  stipulated  in  the  act.  The  appli- 
cant nnist  sliow  tlmt  he.  and  no  one  else,  has  a  ri^'lit  to  use 
tiie  mark;  that  he  is  actually  usinp  it  in  commerce  with  forci^^n 
nations  or  amonjr  the  several  states,  or  with  Indian  tribes; 
and  that  it  is  not  so  similar  to  the  rcj^istcrcd  or  known  mark 
»tf  aiu.thcr  as  to  be  calculated  to  deceive.-"'  So  that  registra- 
tion under  the  act  of  congress  is  in  no  sense  a  means  of  ac- 
quiring the  right   to   a   trademark ; -''•    and    indeed   the  actual 


who   liHH    first   adopted    and    used    a 
tradi-niark   or   name,   wliether   with- 
in   or    JK»yond    th<'     limits    of    this 
statv,    is    its    ori^'iiial    <mner." 
24 — The   record  injj  of  a   name  as 


34S;  and  Wyekotf  v.  Howe  Seah- 
Co.,    100    Fed.    Rep.    ft'lO. 

2") — Hx  parte  Lyon,  Dupuy  A-  Co., 
28  Off.  (;az.   ini. 

20 — "Property       in      trademarks 


a    trademark    can    not    give    it    the      does   not   derive   its   existence   from 
•luality   of   a   trademark,    if    it  was      an   act   of   congress."     La   Croix   v. 


not  theretofore  a  valid  trademark. 
( )ake8  V.  St.  Louis  Candy  Co., 
14(1  Mo.  3!>1;  48  S.  \V.  Rep.  4«7. 
"The  general  rtile  adojtted  liy  the 
courts  on  this  subject  is  that  state 
statutes  providing  for  registration 
of  trademarks  are  in  affirmance  of 
the  common  law ;  that  the  reme- 
dies given  hy  such  statutes  are 
either  declaratory  or  cumulative 
and  additional  to  those  reeogni/cd 
and  ajjplied  hy  the  common  law." 
I'cr  curiam,  in  Woodcock  v.  (Juy, 
Xi  Wash.  234,  74  Pac.  Rep.  358. 
"As  the  name  'Remington'  is  an 
ordinary  family  surname,  it  was 
manifestly  jncapal>le  of  exclusive 
a|*])r(>priation  as  a  valid  trade- 
mark, and  its  registration  as  such 
could  not  in  its<'lf  give  it  valid- 
ity." Mr.  Chief  .Justice  Fuller  in 
Howe  Scale  Co.  v.  Wyckoff,  Sea- 
mans  &  Benedict.  108  U.  R.  118; 
40  L.  Kd.  072;  reversing  Wyckoff. 
Seamans  4  Benedict  v.  Howe  Si-ale 
Co.,  5«  C,  C.  A.  010;   122  Fed.  Uej.. 


May,    \a   Fed.    Rep.    230. 

"Registration  under  the  act  of 
1S81  is  of  hut  little,  if  any,  value, 
except  for  the  purpose  of  creating 
a  permanent  record  of  the  date  of 
adoption  and  use  of  the  trade- 
mark, or  in  cases  where  it  is  nec- 
essary to  give  jurisdiction  to  the 
United  States  courts."  Ilawley, 
J.,  in  Hennessy  v.  Braunsdiwei- 
ger  &  Co.,  8!)  Fed.  Rep.  ()0.")-0<»8; 
t|Uottd  and  followed  in  Sleepy  Eye 
Milling  Co.  v.  C.  F.  Blanke  Tea 
and  Coffee  Co.,  8')  Off.  Oaz.  1905. 
It  does  not  create  a  trademark. 
I'nited  States  v.  Braun,  30  Fed. 
\\^']^.  77.");  Sarrazin  v.  W.  R.  Irhy 
Cigar  Co.,  03  F<>d.  Rep.  024<i'27, 
3.''.  C.  C.  A.  400;  Brower  v.  Houl- 
ton,  .'■>3  Fed.  Rep.  380.  300;  Brower 
V.  Boulton  (2),  .')8  F.-d.  R.'p.  888- 
800.  7  C.  C.  A.  507;  Einstein  v. 
Sawhill,  O.l  Off.  C.az.  1*018;  Sher- 
wood V.  Horton,  Cato  A  Co.,  84  Off. 
Ca/.  2018;  La  Croi,x  v.  May,  15 
F.d.    Rep.   230. 


67  TiiK  ACcii'isrnoN  or   \  'hmucm ark.  [§32 

applioatioii  of  tlie  ti'adcni.i rU  in  coiiimerec  is  so  essential  a 
prcrciinisito  to  ri>fj:ist ration  under  the  act,  that  as  between  two 
}ipi)Ii('ants  for  re^^'ist ration  of  the  same  mark,  one  of  whom  had 
in  fact  used  his  mark  in  trade,  wliile  the  other  liad  tiie  assif,'n- 
mcMit  of  the  mark,  accpiired  by  transfer  from  its  inventor, 
but  had  never  actually  api)lied  it,  the  commissioner  of  i)atcnts 
held  that  tiic  actual  j)rior  use  determined  the  ri^'ht  to  the 
nuirk.-"  ]iut  re^'istration  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
and  under  the  laws  of  several  of  the  states,  while  ereatinf,' 
7U)  new  rights,  confers  remedies  and  special  protection  to  the 
owner  of  a  trademark  which  we  will  examine  in  another 
chapter. 

It  follows  from  what  has  been  said  in  this  section  that  the 
fraudident  registration  of  a  ti-ademark  by  one  not  its  true 
owner  will  avail  liini  nothing.  In  dealing  with  such  a  case 
Judge  Ray  has  said:  "The  acts  of  the  Consolidated  Hoof  Pad 
romi)any  are  but  tiie  unlawful  ai)i)ropriation  of  the  tradename 
of  the  Revere  Rubber  Company,  and  an  attempt  to  obtain  the 
apparent  sanction  of  the  general  government  to  the  unlawful 
appropriation  by  clandestinely  procuring  such  tradename  be- 
longing to  Revere  Rubber  Company  to  be  registered  as  the 
trademark  of  Consolidated  Hoof  Pad  Company.  When  one 
manufacturer  or  dealer  has  used  certain  letters  as  a  trade- 
name until  his  goods  have  come  to  be  known  and  called  for 
generally  by  that  name,  a  competitor  in  the  same  business 
can  not  gain  any  right,  superior  or  otherwise,  by  procuring 
such  letters  (or  such  name,  if  it  be  a  name),  to  be  registered 
under  the  trademark  laAvs  as  his,  or  its,  trademark.  Such 
larceny  as  this  is  neither  encouraged,  sanctioned,  nor  legal- 
ized. "^^^ 

§  32.  Acquisition  by  assignment. — The  assignment  of  trade- 
marks is  a  subject  of  some  difficulty  and  is  discussed  elsewhere 
in  this  book.  It  is  sufficient  in  this  connection  to  say  that 
trademark  rights  ai'c  generally  assignable,  that  quality  being 
indispensable  to  the  striking  characteristic  of  perpetual  exist- 

27 — Schraudor     v.     Beresfnrd     A;  2R — T?ovpro    'Rul»bor    Co.    v.    Con- 

Co.,   Browne,  Trademarks,  661.  solidated    Hoof    Pad    Co.,    l.SO    Fed. 

Rep.   1.->1,    l.-i4. 


§3a] 


IIOI'KINS   o\    Tl{  \I>IM  \I:KS. 


(iS 


ence  possessotl  by  trademarks.  aii*l  tlint  a  proper  assij^fiiment 
foiivfvs  to  tilt'  assij:mM'  all  the  property  rifjhts  in  iiiul  to  tlie 
traileiiiark  possessed  liy  his  assi^jiior.'-"'  The  aet  of  lOOf).  see. 
10  provides  that  a  iv'^'isfered  trademark  :iiid  t  i-adeiiiarks  for 
the  rejjistrntioii  of  whieh  application  has  been  made,  sliall  l)e 
assijrnable  in  connection  with  the  <5oodwill  of  the  business  in 
which  it  is  employed:  and  any  assiL'iniient  of  siieh  mark  sliall 
be  void  as  aprainst  a  snl)se«pient  i»urehaser  fftr  value  without 
notice  unless  recorded  in  the  T^atent  Ofllci^  within  three  months 
from  its  date.  "We  iu*ed  note  ;it  this  time  only  the  peneral 
restriction  on  the  nssifrnability  of  trademarks — tliat  they  can 
not  be  assipned  save  in  connection  witli  the  proodwill  of  the 
business  with  which  they  are  identified. •"•" 

It  is  true  of  trademarks  as  of  other  personal  property  that 
the  preat  mark  of  ownership  is  po.ssession.  and  contracts  that 
the  title  to  jiersonalty  shall  be  in  one  party  and  the  ]>ossession 
in  another  c^n  not  be  set  up  to  the  prejudice  of  a  bona  fide 
jiurchaser  without  notice.  Accordiufrly,  a  contract  that  the 
ri<rht  to  use  the  mark  shall  revert  to  the  assignor  should  the 
assipnee  sell  his  business,  can  not  avail  as  apainst  a  bona  fide 
purchaser  from  the  assipnce,  buyinjr  without  notice. •''' 

§33.  Acquisition  by  an  alien. — In  1844  Chancellor  Wal- 
worth announced  that  in  the  interjiosition  of  e(piity  for  the 
protection  of  trademark  riphts  "there  is  no  difTerence  between 
citizens  and   alitMis."  ■'-     This   is   also   the    rule    in   Enpland,^' 


20— Walton  v.  CrowL-y,  3  lUalcli. 
440;  Cox,  1(»5,  Fed.  Case  \o.  \7,\:\:\. 

.in— Kidd  V.  .lolinson,  100  U.  S. 
••IT  ft2n;  2.")  T..  Kd.  7«ii»;  Grossman  v. 
Cri^'^'s,  ISO  Mass.  27"),  71  N.  E. 
IIi'ji.  r>»5n.  ri«12;  Spif^'cl  V.  ZuckiT- 
man.  I7'»  I'Vd.  Rop.  •.•7ft;  Indcpcn- 
di-nt  Hakinjj  PiiwdtT  Co.  v.  Uoor- 
man,    17.'f    F«'d.   44ft. 

31 — C)akfH  V.  Totismic-rr*',  1!' 
Fi-«l.    Hip.    447-4.V2. 

32— Taylor  v.  Carp<iit<r  ( 3  i ,  11 
I'aif.-  Ch..  202  2!)r.;  3  Story,  4:.R; 
2  \Vo«k1.  &  M.  I;  C<.x,  4r).  Tliis  is 
thf  K«-ni*ral  nil*-  in  tin-  T'^nitcd 
Stat4ii.  I.^  Croix  v.  May,  ITi  F«'d. 
l{«'[i     23(5;     I.i-rnoiiK'     v.    Caiitim,     2 


i:.  1).  Smith,  34:1;  Cox.  142;  Coats 
V.  Ilolhrook,  2  Sandf.  Ch.  .'>ftO; 
Cox.  20;  ColTccn  v.  Brunton,  4 
:^IcL«'an,  r)10;  Cox,  82;  and  iindor 
a  criminal  act  a^'ainst  countcrfcit- 
in;;  trademarks,  a  conviction  was 
sustained  hy  the  Missiniri  Supremo 
Court  wliiTi'  the  defendant  counter- 
feited the  murk  of  an  Kn;;lish 
nianufiictiirer.  State  v.  (iilihs,  .')fi 
Mo.    133. 

33— Cidlins  v.  Cow  en.  3  K.  A  .T. 
42ft;  C«dlins  Co.  v.  Hn.wn.  3  K.  & 
.T.  423;  Ccdlins  Co.  v.  Walker,  7 
W.  n.  222;  Collins  Co.  v.  ReevPH, 
2ft  L.  .T.  Ch.  .''•0;  Ilowe  v.  McKer- 
nan,   30    lleav.    .')47. 


(il)  TllK    AClillSIIKiN    <»K     \     TKADl.M  AKK.  [§34 

Scotland,"''  CaiuKla."'  and  India.-''  Hut  it  has  ho.cn  licld  that 
a  foreipfuer  lias  no  coininon  law  rijflit  to  a  trad(!inark  in  the 
United  States  as  aj^aiiist  a  eitizen  who  has  adojjted  a  similar 
mark,  in  {?ood  faith,  before  the  alien  has  sold  any  floods  in 
this  coantry,'*^ 

Under  our  treaty  relations  with  florniany,  a  German  stib- 
jeet  has  been  f;ranted  ])roteetioii  in  the  use  of  the  word 
"Kaiser"  as  a  trademark,  although  the  term  was  open  to 
common   use   in    Clermany  and    Austria.'''* 

An  alien  religious  order  havinp:  established  trademark  rights 
in  the  United  States  is  not  deprived  of  those  rights  by  the 
confiscation  of  its  jjropcrty  abroad,- when  it  removes  to  another 
foreign  country  and  contiiuies  the  manufacture  of  its  trade- 
marked  product.3» 

§  34.  Priority  of  appropriation.  -Tn  order  to  acquire  a  trade- 
mark, its  claimant  nuist  be  its  first  api)roj)riator,  as  we  have 
seen;  for,  as  said  by  Finletter,  J.,  "in  no  other  way  can  a 
mark  or  device  indicate  'true  origin  or  ownership.'"'*'^  In- 
deed, Bouvier  has  defined  the  right  of  trademark  in  these 
terms:  "The  right  of  trademark  is  said  to  be  best  termed 
an  exclusive  right  arising  from  first  use;"^^  and  it  has  been 
said  by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  that  "The  exclusive 
right  to  the  use  of  a  mark  or  device  claimed  as  a  trademark 
is  founded  on  priority  of  appropriation ;  that  is  to  say,  the 
claimant  of  a  trademark  must  have  been  the  first  to  use  or 
employ  the   same   on  like  articles  of  production."  ^^^     There* 

34_Sinp;or    ilfg.    Co.    v.    Kinihall  74fi,   748    (in    which   the   above  text 

&  Morton,  Ct.   Sess.  Cas.    (3d.  sort.  is  quoted   and   approved). 

XT.   2(57.  38— J.    &    P.   Baltz   Brew.    Co.    v. 

3.) — Davis  V.  Kennedy,   13  Crant,  Kaiserbraiierei,  Beck  &.  Co.,  20  C.  C. 

Up.  Can.  Ch.    523.      Tabst   Brewing?  A.  402,  74  Fed.  Bep.  222,  224. 

Co.  V.   Ekers,  Rap.  Jud.  Que.   21   C.  30— Baf;lin   v.    Cusenier    Co.,    150 

S.  545.  Fed.  Bep.   1010;   affirmed,  221  U.  S. 

3fi — Orr-Ewing      v.       Chooneeloll  580;   55  L.  Ed.  803. 

:Mullick,    Cor.     150;    Orr-Ewing    v.  40 — Sheppard  v.  Stuart.   13   Phil. 

Grant,   Smith    &    Co.,   2   Hyde,   185.  117:    Price  &   Steuart,   103-200. 

37 — Richter  v.  Anclior  Remedy  41 — Bouvier,  Diet.,  title  "Trade- 
Co.,    52   Fed.   Rep.    455;    Richter   v.  marks." 

Reynolds.  59  Fed.  Rep.  577,  8  C.  C.  42— Columl)ia  Mill  Co.  v.   Alcorn. 

A.    220;    Eiseman    v.    Schiffer,    157  150  U.  S.  400;  37  L.  Ed.   1144.    See 

Fed.  Rep.   473,   475;    Walter   Baker  also  Manitowoc  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Dicker- 

&  Co.  V.  Delapenha,  160  Fed.  Rep.  man,  57  Off.  Gaz.  1721. 


^;J4)  HOPKINS   ON    TRXnKMARKS.  (0 

must  necessarily  be  siu-li  a  use  as  (lualilics  the  mark  as  an  iu- 
duatiun  of  the  orijjin  and  ownersliip  of  the  goods  to   whieh 
it  is  applied.    If  the  same  mark  had  been  in  prior  use  by  another 
at  the  same  phiee  or  another  locality  tiear  enou«rh  to  start  a 
similar  ri^'ht.  tlie  seeoTid  user  could  liave  no  trademark  ri^rht 
to  it.*''     "Ill   (inlor  that   llic   claiinaiil    (if  tlic   trademark   may 
primarily   ncfiuirt^   tlio   rif.dit    of  ])ro]iorty   in   it.   it   must   have 
been  orijrinally  ado]ited  and  used  by  him— that  is.  the  assumed 
name  or  desipnation  must  not  be  one  that  was  tlion  in  actual 
use  ])y   others:  and  such   adojition  and  use  confer  upon  him 
the   ripht   of   property   in   tlie   trademark."""      A    trademark 
havinp  no  nece.s.sary  relation  to  invention   or  discovery.'''  it 
is  the  party  avIio  first  actually  uses  a  mark,  and  not  the  one 
who  first  thouprht  of  it  or  desijrncd  it.  that  is  entitled  to  ]iro- 
teetion  in  its  use  as  a  trademark.^"     A  mere  declaration  of 
intention  to  use  a  certain  mark  in  the  future  does  not  create 
a  ripht  to  its  use  as  a  trademark,   for  siu-h  rifrht  can  only 
oripinate  with  the  actual  use  of  the  mark  in  commerce.-'"    And 
it   has  been   held   in    England,   by   T.ord   Justice   rairns,   that 
there  can  be  no  ripht  of  trademark  until  the  poods  bearinp 
the  mark  are  actually  upon  the  market,  and  that  it  can  not 
be  protected  before  that  time,  even  thouph  the  poods  to  which 
it  is  to  be  applied  are  in  the  course  of  manufacture,  and  the 
claimants  of  the  mark  have  made  expenditures  in  advertis- 
ing it.^"     The  ripht  to  the  mark  must  relate  back  to  its  first 
use.-*"     A  mark  once  abandoned  is  open  to  appropriation  by 
another  who  adopts  it  subseciuently  in  pood  faith. '^^ 

43— Ti'tlow    V.    Tappan.    8")    F«m1.  .')0  N.  K.  Pup.    1111.    liliii'-   Monaon 

Ri-p.    774;    llyniioi    v.    Soliw    ('i;.'ar  v.  Ho.lim.  L.  R.  2<5  Cli.  D.  31)8,  407, 

Co.,  4   Colo.    App.    47:).  4()S;    Levy   v.    Waitt    (2),   10  C.  C. 

44_D<Trinn.T    v.    IMutr.    2!t    Cal.  A.    227.    HI    F.-d.    Rep.    looS.    25   L. 

292;    Cox,    324.  R.  A.   1!»0;   Julian   v.   IIoositT  Drill 

4r»— Tradimark  Ciwh,    lOO   U.    S.  Co.,   78   Tnd.    408.   412. 

82;   2.'»  L.  Kd.  .'»'»0.  47— Scliin'id.r  v.   Williams.  44   N. 

4C_C;«,rp-     V.     Smith,     r>2     F.<1.  J.    E(|.   3!tl  .    11    Atl.    R.p.    812;    44 

nop.   830;    Triwlorf.r    &    Co.    v.    Kh-  OfT.   Caz.    1400 

Utf   of    HHw«-tt,    00    MSS.    I).    S.-pt.  48— Ma.\\v.-ll     v.     Uo^r.    ^-     R-    2 

1800.  Cli.    307;    30    L.    J.    Cli.    4:J:t .    10   L. 

"The   ri^'lit    to   a   tradrmark   d.xK  T.  X.   S.   1.30;    Sil..  204. 

not   d«'fM-nd    «i|Min    orij^'inulity.    I'Vi-n  49 — O'Roiirko     v.     Central     City 

an    apiinxt    tin*    orij;inatnr    of    tin-  Soap  Co.,  20  Fed.  Rep.  .'i7fl-.'>78. 

rhararU'rintic  \ini>."     IIolmcH,  ('.   .1  .  .'iO — Urowcr    v.    Roiilton,    r)3    Fed. 

in    Hurt   V    Ttirk.-r.   178   Mbhh.   403;  R.p.   380. 


71  TIIK    ACCillSITION    OK     \    TK  ADKM  \  KK.  [§'^4 

It  was  licld  by  the  lato  Mr,  .Justice  ]{ro\vn  when  nisi  prius 
judge  that  one  wlio  be^'ins  to  use  a  mark  wliilr  it  is  in  use  by 
anotlier  can  not  ac(piire  title  by  a  sul)se(|U('nt  abandornnent 
by  the  first  user,  the  court  observing  "if  it  be  once  conceded 
that  a  person  may  acquire  a  good  title  to  a  trademark  by 
ai)i)roi)riati()n,  witliout  tlie  consent  of  the  lawful  owner,  it 
would  enable  a  manufacturer,  by  the  use  of  large  capital  or 
superior  energy,  to  drive  competitors  out  of  business  by 
seizing  their  trademarks,  and  using  tliem  for  that  very  pur- 
pose, provided  the  lawful  owner  is  unable  or  unwilling  to 
assert  his  rights  by  resort  to  the  courts."  ^'^  With  this  ai)par- 
ently  sound  doctrine  the  Court  of  Appeals,  D.  C,  has  differed, 
its  reasoning  being:  "As  long  as  the  first  appropriator  is 
using  the  mark,  the  second  acquires  no  property  right  therein. 
If  his  use  interferes  with  that  of  the  true  proprietor,  courts 
of  equity  afford  the  latter  a  swift  and  adequate  remedy.  We 
can  not  assume  that  one  whose  rights  are  invaded  will  not 
avail  himself  of  such  aid.  If  he  is  unwilling  to  do  so,  he  must 
accept  the  consequences.  When  the  owner  abandons  his  mark, 
it  becomes  the  subject  of  reapj)ropriation  and  the  property 
of  the  first  taker.  We  fail  to  see  why  one  already  using  the 
mark,  where,  as  in  this  case,  he  has  acted  in  good  faith  and 
without  knowledge  of  its  prior  use,  should  not  be  as  much 
entitled  to  appropriate  it  as  one  whose  date  of  adoption  is 
subsequent  to  the  abandonment."  ^2 

As  a  matter  of  practice,  inasmuch  as  the  plaintiff  must  show 
title  in  order  to  make  a  case,  evidence  of  the  fact  that  he 
or  his  'oredecessor  in  title  was  the  first  to  appropriate  the 
mark  to  the  class  of  goods  for  which  he  claims  it  as  a  trade- 
mark, is  usually  a  part  of  the  prima  facie  case.  In  a  New  York 
case,  it  was  shown  in  defense  that  prior  to  the  date  when 
plaintiff  first  labeled  cigars  with  the  label  in  controversy, 
certain  label  manufacturers  had  sold  the  same  label  to  other 
persons  in  the  trade.  Injunction  was  denied  upon  the  ground 
that  such  evidence  negatived  plaintiff's  claim  of  exclusive 
title.53 

-''1 — O'Rourko  V.  Central  City  v.  Vir<;inia-Cnrolina  Chom.  Co.,  3.') 
Soap    Co.,   26    Fed.   Rep.    576.  App.  D.  C.  42.1,  ir>6  O.  G.   .'i.'^O. 

52 — Mayer  Fertilizer  &,  Junk  Co.  53 — Wapnor    v.     Daly,    07     ITiiii 

477,  22  X.   Y.  Supp.   403. 


§34]  IlOl'KINS    ON    TRADEMARKS.  72 

A  trail«'inark  rijjlit  can  not  ho  iic^'ativcil  by  any  prior  use 
for  more  decorativo  jMirposes  or  on  another  class  of  floods.''* 
And  it  has  boon  hold  that  tho  prior  use  as  Etifjlish  silver  hall- 
marks of  the  three  eomiionent  parts  comprised  in  the  com- 
plainant's mark  did  not  deprive  him  of  a  trademark  right 
therein.''^ 

It  is  now  well  established  that  prioi-ity  of  adoption  alone 
does  not  necessarily  determine  the  ownershij)  of  the  mark.  The 
use  of  the  mark  by  one  claimant  may  ho  "so  transitory,  spas- 
modic, and  inconsiderable."  as  not  to  vest  title  in  the  user 
as  apiinst  one  whose  use  has  been  "lonp  contiinied,  and  univer- 
sally roeopnized."  •'•"  As  Judfje  Elmer  B.  Adams  has  stated 
it.  "The  rifrht  to  a  trademark  at  common  law.  independent 
of  the  rcfiistration  statute,  is  not  created  by  invention  or 
priority  of  adoption  alone.  A  word,  symbol,  or  device,  to  be 
a  valid  trademark  constitutinpr  a  riprht  of  projjcrty.  nnist  have 
been  used  by  the  owner  in  connection  with  tlie  sale  of  his 
goods  for  such  length  of  time,  and  under  such  circumstances, 
as  indicates  to  the  trade  that  the  goods  in  connection  with 
which  it  appears  are  his  goods,  as  distinguished  from  those  of 
other  manufacturers  or  dealers.  The  mere  adoption  of  such 
word,  symbol,  or  device,  unaccompanied  by  such  a  use,  is  not 
sufficient  to  create  an  exclusive  right  thereto.''''' 

It  is  noteworthy  in  this  connection  that  in  a  very  recent 
decision  of  the  Court  of  Session  in  Scotland,  before  the  Lord 
President  (Dunedin)  and  Lords  McLaren,  Kinnear  and  Pear- 
son, the  rule  we  are  contending  for  has  been  explicitly 
announced.  In  the  decision  of  that  ( ourt  as  announced  by 
the  Lord  President,  it  is  said  : 

"My  Lords,   I   think   it   is  very  necessary  to  keep  this 
firmly   in   view — that   what   we   are   doing   in   this  case  is 

.'i4 — .JcilmHon    i    .Inhntom    v.    St-n-  To    tlif    Himir    i  fTn-t    we    Tt-tlow    v. 

bury    4    .lohnMin,    <»1    Atl.    ]\i-\t.    ."),  Tup|mii,    S."t     Ki-d.     Ilrp.     774,    77.') ; 

09  N.  .1.   Fj\.   r.nfl.  T,..vv  V.   Wiiitt.   10  ('.  C.   A.  227.  01 

55 — Oorham    Mf;:.    Cu.    v.    W.in-  Ird.    It.p.    Ktos.    2.')   I..    R.    A.    190; 

troub,    170    F.d.    Hip.    027.  foli.n    v.    Na^ih',    ino    Mn««.    4,    70 

50 — nc'uhliin  V    AduniK.   12.'.  F<(1.  X.  K.  Rep.  270;   Mctcalf  v.  Tlnnovt-r 

n*'p.    7fi2,   7R.'..  Sta--   Mill.  Co.,  204   F.-d.    R.-p.   211; 

57— Mnrmalinn   Pliarmacal  fo.  v.  122  C.   C.  A.  4S3;    afllrnicd,  240  T'. 

r>«-nv.r     fliiniiral     Mf^'.     Co.      113  S.  403;   CO  L.   TA.  — . 
F.d.  R.p.  408-470;  51  C.  C.  A.  302. 


73  Tin-:   \c(^risrn<>\  or  a  th\i>f.mai{k.  [§35 

Sometliiii<j:  very  (lilVt'iciil  I'loiii  w  liat  om-  (Iocs  in  cxaiiiiniiif^ 
the  cvidcnci"  in  ;i  case  say,  as  to  aiilicipaf ion  of  a  jjatcnt. 
If  tlie  rij^lit  to  a  traclciuark  was  eonstituled  by  tlie  fact 
that  it  was,  so  to  speak,  an  invention,  tlieii  it  is  quite 
clear  tliat  as  soon  as  it  was  proved  that  the  trademark 
had  been  used  by  anybody,  however  little  the  use  was,  but 
still  had  been  used  at  a  period  prior  to  that  when  it  was 
first  possible  to  rc^Mster  it,  that  would  be  suHicient  to  put 
out  of  the  way  the  claiiii  to  exclusive  rif,'ht  of  a  person 
who  had  j^'ot  re^nstered  for  it.  *  *  *  Now,  property 
in  a  mark  does  not  mean  a  few  isolated  sales  under  that 
mark,  but  it  means,  as  I  take  it,  that  you  had  sold  so 
much  g^oods  under  it  that  the  mark  had  come,  in  a  cer- 
tain market,  to  be  associated  with  your  poods."  •  *  • 
"I  will  just  say  that,  takinfr  the  matter  as  a  jury  would, 
it  seems  to  me  that  none  of  these  i)eople  have  really 
proved  anything,'  more  than  a  very  spasmodic  use  of  the 
labels  with  a  cat  and  barrel  on  them,  and  that  by  none 
of  them  is  there  really  any  trade  proved  that  would 
associate  their  goods  with  a  cat  and  barrel."  ^^ 

"Unless  so  well  known  and  so  thoroughly  recognized  by 
the  public  as  to  be  a  distinctive  name  for  a  sufficient  length  of 
time,  such  Avords  could  not  be  the  subject  of  a  valid  trade- 
mark." ^'^ 

§  35.  Acquisition  of  the  right  to  use  the  name  of  another. — 
As  the  subject  of  the  use  of  proper  names  in  trade  is  fully- 
discussed  elsewhere  in  this  book  •'"  we  will  in  this  section  con- 
sider only  the  methods  by  which  one  trader  may  lawfully 
obtain  the  right  to  use  the  name  of  another  person  for  trade 
purposes.  The  fundamental  rule  is,  the  right  to  use  such  a 
name  must  have  been  acquired  in  good  faith  and  without  any 
purpose  to  work  a  fraud  on  another;  to  merely  "hire"  such 
a  right  for  the  purpose  of  using  it  in  competition  with  another 
having  the  same  or  a  similar  name,  has  been  styled  by  Mr. 
Justice  Bradley  a  "shallow  pretext."  "^^    The  same  rule  applies 

.58 — Boord  &  Son  V.  Tliom  &  Cam-  Baldwin.    171    Fcl.    Rq>.    12;"),    120; 

cron,  Ld.,  24  R.  P.  C.  fin?,  at  pages  Dictz  v.  llortoii   Mfg.  Co.,  170  Fed. 

720,  721.  Rep.  86;%  860. 

;")0— Chatfiold.  J.,   in   Taylor  Pro-  60— -See   §§72,  76,   77;    Act  100;"), 

vision   Co.   v.  Gobel,    180  Fed.   Rep.  §  .'). 

938;     to    same    effect,    Thomas    G.  61— Sa^%7•er    v."   Kellopp,    7    Fed. 

Carroll  &   Son  Co.  v.   Mcllvaine  &  Rep.    720,    722. 


5  35]  HOPKINS   ON    TRADEMVUKS.  74 

to    tlio    adoption    of   a    coi-poratc    lumic    cnihodyin^    a    proper 
name/'-   niul   (»f   cowrso   t(»    partiuM'sliip    iiames."-' 

Tho  I'onvoyaiu'e  of  such  a  ri^'lit  imist  bo  clear  and  inu'cpiivocal ; 
"the  riplit  of  a  man  to  nse  his  own  name  in  eoiniection  witli 
his  own  business  is  so  fundamental  that  an  intention  to  entirely 
divest  liimself  of  such  ri^rht  and  transfer  it  to  anotlier  will 
not  readily  be  i)resnmed.  but  unist  be  elearly  shown.  Where 
it  is  so  shown,  the  transnetion  will  be  upheld,  but  it  will  not 
be  sustained  ujion  doubtful  or  uncertain  jiroof. ""■• 

02— Oarr.'tt    v.    T.    II.    Carrctt   &  (U— Harrison.      .1..       in       F.      T. 

Co.,  24  C.   v.    A.    IT.'l.    7H   Fed.    Rop.        Hluncliurd   ("o.    v.    Simon,    51    S.    E. 
472.   475.  Ucp.   222,   104   Va.  209. 

fi3— Cordon  Hollow  Blast  Crate 
Co.  V.  Gordon.  142  Mich.  488,  106 
N.   W.    H.-i..    1118. 


OTTAPTET?  TTT. 

WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  VALID  TRADEMARK. 

§  36.  The  general  rule. — Having  .seen  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ters .sonictliiii},'  of  the  general  requisites  of  a  valid  trademark, 
we  now  approach  the  .subject  of  the  more  exact  tests  to  be 
applied  in  determining  its  validity.  It  is  the  general  rule 
that  a  mark  must  be  truthful  and  unobjectionable  on  the 
ground  of  being  a  generic  term.' 

§37.  It  must  be  truthful. — This  rule  is  apparently  simple, 
yet  it  has  given  rise  to  much  discussion  and  some  apparent 
conflicts  in  the  decisions.  Honest  competition  is  the  require- 
ment of  the  chancellor,  and  he  is  just  as  ready  to  dismiss 
the  bill  of  a  complainant  whose  trademark  is  calculated  to 
deceive  the  public  into  a  belief  that  his  goods  are  something 
other  than  they  actually  are,  as  he  is  to  enjoin  the  defendant 
where  he  has  infringed  an  honest  trademark.  The  modern 
law  of  unfair  trade  is  a  perfect  superstructure  of  ethical  prin- 
ciples, founded  upon  the  basis  of  all  ethics — honesty.  In  no 
class  of  cases  is  the  rule  that  he  who  comes  into  a  court  of 
equity  must  do  so  with  clean  hands  more  rigidly  applied.^ 
It  is  not  material  whether  the  words  or  symbols  used  as  trade- 
mark contain  the  deceptive  or  untruthful  statement.  Indeed 
the  dishonest  matter  is  usually  foreign  to  the  mark  itself,  and 
contained  in  other  matter  used  in  advertising  or  describing 
the  goods  sold  under  the  mark. 

In  order  to  appreciate  the  trademark  cases  involving  the 
question  of  untruthful  representation,  the  reasoning  of  the 
courts  in  other  avenues  of  jurisprudence,  in  which  the  con- 
sideration of  the  effect  of  such  conduct  is  involved,  is  worthy 
of  study.  It  is  impossible  to  collate  even  the  leading  cases 
illuminative  of  this  subject,  within  the  limitations  imposed  upon 

1 — Prince    'Wip.    Co.    v.    Princo's  2 — Dadirriaii     v.     Yacubian,     08 

Metallic  Paint  Co.    (2),  135  N.  Y.       Fed.  Rep.   872-876. 
24,  31  N.   E.    Rep.  990. 

75 


§  ;{.n]  IIOI'KINS   ON*   TIUDEMAUKS.  76 

n  special  treatise  of  this  cliaraotor;  b\il  wf  will  refer  to  some 
of  the  most  notable.  In  sustaining  the  Massachusetts  Oleo- 
niarfrarine  act,  Mr,  .Justice  Harlan  found  that  "the  real  ob- 
jfet  of  eolorinjr  oleoinarjrarine  so  as  lo  iiiiiUf  it  look  like 
frenuine  Imlter  is  that  il  ni;iy  iijipejii-  In  be  wimt  it  is  not.  and 
thus  induce  \in\vary  |turfhasers,  who  do  not  elosely  serutinize 
the  label  upon  the  paekajre  in  whieh  it  is  contained,  to  buy- 
it  as  and  for  butter  produced  from  unadulterated  milk  or 
cream  from  such  milk.  •  •  •  The  «'onstitution  of  the 
United  States  does  not  secure  to  any  one  the  privilcjj^c  of  de- 
fraudintr  the  i)ublic."^ 

In  a  suit  for  breach  of  contract,  where  the  defense  had 
oflfered  proof  tendinj;  to  show  that  menhaden  delivered  under 
the  contract  by  the  plaintiff  were  jiacked  by  the  plaintiff  under 
the  false  brands  "Alaska  Mackeral."  "Russia  Mackeral,"  and 
"Family  White  Fish."  the  court  said: 

"Humanity  is  entitled  to  know  what  it  buys  and  con- 
sumes, (lovernment  is  instituted  and  maintained,  and  law 
is  administered,  for  the  i)rotection  of  the  i)eople;  and  jus- 
tice intluenced  by  enlif?htened  i)ublic  policy,  and  controlled 
by  Icjral  ])rinciples,  rc(juires  that  contracts  shall  not  be 
upheld  and  enforced  for  the  bcnelit  of  a  wronp  doer, 
where  the  subject-matter  tliereof  is  dcsi<rned  to  be  used 
in  furtherance  of  a  business  enterjirise  which  eontem])lates 
imposition  upon  the  prcncral  public  throufrh  false,  mislead- 
inp.  and  deceptive  brands  and  labels,  placed  upon  sealed 
jiackapes  of  food  products  in  a  manner  calculated  to  de- 
ceive, and  forward  the  sale  of  such  articles  for  Avhat  they 
are  not.'"  * 

§  38.  A  dishonest  label  will  invalidate. — "We  find  that  where 
a  distiller  mixed  nearly  thirty-six  per  cent,  of  other  whiskies 
with  his  own  brand,  and  sold  the  blend  \inder  a  label  formerly 
iised  ui)on  whisky  of  his  own  distillation,  with  cautions  to 
avoid  imitations  and  assertinp  that  the  mixture  was  "bottled 
at  the  distillery  warehouse  and  is  warranted  i>erfcctly  pure 
and  unadulterated.  '  an  injunction  was  refused  because  of 
this  misrepresentation.  This  decision,  whose  tendency  is  more 
far-reachinjr  than  that   of  Manhnftan   Mcdiriuc  Co.    v.   WnodJ' 

.1 — PIiimI«-v  V.  MuHHnrtium'ttH.  l.'i.'i  4 — Church    v.     Proctor,    00     Fid. 

r    S.    401.  407.  470.  :M»   ]..   Ki\.   22.'r        lt.|).   240.24.'i;    1.1  C.  C.   .\.  420. 

.-,— )(»M  TT.   S.  21S;  27   T-.   IM.   70'.';. 


77  wii  \r  coNsTiTrTi^s  a  vami»  timdkmakk.  [§'^'^ 

seems  on  tlio  i-cadiii^  of  llic  facts  to  impose  a  hardship  on 
the  owners  of  tlio  mark,  Jas.  E.  Pej)pcr  &  Co.  The  interest 
of  the  eomplainant  was  derived  nnder  a  contract  with  that 
firm  privinp:  liim  the  entire  control  of  their  trade  in  bottled 
whisky.  The  proof  siiowed  that  up  to  and  including  the  year 
1891  the  Pepper  Company  bottled  nothing  under  the  gold  trade 
label  partially  described  al)ove  used  by  them  but  "Old  Pep- 
l)er"  whisky  distilled  l»y  them,  but  that  after  November,  1891, 
the  demand  for  the  distillery  bottling  became  so  great  that 
they  could  not  supply  it  with  the  output  of  their  own  dis- 
tillery and  therefore  bought  other  whiskies  shown  to  be  more 
expensive,  older  and  nmde  by  the  same  formula  as  their  own, 
and  blended  these  whiskies  with  their  own,  and  bottled  the 
resulting  blend  under  the  same  label  and  trademark.  Here, 
if  ever,  one  would  think  equity  would  relax  its  rule,  and,  as 
the  public  had  not  suffered  by  the  complainant's  acts,  would 
continue  to  protect  the  trademark.  But  the  learned  court 
thus  tersely  applies  the  principles:  "Pepper  offers  as  an 
excuse  for  bottling  a  mixture  that  the  demand  for  his  goods 
had  so  increased  that  he  could  not  supply  it  with  Pepper 
whisky.  What  was  this  demand  for?  Plainly  for  pure  and 
unadulterated  Pepper  whisky,  bottled  at  the  distillery.  If 
this  could  not  be  honestly  supplied,  then  it  could  not  be 
supplied  at  all  in  such  a  way  as  to  keep  the  business  within 
the  protection  of  a  court  of  equity.  Relief  is  refused  to  Pepper 
and  his  privies  because  of  his  misrepresentations  to  the  pub- 
lic."^ Thus  is  emphasized  the  statement  of  Mr.  Justice  Field 
that  the  protection  of  equity  is  extended  to  the  owner  of  a 
trademark  "not  only  as  a  matter  of  justice  to  him,  but  to 
prevent  imposition  upon  the  public.""  There  are  a  number 
of  cases  in  which  the  misrepresentation  has  been  held  to  be 
so  slight  and  immaterial  as  not  to  disentitle  the  complainant 

6 — Krauss    v.     Jos.     R.    Peebles'  to  be.     Prince  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Prince's 

Sons  Co.,  .58  Fed.  Rep.  584-,50fi.    An  Metallic   Paint  Co.    (2),    135  N.  Y. 

English   case  resembling  this  as  to  21.  .31    N.   E.   Rep.  000. 
the    facts    is    Starey    v.    Chilwortb  7 — Manhattan     Medicine     Co.     v. 

Gunpowder  Co.,  L.   R.   24  Q.  B.   D.  Wood.  108  U.  S.  218-22.3;  27  L.  Ed. 

00  706 ;    citing  Amoskeag   Manufactur- 

Relief     will    be     denied     in     such  ing   Co.    v.    Trainor,    101    U.    S.    f)! ; 

cases    although    the    articlr    is    ac-  25  L.  Ed.  993. 
tually  as  good  as   it  is  represented 


§39]  llolKINs    ON    TKVDKMAKKS.  78 

to  relief.'^  Tims,  a  olaim  l»y  the  inamifaeturor  of  a  palont 
modiciiu'  that  it  pormaiuMitly  overcomes  habitual  constipation, 
will  not,  even  if  untnu'.  disentitle  the  plaintiff  from  relief  in 
t'tjuity,  the  court  taking'  judicial  notice  of  the  fact  that  the 
effect  of  any  medicine  for  constipation  is  lar^'cly  dependent 
iipon  the  constitution  and  hahits  of  the  jx-rson  treated."' 

The  use  of  the  words  "Sole  Manufacturer"  by  a  dealer 
who  does  not  manufacture,  but  has  the  article  i)roduced  for 
him  by  another,  has  been  held  not  to  debar  the  user  of  the 
trademark  from  equitable  relief,"^  as  lias  the  addition  of  the 
word  "distillers'*  to  the  firm  name  of  former  proprietors  of 
a  distillery  owiu>d  by  a  complainant." 

§  39.  The  cases  of  false  representation  in  connection  with 
trademarks. — In  1837  the  Eiifrlish  Ili^di  Court  of  Chancery  in 
I'uldimj  V.  How,  announced  that  it  could  not  interfere  in  be- 
half of  a  plaintiff  who  had  "thought  fit  to  mix  up  that  which 
may  be  true  with  that  which  is  false"  in  his  labels  and  adver- 
tisements.'2  The  Court  of  Appeals  of  New  York  in  a  similar 
case  in  1848,  by  Gardiner,  J.,  observed  laconically,  "The  i)rivi- 
lege  of  deceiving  the  public,  even  for  their  own  benefit,  is  not  a 
legitimate  subject  of  commerce ;  and  at  all  events,  if  the  maxim 
that  he  who  asks  equity  must  come  with  pure  hands  is  not 
altogether  obsolete,  the  complainant  has  no  right  to  invoke 
the  extraordinary  jurisdiction  of  a  court  of  chancery  in  favor 
of  such  a  monoj)oly."  '•''  Prior  to  this,  an  injunction  was  re- 
fused where  the  mark  in  question  was  applied  hy  the  com- 
plaiiumt  to  a  "quack"  medicine.'^  "Balm  of  Thousand  Flow- 
ers" the  name  of  a  cosmetic,  being  deceptive,  its  infi-ingement 
by  a  defendant  a.s.suming  the  name  "Balm  of  Ten  Thousand 

8— Tarrant  &  Co.  v.  TTofT.  71  Fid.  11— Fra/.i.r  v.  I)(.\vlin;r.  Ifi  Ky.  L. 

Rep.    103;    anTirmt'd,    70    Fid.    R.j..  Ki-p.    1109,  .30    S.    \V.   Ut-p.   4'). 

959,  22  C.  C.  A.  044;   C.ntaur  Co.  12— PiddiiiK  v.  How.  S  Sim.  477; 

V.    RohinBon,    ftl     F<-d.     Rep.     88!) -,  Cox.     040;     follow.-d     in     Perry    v. 

RaniM)m  v.  Bull,  7  X.  Y.  Supp.  2'M.  Truffit.   0   Rrav.   00;    Cox,   044. 

9 — California    Fij,'    Syrup    Co.    v  i:{ — l'artrid;rc  v.  Mcnck.  2  Sandf. 

Word.-n,  n.-i   F.d.    Rep.   132-134.  <1..   U.  022;  2  Rarl).  Ch.   R.   101;    1 

10— fJluckman   v.   Strancli,  !•!    N.  ll..\v.   App.   Cas.   fiAS;   Cox.  72. 

Y.    Supp.   223,  afllrmi'd.    IHf,    \     Y  11— Fowlc  v.    Sp.«ar,   7    IVnn.    L. 

r>«0,   7n   N.   E.    Rc-p.    1100.  I.   170;  Cox,  07;   followed  in  Heath 

V.  \Vri;;ht.  3  Wall.  .Ir..  1:   Cox.  XTA. 


WHAT    CONS'I'ITL'TRS    A    VALID    'I'KAI  >I>.\I  AKK. 


[§39 


Flowers'"  was  not  ciijoiiicd,''  alllioii^'li  llic  same  mark  was 
held  valid  and  llic  v\i\i'  announced  that  "the  public  should  be 
left  to  its  own  j,'uai-diansliij)"  in  F<til(l(j(  r.  Mcrckant.^'^  But 
the  docti'ine  <;cn('i-ally  is  that  (d'  I'uhlimj  v.  II(nr.^~' 

The  general  I'ulc  conccrniii^'  the  effect  of  false  representa- 
tions by  the  i)laintilT  in  the  use  of  the  mark  upon  his  rif^ht  to 
relief  in  cipiity,  has  been  coinijrchensivcly  stated  by  Mr.  Jus- 
tice Shiras.  as  follows:  "Wlicii  the  owner  of  a  trademark 
applies  for  an  injunction  to  restrain  the  defendant  from  in- 
jurinj^  his  i)roperty  by  making;  false  representations  to  tlie 
public,  it  is  essential  that  the  plaintiff  should  not  in  his  trade- 
mark, or  in  his  advertisements  and  business,  be  himself  guilty 


1 5_Fi.tr  i(l;,'f  V.  Wcllfl,  4  Al)l). 
Pr.  144;  1:5  How.  Vr.  38;');  Cox,  180. 

16—4    Abb.    Pr.    150;    Cox,    1!»4. 

17 — Supra,  8  Sim.  477;  Cox,  640. 
The  rule  is  conceded,  announced 
or  followed  in  Hobbs  v.  Francais, 
19  How.  Pr.  567 ;  Cox,  287 ;  Phalon 
V.  \Vri«,'ht,  5  Pliila.  464;  Cox,  307; 
Smitli  V.  Woodrufl",  48  Barb.  438; 
Cox,  373;  Curtis  v.  Bryan,  2  Daly, 
212;  36  How.  Pr.  33;  Cox,  434; 
Palmer  v.  Harris,  60  Pa.  St.  156; 
8  Am.  L.  Reg.  X.  S.  137;  Cox, 
523;  Dixon  Crucible  Co.  v.  Gu";- 
genheim,  3  Am.  Law  T.  228;  2 
Brewster,  321;  Cox,  550;  Leather 
Cloth  Co.  V.  American  Leather 
Cloth  Co,  11  Jur.  N.  S.  513;  Cox, 
688;  11  H.  L.  C.  543;  Flavel  v. 
Harrison,  10  Hare,  467;  Morgan  v. 
McAdam,  36  L.  J.  Ch.  228;  Ford 
V.  Foster,  L.  R.  7  Ch.  D.  611;  41 
L.  J.  Ch.  682;  In  re  Saunion  &  Co., 
Cox,  Manual,  No.  625;  Estcourt  v. 
The  Estcourt  Hop  Essence  Co.,  31 
L.  T.  N.  S.  567:  L.  R.  10  Ch.  D. 
276;  44  L.  J.  Ch.  223;  32  L.  T.  X. 
S.  80;  23  W.  R.  213;  Joseph  v. 
Macowsky,  96  Cal.  518;  Meriden 
Britannia  Co.  v.  Parker,  39  Conn. 
454-460;  Laird  v.  Wilder.  2  Bush 
(Ky.),  131;  15  Am.  Rep.  707;  Con- 
nell    V.    Re.Ml.     128     Mass.     477;     35 


Am.  Rep.  299;  Wolfe  v.  Burke,  7 
N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  151;  56  N.  Y.  115; 
2  OfL  Gaz.  441;  Seabury  v.  Gros- 
venor.  Fed.  Case  No.  12576;  14  Off. 
Gaz.  079;  Hennessy  v.  Wheeler,  69 
N.  Y.  271;  Pise  Co.  v.  Voight,  4 
Ohio  N.  P.  347;  California  Syrup 
of  Figs  Co.  V.  Stearns  ( 1 ) ,  67  Fed. 
Rep.  1008;  Wood  v.  Butler,  3  R. 
P.  C.  81;  L.  R.  32  Ch.  D.  247; 
55  L.  .1.  Ch.  377;  54  L.  T.  314. 
Cartmell,  349 ;  In  re  Heaton's  Trade- 
mark, L.  R.  27  Ch.  D.  570;  53  L. 
J.  Ch.  959;  51  L.  T.  220;  32  W.  R. 
951;  Cartmell,  100;  Newman  v. 
Pinto,  4  R.  P.  C.  508;  57  L.  T.  31; 
Cartmell,  242;  Kenny  v.  Gillet,  70 
Md.  574;  Siegert  v.  Abbott  (1),  61 
Md.  276;  Parlctt  v.  Guggcnheimer, 
67  Md.  542;  Palmer  v.  Harris,  60 
Pa.  St.  150;  Hoxie  v.  Cheney,  143 
Mass.  592;  10  N.  E.  Rep.  713;  Clot- 
worthy  V.  Schepp,  42  Fed.  Rep. 
02;  California  Syrup  of  Figs  Co. 
V.  Stearns  (2),  73  Fed.  Rep.  812, 
20  C.  C.  A.  22;  Buckland  v.  Ric. 
40  Ohio  St.  526;  Burton  v.  Strat- 
ton,  12  Fed.  Rep.  696-699;  Ginter  v. 
Kinney  Tobacco  Co.,  12  Fed.  Rep. 
782;  Koehler  v.  Sanders,  122  N. 
Y.  65,  25  N.  E.  Rep.  235,  9  L.  R. 
A.  576;  Perlberg  v.  Smith,  70  N. 
J.    Eq.    638.    02    Atl.    Rep.    442. 


§40J  HOPKINS    ON    TK\I>i;.M  AKKS.  80 

of  any  falso  or  misloadiiit:  n-prcscntation  ;  that  if  tlio  plaintifT 
makes  any  material  false  statement  in  conneetion  with  tlie 
property  whicli  lie  seeks  to  proteet,  he  loses  his  ri};ht  to  elaim 
the  assistaiu-e  of  a  eourt  of  ecpiity;  that  where  any  symbol  or 
lahel  I'laiiiu'd  as  a  trademark  is  so  construeted  or  worded  as 
to  make  or  eoTitain  a  distinct  assertion  whieh  is  false,  no 
property  can  be  claimed  in  it.  or.  in  other  words,  the  rijrht  to 
the  exclusive  use  of  it  can  not  be  maintained."  '" 

For  the  reasons  we  have  been  considerinpr  in  this  chapter, 
the  Patent  Office  has  refused  to  admit  to  repistration  as  a 
trademark  for  powdered  soap  "the  picture  of  a  baj?  havinp 
the  open  end  thereof  closed  by  a  tie."  the  commissioner  hold- 
ing that  such  a  mark  was  necessarily  deceptive  or  descrip- 
tive, and  in  either  event  was  not  a  valid  trademark.''* 

Conversely,  it  is  manifest  that  it  is  no  defense  to  a  viola- 
tion of  a  pure  food  law  that  the  defendant  sold  an  inferior 
milk  product  under  the  tradename  "Evaj^orated   Cream."  2" 

It  is  no  answer  to  plaintiff's  misrepresentation  that  defend- 
ant's conduct  is  without  justification.'' 

§40.  Manhattan  Medicine  Co.  v.  Wood.— This  decision,  the 
lanpuapc  of  whoso  f)]Mnif)ii  has  boon  more  often  cited  in  sup- 
port of  the  proposition  under  consideration  than  any  other, 
was  based  on  this  statement  of  facts:  The  coinplaiuaiit  derived 
all  its  trade  riphts  in  and  to  a  lu-ojirietary  modiciiu^  styled 
"Atwood's  Genuine  Physical  Jauiulico  "Bitters"  from  its  origi- 
nal manufacturer,  ]\roses  Atwood.  who  lived  at  fioorfretown, 
Ma.ssachusetts,  and  manufactured  it  there.  The  court  says: 
"It  is  not  honest  to  state  that  a  medicine  is  manufactured  by 
Moses  Atwood.  of  Ceorfrotown.  I\fassachusotts.  when  it  is  man- 
ufactured by  the  Manhattan  ^ledicinc  Company,  in  the  city  of 

IR — f'lintnn   K.    Wordcn  &    Co.   v.  moaninplcBS     as      Jippliod      to     the 

falifornin    V'm    Svr>i|»    Co..    187    U.  froodw,  so  as  to  ho  noithor   deacrip- 

S.  nU?.  ri2«;  47  L.  Kd.  282    288.    To  tivr    nor    dpooptivc."      Diull,    Com- 

the   Bami-   ••(Tt-ct   b*-*-   T>i    v.    Ilirsoh,  miHwioncr.  in  Hx  parte  IVnrson  To- 

12.1   Fod.    Rop.   r)fi8;    Miin.rip  Co.  v.  !)acco  Co..   8'.   0(T.   Cm.   287. 

Taylor    (Cnl.»,    37    Ptir     R.p.    235;  20— Stato  v.  Totu.  08  Minn.   3r.l, 

26   L.    R.    A     103.  107    N.    W.    Rep.   0:.3. 

\9—Fx  pnrtr  Martin,  80  OfT.  Ha/.  21— Kpporson    *    Co.    v.    Rliith.-n- 

22r)0.       "A    word    to    Iw    nwd    as   a  Oinl,     140     Ala.    125,    42    So.     Rop. 

tnulvmark       miiRt       obviouBly       he  863. 


HI  \vii\i    coNsmi  lis    \   \\i.iit    IK  \i)i,.\iAi{K.  f§-il 

Now  York."--     On  tlioso   facts  tlic  protection   of  their  mark 
was  refused  complainants. 

§  41.  The  similar  cases — Assig-nment  must  be  made  public 
in  conjunction  with  the  trademark,  when.  Following  Manhat- 
tan M(-(fiicin<!  ('o.  r.  Wnoil,  tlie  Court  of  Appeals  of  Maryland 
held  -•'  where  the  label  used  by  the  manufacturers  of  An{,'ostiira 
Bitters  did  not  disclose  the  death  of  Dr.  J.  (I.  B.  Siegert,  their 
orifrinator,  that  the  label  was  not  truthful  and  its  infringe- 
ment would  not  be  enjoined.  And  the  same  rule  lias  been 
applied  as  against  one  continuing  to  use  the  name  of  a  prede- 
cessor in  ])usiuess,  whose  label  does  not  announce  the  change.^'* 
The  rule  in  this  regard  is  held  by  McKenna.  J.,  to  be  that  where 
a  trademark  is  a  mark  of  special  qualities,  due  to  superior 
material,  processes,  skill  and  care  exercised  by  the  originator 
thereof,  an  assignee  of  the  business  who  continues  to  use  labels 
■which  contain  the  false  statement  that  the  goods  are  being 
prepared  by  the  originator  is  not  entitled  to  ecpiitable  relief 
against    an    infringer.-'' 

§42.  Unauthorized  use  of  words  "patent"  or  "patented." 
— The  use  of  the  words  "patent"  or  "patented,"  in  connec- 
tion with  or  as  part  of  a  trademark,  where  the  article  identified 
by  the  mark  is  in  fact  not  covered  by  letters  patent,  has  given 
rise  to  many  interesting  decisions.  All  of  these  matters  of 
untruthful  representation  are  to  be  tested  by  the  que}...on  of 
whether  or  not  they  are  direct,  or  "purely  collateral"  misrep- 

22 — ^fanhattan    Medicine    Co.    v.  saying  that  an   assijnioe  is  entitled 

Wood,  108  U.  S.  218;  27  L.  Ed.  706.  to   relief,   even   though   he   has   not 

23-^Seigert    v.    Abbott     (1),    61  designated   himself    as    assignee    in 

Md.    276.       The    same    doctrine    is  making  use  of  the   mark.      Fulton 

followed    in    Sherwood   v.    Andrews,  v.   Sellers,  4  Browst.   42.     The  ten- 

5  Am.  L.  Reg.  N.  S.  588;  Scb.  263;  d.-ncy  of  the  later  rulings  is  to  up- 

Stachelberg  v.   Ponce,  23   Fed.  Rep.  liold   the  use   of   the   mark   by   the 

430;  Price  &  Steuart,  067.  assignee,    except   where    his    failure 

24 — Helmbold  v.  H.  T.   Helmbold  to   disclose   the   fact  of  the   assign- 

Mfg.   Co.,  03   How.  Pr.  453.  ment     is    equivalent     to     misreprc- 

25 — Alaska    Packers'    Association  sentation  and  falsehood.    See  Pills- 

V.    Alaska    Imp.    Co.,   60    Fed.    Rep.  htiry    v.    Flour-mills    Co..    64    Fed. 

103.     Tlie  Supreme  Court  of  Penn-  Rep.  841-850,   12  C.  C.  A.  432. 
sylvania    has    held    the    contrary. 


§  42] 


lUU'KINS    OK    TUAUK.M  AKKS. 


82 


rescntations.^'"'  Whciv  ilio  lottors  patent  of  the  United  States 
covering  an  alletred  iinprDveniont  in  Jars  had  been  det'larcd 
invalid  by  jndit'ial  decision,  bnt  the  nianufaeturcr  continued 
to  desifrnate  the  jars  "Mason's  Patent"  jars,  it  was  held  that 
the  fact  deprived  the  nianufactnrer  of  etpiitable  relief  ajjainst 
an  infrinjrement.-'  In  England  a  jilaintiff  used  on  his  label 
the  words  "Royal  letters  patent,"  and  snpjjorted  the  use  of 
the  words  by  showing  that  for  many  years  he  had  paid  the 
stamp  dnty  on  "patent  medicines."  and  was  only  using  the 
labels  remaining  on  hand  at  the  time  he  discovered  his  med- 
icines (lid  not  belong  to  that  class.  lie  was  denied  an  injunc- 
tion against  an  infringer  of  his  label. -^ 

The  reason  for  the  ])articular  disfavor  witii  which  equity 
regards  this  class  of  cases  is  that,  by  using  words  indicating 
that  an  article  is  patented  where  it  is  not,  the  awner  of  the 
mark  is  seeking  to  obtain  the  benefits  of  a  monoi>oly,  where 
he  has  none.  As  stated  by  Vice-Chancellor  Wood,  in  MorgoAi 
V.  McAchnn:'^  "All  those  who  are  induced  to  buy  these  cru- 
cibles thus  described  as  'Patent  Plumbago  Crucibles'  are  to 
a  certain  extent  deceived,  because  they  are  led  to  believe  that 
the  article  is  protected  by  a  patent,  and  thus  may  be  induced  to 
purchase  it  from  the  plaintiff  under  the  belief  that  there  is 
a  patent,  and  that  the  plaintiffs,  or  at  least  some  limited  number 
of  persons,   are  the  only  persons  authorized  to   sell   it ;   and 


20_Ford  V.  Foster,  L.  R.  7  Ch. 
D.  fill;  27  L.  T.  X.  S.  220;  20  W. 
R.  311;  Cox,  Manual,  384.  Tn 
this  case  the  false  use  of  the  word 
"patentee,"  used  by  the  complain- 
ant in  advertisements,  was  held  to 
l>j  a  collateral  mlHrepn-sentntion 
wliieh  did  n<»t  disentitle  him  to  a 
remedy  iti  e(|uity  a^^'ainst  an  infrin- 
ger. 

27 — Consolidated  Fruit  .Tar  Co. 
V.  Dorflinper,  Fed.  Case  No.  3129; 
6  Fed.  Cas.  330;  2  Am.  Law.  T. 
Rpp.  N.  S.  nil;  Cox,  Manual,  444. 
The  same  rule  is  announced  in 
Fn^'land  in  Leather  ("loth  Co.  v. 
L..rHont.  L.  R.  0  ¥a\.  34r>;  30  L.  J. 
Ch.  80;  21  L.  T.  N.  S.  001;    18  W. 


R.  r)72;  Cox,  Manual,  Case  No. 
324;  Xixey  v.  RotTey,  W.  N.  1870, 
p.  227;  Cox,  Manual,  Case  No.  343; 
Olipliant  V.  Salem  Flourinj,'  Mills, 
f)  Sawyer  128,  Fed.  Case  10,480; 
Beecham  v.  Jacobs,  159  Fed.  Rep. 
120;  80  C.  C.  A.  623;  alhrmed, 
Jacobs  V.  Beecham,  221  U.  S.  203, 
f).-)  L.   Ed.  720. 

28— Lamplou^'h  v.  Halni.r,  W.  \. 
1807,   p.   203. 

20—30  L.  J.  Ch.  228;  Cox.  Man- 
ual, Case  No.  207.  Other  ar;xi>- 
ments  are  used  by  the  same  judpe 
in  Flavel  v.  Harrison,  10  Hare, 
407:  22  L.  J.  Ch.  800;  17  Jur.  308; 
1  W.  R.  213;  Cox,  Manual,  Case 
No.    110. 


83  WHAT    CONSTITUTES   A    VALID    TIIADEMARK,  [§  42 

further,  they  are  led  to  believe  that  if  they  should  be  minded 
to  set  up  any  manufactory  of  the  same  kind  for  tliemselves, 
they  would  be  unable  to  do  so  in  consequence  of  the  phiinlifTs 
being  the  possessors,  either  by  way  of  license  or  owjiershij), 
of  a  patent  preventing  the  world  at  large  from  imitating  the 
article  which  is  sold  by  them  under  this  particular  designa- 
tion." 

And  although  in  another  English  case^^  a  plaintiff  was  held 
entitled  to  recover  in  an  action  at  law  in  a  case  of  this  kind, 
where  his  father  had  held  a  patent  held  to  be  invalid  (as  in 
Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.  v.  Dorflinger,  supra,  where  the  con- 
trary rule  is  announced),  the  rule  is  generally  that,  where  no 
valid  patent  has  ever  existed,  the  use  of  the  words  indicating 
the  contrary  will  debar  the  plaintiff  from  relief  in  equity.'" 

I\rr.  Justice  Fuller  has  accurately  defined  the  rule  under 
consideration  in  the  following  language:  "No  right  to  a  trade- 
mark which  includes  the  word  'patent,'  and  which  describes 
the  article  as  'patented,'  can  arise  when  there  is  and  has  been 
no  patent;  nor  is  the  claim  a  valid  one  for  the  other  words 

used,  when  it  is  based  upon  their  use  in  connection  with  that 
word.  "32 

But  where  there  has  been  a  valid  patent  upon  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  trademark,  different  issues  arise. 

In  England  it  has  been  held  that  the  fact  that  a  plaintiff 
put  a  mark  upon  his  goods  with  the  addition  of  the  words 
"trademark,"  when  his  mark  was  not  registered,  did  not 
amount  to  such  a  misrepresentation  as  to  deprive  him  of  the 
right  to  an  injunction,  because  the  use  of  the  words  "trade- 
mark" did  not  necessarily  carry  with  it  the  implication  that 
the  mark  had  been  registered.^s 

.30— Sykcs    V.    Sykes,    3    B.    &    Cr.  tion  Co.,  183  U.  S.   1.  8;   46  L.  Ed. 

^^^-  40;     reversing    Rahtjen's    Composi- 

31 — Leather   Cloth    Co.    v.   Amer-  tion     Co.     v.     Holzapfel's   Composi- 

ioan  Leatlier  Cloth  Co.,  11  Jur.  X.  tion  Co.,  41  C.  C.  A.  329,  101   Fed. 

S.  513;  Cox,  688;  11  H.  L.  C.  343;  Rep.     2.57,     the     latter     reversing 

Cox,   Manual,   Case   No.    223.      Sec,  Ralit.jen'a  Composition  Co.   v.  Holz- 

per    contra,    Stewart    v.    Smitlison,  appel's    Composition    Co.,    07     Fed. 

1   Hilt.    110;    Cox,    17.').      Tliis   case  Rep.  949. 
can  not  he  regarded  as  of  authority.  33 — Sen    Sen    Co.    v.    Britten.    L. 

32— Hol/.apfel's    Composition    Co.  R.   (1899)    1  Ch.  D.  002. 
V.     Rahtjen's     American     Composi- 


§  43]  HOPKINS   ON    TKADEMARKS.  84 

§  43.  Use  of  such  word  as  a  trademark  where  there  has  been 
a  patent.— The  hist  chiu.se  of  sec.  4901,  Kcviscd  Statutes  of  the 
Vnitotl  States,  dochiros  tliat  "cvory  person  wlio  in  any  niainier 
marks  n\Hm  or  atlixcs  to  any  niipatentod  artick'  the  word  'pat- 
ent,' or  any  word  importintr  tliat  the  same  is  patented,  fi)r  the 
purpose  of  decoivinp  the  pid)lie.  sliall  ])e  liable  for  every  .such 
offenee  to  a  jienalty  of  not  less  than  ^100,  with  costs;  one- 
half  of  said  penalty  to  the  person  who  shall  sue  for  the  same, 
and  the  other  to  the  use  of  the  United  States,  to  he  recovered 
hy  suit  in  any  district  court  of  the  United  States  within  whose 
jurisdiction  such  offense  may  have  been  committed."  It  is 
not  an  offense  under  this  law  to  affix  to  an  article  the  word 
"patented"  and  the  date  of  an  expired  patent,  for  the  reason 
that  the  offense  is  not  complete,  unless  the  mark  affixed  in- 
dicates that  there  is  a  present  subsisting  patent  upon  the 
article. ^^ 

In  C  lira  rill  r.  Wnlkrr.^-'  Jessel.  M.  R.,  observes  with  reprard 
to  the  effect  of  the  use  of  the  word  "patent"  by  the  plaintiff: 
"The  (piestion  was  fully  discussed  in  the  case  in  the  House 
of  Lords.  Leather  Cloth  Co.  v.  Awcricnv  Lmthrr  Cloth  Co.,  11 
II.  L.  C  543,3'"'  and  I  liave  notliinjr  to  add  to  what  was  there 
.said.  No  doubt  a  man  may  \ise  the  word  'i)atent'  so  as  to 
deceive  no  one.  It  may  be  used  so  as  to  mean  that  which  was 
a  patent,  but  is  not  .so  now.  Tn  oth(<r  words,  you  may  state 
in  so  many  words,  or  by  imi)li<*ation.  that  the  article  is  man\i- 
factured  in  accordance  with  a  j)atent  which  has  expired.  But 
if  you  suppest  that  it  is  protected  by  an  exlstinjr  |)atcnt.  you 
can  not  obtain  the  protection  of  that  representation  as  a  trade- 
mark. Protection  only  extends  to  the  time  allowed  by  the 
statute  for  the  patent,  and  if  the  court  were  afterwards  to 
jirotect  the  use  of  the  word  as  a  trademark,  it  would  be  in  fact 
cxtendinp  the  time  for  protection  piven  hy  the  statute.  It 
is  therefore  impossible  to  allow  a  man  who  has  once  had  the 
protection  of  a  patent  to  obtain  a  further  protection  by  using 
the  name  of  his  patent  as  a  trademark." 

34_\Vi|Knn    V.     Sin^.r    Mfj;.    Co.,       02;    S.I..    .VJH.       S.t-    nl«o    Nixi-y    v. 
12    K.«l.    H.p.    r.7.  UofT.-y.    W.    X.    1870.    p.    227;    Sob. 

.i.'v— L.  R.  Ti  ch.  1).  «:»(>;  jrt  L.  .T.      :\r.\. 

t\,     r.Ht;      .{(1    T,     T     i»:»S;    Cirtm.ll,  :\V,—Antr,    8  42. 


85  WHAT    (  ONSTI'I'ITKS    A    V\I,II>    'I  l(  \|)i;.\I  \KK.  f §  "^3 

"Hilt,  fui'llicr,  tm  iiiiiri  ciiii  ciiiiiii  a  tradomark  in  a  fal.sc- 
liood.  It.  is  a  J'jilsfliood  to  I'cpi-csfiit  that  the  patent  is  still 
suhsistiiiff. '' 

And  Kc'kewicli,  J.,  said  Jn  re  Adams'  Trademarks: '•^'  "The 
word  '])at(Mit'  means  not  necessarily  that  there  is  now  current 
a  patent  of  jjroteelion,  but  that  the  arti<de  in  (pjestion  is  one 
of  those  jirtieles  MJiieh  liad  tile  merits  of  utility  and  novelty, 
and  therefore  received  the  protcetion  of  the  crown  by  letters 
patent." 

There  are  other  decisions,  however,  not  so  clear  as  to  facts, 
and  ajjparently  not  in  harmony  with  Cheavin  v.  Walker,  supra. 
Five  years  after  that  ease.  Bacon,  V.  C,  in  a  case  where  the 
plaintiffs  had  stamped  the  word  "patent"  on  plowshares 
manufactured  by  them  after  their  patent  had  expired,  said: 
"(they)  make  their  shares  aceordinj;  to  the  invention  in  the 
expired  patent,  as  everybody  else  may ;  but  to  suggest  that 
they  have  in  any  manner  claimed  anything  under  or  in  respect 
to  that  patent,  and  that  they  have  done  this  fraudulently  and 
to  deceive  the  public,  is  merely  desperate,  and  opposed  to  the 
truth  of  the  case."38  Yet  it  does  not  appear  in  the  report 
wherein  this  differed  from  the  use  of  the  word  "patent"  as 
criticized  in  Cheavin  v.  WaJker.  In  another  case^'*  Vice-Chan- 
eellor  "Wood  said:  "It  does  not  follow  because  upon  the  expi- 
ration of  the  patent  the  article  and  its  known  description  be- 
come known  to  all  that  therefore  all  would  become  entitled 
to  use  the  label  by  w^hich  the  patentees  had  been  accustomed 
to  distinguish  their  goods."  This  he  held  in  regard  to  a  label 
used  on  packages  of  pins  marked  "Taylor  &  Co.'s  Patent  Solid- 
headed  Pins;"  the  manufacturer  eontiiniing  to  use  the  label 
after  the  expiration  of  his  patent.  The  conclusion  of  the 
learned  Vice-Chaneellor  was  that:  "The  public  may  have  ac- 

.37—1)  R.  P.  r.  174;  C,C,  L.  T.  filO;  patont    have    cvor    issnod,    Init    the 

Cartmoll,  4.3.  cxchisivc    ripht   of    manufacture   of 

38 — Ransomo    v.    Oraliam.    .")!    L.  baskets    lias    bi-en    secured    by    rep- 

J.  Ch.  8n7;  47  L.  T.  21S;  Cartmell,  istration   of  their   desipn.      Cave  v. 

27n.       Same     rule     in     Stewart     v.  Myers,   Seton    ("ith   ed.l.   ."1.30;    Cox. 

Smithson,    1    Hilt.    110;    Cox.    175;  Manual,  Case  No.   304. 

Leather   Cloth    Co.   v.   Hirschfeld.    1  30— Edelsten    v.    Vick.     11     Tlare. 

X.  R.   r,rA;   Cox.  Manual.  Case  Xo.  7S;  1  Eq.  Rep.  413;  18  .Tiir.  7;  Cox, 

214.       And    even    where    no    letters  Manual,  Case  Xo.  110. 


§43]  HOPKINS   l)N    T1{\1>I..M  \KKS.  S() 

quired  coiiliiU'iuM<  in  that  particular  lal»rl.  and  tin*  confidoiu-e 
may  linve  pivcn  n  value  to  it  whii-h  the  patentees  may  be  en- 
titJcd  to  have  after  the  expiration  of  their  |)atent. " 

111  another  ease  it  uas  ludd  that  where  plaintiffs  labeled 
their  thread  "Patent  Thread,"  they  would  not  be  denied  re- 
lief apainst  an  infringer,  heeause  the  word  "patent"  by  long 
usape  had  eome  to  denote  tlie  eharacter  of  the  thread,  and 
did  not  imply  the  existenee  of  any  patent.'*" 

Of  course  the  holder  of  letters  patent  may  describe  himself 
as  "patentee"  and  his  poods  as  "patented"  even  where  he 
doubts  the  validity  of  the  patent,  and  its  validity  has  been 
questioned  by  others.^^  And  it  has  been  held  in  New  York 
that  one  who  applies  for  letters  patent  is  not  disentitled  from 
relief  apainst  an  infrinper  liy  reason  of  his  deseribinp  the 
goods  as  "patented"  after  his  applieation  had  been  filed,  but 
before  the  issuance  of  letters  patent. '=  "Where  the  plaintiffs 
used  their  label  l)earinp  the  words  "sjieeially  repistered  trade- 
mark" after  application,  but  before  repistration.  the  Enplish 
Court  of  Appeals  pranted  an  interlocutory  injunction  apainst 
an  infrinper.  but  exjiressly  said  in  their  ojiinion  that  they  re- 
frained from  finally  d<'ci(linp  the  (piestion  whether  that  niis- 
rejiresentation  prima  fnric  destroyed  jilaintiff's  ripht  to  pro- 
tection.■*•' 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  cases  discussed  in  this 
and  the  next  preccdinp  section  are  for  the  preater  part  Enp- 
lish, and  their  rcasoninp  is  rather  confused.  The  surest  con- 
clusion to  be  reached  1)y  an  examination  of  the  cases  in  this 
section  i.s  that  of  Lord  Kinpsdown,  in  Morqnn  v.  McArlam:  ** 
"Of  course  it  would  be  better,  and  those  Avho  are  inclined  to 
act  with  scnipiilous  honesty  would  take  care,  to  ]Mit  the  date 
of  their  patent,  which  would  obviate  all  difficulty,  upon  the 
articles  which  they  desipnate  as  patented."  Judpe  Kohl.saat. 
in  denyinp  a  motion  for  preliminary  injiinction,  based  his  de- 
cision uj)f)n  the  fact  that   the  complainant,  thouph  not  niark- 

40— ^larnhnll    v.    Robh.    L.    R.    8  42— T-nuf.rly      v.      Whr.-li-r.      1'^ 

Fxj.   Or.l:    .30   L.   .J.  rii.   22r);   21   L.  Ifow.  Pr.  4S8;    11    Daly.  104. 
T    X.  B.  200;    17  W.  R.  lOftfl;  Cox,  43— Road  v.  Richardson.  4r>  L.  T. 

Mnniial,  f'aw  No.  310.  .'.4;  C'artmcll.  281. 

41— RIak.-y   v.   Latham,  85  L.  T.  44-30  T..  J.  Ch.  228;  Cox.  Man- 

(Journnl),  47.  iial,  No.  207. 


87  WHAT    CONSTITUTES    A    V\l,ll>     TWAl  »i;.M  AKK.  f  §  -^-^ 

\n'^  llif  arliflc  itscll'  "  pjitciitcd. "  had   issued  circidars  stating' 
thai    if   was  patented,  after  the  |»at('iit   had  expired. '•'• 

One  who  issues  circulars  oi-  uses  iiiarkintrs  on  nuu'chandisc 
falsely  indicating  tlic  goods  dealt  in  by  iiiin  to  have  been  made 
under  a  particular  patent  will  be  enjoined  at  the  instance  of 
the  owner  of  the  patent."'  Where  there  has  been  a  patent, 
he  who  has  manufactured  a  trademarkcd  article  under  the 
patent  during  its  lifetime,  although  he  has  lost  the  exclusive 
right  to  the  use  of  the  trademark  upon  the  expiration  of  the 
patent,  may  yet  enjoin  one  from  using  the  mark  upon  an 
article  not  made  according  to  the  expired  patent.^"  Where 
the  complainant  had  falsely  advertised  that  the  method  of 
applying  its  name  to  silk  dealt  in  by  it  was  patented,  a  pre- 
liminary injunction  against  an  infringer  was  refused  because 
of  the  misrepresentation.'"^ 

§  44.  The  eflfect  of  expiration  of  the  patent  upon  the  collo- 
cation of  color  used  in  the  patented  article. — As  we  have  else- 
where denu)nst rated  '"  color  alone  can  not  be  appropriated  as 
a  trademark.  It  would  seem  clear,  therefore,  that  the  same 
prineijile  which  renders  the  trademark  by  Avhicli  the  patented 
article  is  known,  juiblic  ]iroperty  upon  the  exjuration  of  the 
patent,  would  also  give  to  the  public  at  the  .same  time  the  right 
to  reproduce  the  patented  article  with  the  same  coloring  which 
it  had  during  the  life  of  the  patent.  The  trend  of  the  de- 
cisions is  in  that  direction. 

"The  right  to  an  exclusive  trademark  can  only  be  acquired 
by  its  adoption  for  the  very  purpose  of  pointing  to  the  origin 
or  ownershij)  of  the  article  to  Avhich  it  is  attached,  and  must 
be  designed  to  indicate  the  manufacturers  or  sellers,  and  to 
distinguish  the  article  from  like  things  made  or  sold  by  others. 
This  elastic  seam,  having  the  natural  color  of  the  cotton  yarn 
from  which  the  fabric  was  made,  Avas  inserted  in  men's  drawers 
made  by  the  Scriven  Company,  because  such  an  inserted  piece 

4") — Prcsprvalino  Mfjr.  Co.  v.  Hel-  47 — Sinjri'r    Mf<.'.    Co.    v.    Ilipplo, 

Icr    Chemical    Co.,     118    Fed.    Rop.       100    Fed.    T?op.    1;V2. 
103.  48— Stirlinf:     Silk     Mfp.     Co.     v. 

46_Washburn  &  Moen  ]Mfg.  Co.  Sterling  Silk  Co.,  46  Atl.  Rep.  199, 
V.  Haish,  Fed.  Case  No.  17217.  59  N.  J.  Eq.  394. 

49— See  §  114,  post. 


45] 


HOPKINS    ON    TKAI^KMAUKS. 


88 


constitntoil  n  struoturnl  difTcrencc  ponstitutiiifr  tlio  iiivcntiun 
roviTotl  by  tlio  monopoly  of  \\\c  patent.  As  assi^rrirrs  of  tlio 
jiattMit,  no  one  else  i-ould  insert  siu-h  an  clastic  scam  without 
infringement.  But  when  the  j)atent  expiicd  the  public  was 
free  to  use  it.  To  give  that  inserted  strip,  with  or  without 
its  inartifieial  color,  the  effect  of  a  tradeuuirk  thereafter  woidd 
be,  in  effect,  to  exteiul  the  numopoly  of  the  i)ateut.  That 
others  may  make  and  sell  drawers  constructed  accordiii};  to 
the  design  of  the  patent  is  not  denied  ;  the  contention  being 
that  the  elastic  seam  shall  not  be  of  the  color  used  by  Scriven. 
But.  as  that  color  is  not  an  artificial  color,  Scriven  has  no 
monopoly.  The  color  of  the  strip  in  the  drawers  sold  by  the 
defendants  has  not  been  artificially  produced,  but  is  shown 
to  be  the  natural  color  of  undyed  and  unbleached  cotton  yarn 
from  which  the  strip  is  made.  We  may  therefore  dismiss 
the  claim  that  the  Scriven  Company  has  established  a  trade- 
mark in  the  color  of  the  inserted  jnece. "  •''•" 

§  45.  Names  of  patented  articles. — The  general  rule  as  to 
the  mime  applied  to  a  j)atented  article  during  the  life  of  the 
patent,  is  that  ui)on  the  expiration  of  the  patent,  the  i)ublic 
acquires  the  right  to  make,  use,  and  sell  the  patented  article, 
and  to  distinguisli  it  ])y  the  name  which  it  bore  during  the 
life  of  the  jiatent.^^ 

Strattoii,  12  Fed.  Ko]i.  (■-•Ui-TOO;  (loocl- 
yi'iir  RublHT  Co.  v.  Day,  22  Fed. 
l\rp.  44;  SinpiT  Mffr.  Co.  v.  Riley, 
11  Fed.  Rep.  706;  Whcclor  &.  Wil- 
son Mfg.  Co.  V.  iSliakoapear,  39  L, 
J.  Ch.  36;  Tucker  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Boyington,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14220;  0 
Off.  CJaz.  45.5;  Filley  v.  Child.  1« 
Rlatchf.  .*l7«i;  Fed.  Case  No.  4787; 
Ralph  V.  Taylor.  L.  R.  25  Ch.  D. 
104;  T.inoh'uni  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Nairn. 
7  Ch.  D.  S.U;  Young  v.  Macrae,  0 
Jur.  N.  S.  322 ;  In  re  Palmer'H  Trad.-- 
mark,  24  Cli.  D.  504 ;  In  re  Leonard 
A  KIHh'  Trademark,  2(5  Ch.  1).  288; 
Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  June,  41  Fed. 
i;.p.  208;  Hrill  V.  Singer  Mfg.  Co.. 
41  Ohio  St.  127;  52  Am.  Rep.  74; 
Hiram    Holt   Co.  v.    Wadsworth,   41 


50 — Newcomer  &  Lewis  v.  Scriven 
Co.,  108  Fed.  Rep.  021,  024,  04  C.  C. 
A.   77. 

.•il — Fairbanks  v.  .Tacobus,  Fed. 
Case  No.  4008,  14  Blatehf.  337; 
Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Stanage,  G  Fed. 
Rep.  270;  Adee  v.  Peck  Hroa.  &  Co., 
30  ^-ed.  Rep.  200;  Sin;:er  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
.lune,  1()3  U.  S.  100;  41  L.  Ed.  118; 
(reverhing  Sing<T  Mfg.  Co.  v.  .June, 
41  Fed.  Rep.  208)  ;  Wileo.x  &  fJibbs 
S.  M.  Co.  V.  The  fiibliena  Frame, 
17  Fed.  Rep.  023;  Sing.-r  Mfg.  Co, 
V.  ^ent.  103  U.  S.  205;  41  L.  Ed. 
131;  (reverning  Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Rent.  41  Fid.  R.p.  214 1;  Cmtaur 
Co.  V.  Killenberger.  87  Fi-d  Rep.  725; 
Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  LarKen.  8  Hi»H. 
151;  Fed.  Cane  No.  12002.  Burton  v. 


89  WHAT    CONSTITUTES   A    VALID    'I'HADKMAIJK.  [§  45 

Of  course  the  name  of  a  patented  article  diuiiit^  tlie  life  of 
the  patent  must  be  good  as  a  trademark,  to  l>e  protected 
as  such.  A  patentee  can  not  "give  to  liis  machine  a  word  that 
is  descriptive  only,  and  thereby  acfpiire  a  monopoly  in  the  use 
of  that  word.""'-^ 

in  the  leading  case  upon  this  subject,  Mr.  Justice  White, 
speakinp:  for  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  explained  the 
reason  of  the  rule  as  follows:  "It  is  self-evident  that  on  the 
exj)ii-a1iori  of  a  palciit  the  mon()])oly  created  by  it  ceases  to 
exist,  and  the  i-i<,'lit  to  make  the  tiling  formerly  covered  by 
the  patent  becomes  public  proi)erty.  It  is  upon  this  condition 
that  the  patent  is  granted.  It  follows,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
that  on  the  termination  of  the  patent  there  ])asses  to  the  ])ublic 
the  right  to  make  the  machine  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  con- 
structed during  the  |)atent.  AVe  may  therefore  dismiss  with- 
out further  commeiit  the  complaint,  as  to  the  form  in  Avhich 
the  defendant  made  his  machines.  It  ecpially  follows  from  the 
cessation  of  the  monopoly  and  the  falling  of  the  patented  de- 
vice into  the  domain  of  things  })ublic,  that  along  Avith  the  pub- 
lic ownership  of  the  device  there  must  also  necessarily  pass 
to  the  public  the  generic  designation  of  the  thing  which  has 
arisen  during  the  monopoly,  in  conseqiience  of  the  designa- 
tion having  been  acquiesced  in  by  the  owner,  either  tacitly, 
by  accepting  the  benefits  of  the  monopoly,  or  expressly,  by  his 
having   so   coiniected    the   name    with    the   machine   as   to   lend 

Fed.  Rep.  34;  Coats  v.  Merrick  C.  A.  127 :  Centaur  Co.  v.  Marshall. 
Thread  Co..  36  Fed.  Rep.  324;  Cen-  !)7  Fed.  Rep.  78.1;  38  C.  C.  A.  413, 
taur  Co.  V.  Heinsfurter,  84  Fed.  affirming.  Centaur  Co.  v.  Marshall. 
Rep.  9.55;  28  C.  C.  A.  581;  Loril-  1)2  Fed.  Rep.  605;  Warren  Feather- 
lard  V.  Pride,  28  Fed.  Rep.  434;  bone  Co.  v.  American  Featherbone 
Gaily  V.  Colt's  Patent  Fire  Arms  Co.,  72  C.  C.  A.  571;  Ml  Fed.  Rep. 
Mfg.  Co.,  30  Fed.  Rep.  118;  Dover  513;  B.  B.  Hill  Co.  v.  Sawver-Bosa 
Stampin-:  Co.  v.  Fellows,  163  Mf;:.  Co.,  112  Fed.  Rep.  144;  Whann 
Mass.  101;  47  Am.  St.  Rep.  448;  v.  Whann.  116  La.  600.  41  So.  Rep. 
Centaur  Co.  v.  Robinson.  01  Fed.  38;  Rlc<'-Stix  Dry  Ooods  Co.  v. 
Rep.  880;  Centaur  Co.  v.  Xeathery,  Scriven  Co..  165  Fed.  Rep.  630,  01 
01  Fed.  Rep.  801;  34  C.  C.  A.  118,  C.  C.  A.  475;  Hujrhes  v.  Alfred 
followed  in  Centaur  Co.  v.  Rein-  H.  Smith  Co..  205  Fed.  Rep.  311. 
ecke,  34  C.  C.  A.  684,  01  Fed.  Rep.  52— Willard,  J.,  in  Keeper  Refrip- 
1001;  Centaur  Co.  v.  Hufihes  Bros.  erator  Co.  v.  Wliite  Enamel  Refrip- 
Mfg.  Co.,  91  Fed.  Rep.  901;    34  C.  erator  Co.,  178  Fed.  Rep.   567. 


§  45]  HOPKINS   O.V   TRADEMAKKS.  00 

countenance  to  tlic  resultiiip  dedication.  To  sny  otherwise 
would  be  to  hold  that,  althoii^'h  tlic  jiiihlic  hud  ucquil'ed  the 
dovifo  held  hy  tlic  palent.  yet  the  owner  dl"  tlie  patent  or  the 
niainifai-tiirer  of  the  j)atentetl  thing  had  retained  the  desig- 
nated name  which  was  essentially  necessary  to  vest  the  public 
with  the  full  enjoyment  of  that  which  has  become  theirs  by 
the  disai)j)carance  of  the  monoixily.  In  other  words,  that  the 
patentee  or  mainifactunr  could  take  the  benefit  and  advan- 
tage of  the  patent  upon  the  condition  that  at  its  termination 
the  monoixtly  should  cease,  and  yet  when  the  end  was  reached 
disregard  the  public  dedication  and  j)raetieally  perpetuate 
indefinitely  an  exclusive  right. 

"The  public  having  the  right  on  the  exjuration  of  the  pat- 
ent to  make  the  patented  article  and  to  use  its  generic  name, 
to  restrict  this  use,  either  by  preventing  its  being  placed  upon 
the  articles  when  manufactured,  or  by  using  it  in  advertise- 
ments or  circulars,  would  be  to  admit  the  right  and  at  the 
same  time  destroy  it.  It  follows,  then,  that  the  right  to  use 
the  name  in  every  form  passes  to  the  public  with  the  dedica- 
tion resulting  from  the  expiration  of  the  patent. 

"\or  is  this  rif?ht  governed  by  different  principles  where 
the  name,  which  has  become  generic,  instead  of  being  an  ar- 
bitrary one.  is  the  surname  of  the  patentee  or  original  maniir 
faeturer. "  "^ 

There  appear.^  to  be  an  exception  to  this  general  rule  where 
the  use  of  the  name  antedates  the  existence  of  the  patent, •'•* 
particnlai-ly  where  it  further  appears  that  the  name  and  not 
the  patent  gave  its  value  to  the  article.'"'^ 

In  accordance  with  the  jjeneral  rule,  the  Patent  Office  has 
declined  to  register  a  ^ti-ademark  which  is  the  name  of  a  pat- 
ente»l  article,'"'  even  in  association  \\itli  an  arbifrary  symbol ;  "^^ 

.').3 — Singer  Mfpr.  Co.  v.  .Tnin-  Mf^'.  iinjmti-iitrd        clcnunt."          Buffalo 

Co..    Ifi.T   U.   S.    ion,    IR.'):    41    L.    V.<\.  Sprciiilty  ("o.  v.  Van  d.-.-f.  227  Fod. 

118.   12 J.                                    ^  R'p.    .*«!M     (C.   C.  A.   7),   142  C.   C. 

.'»4 — AvpTiariiifl    v.     Korrn-ly,     1M9  A.  87. 

WiB.  247,  121  N.  W.  Rt-p.  33(1.  m—Fx  parte  Velvril  Co.,  Ltd.,  84 

fi.'V— Bntrlioll.r  V.  Tlic.niKon.  3.'")  C.  Off.   C.a/..  807. 

('.    A.    5.32.   03    Fc-d.    H<-p.    «nn,    MCy.  f)?— Wj?  pnWr  Iloloplianr  CIuhh  Co, 

TliuH    tin*    nilf    do«H    not    apply    to  100  Off.  fJaz.  4.')n;  A't />flr^    Kiirnum 

•'tln!  pre-exiHtin^'  tradftiumc  of  one  &   Co.,  18  Off.  Gaz.   412. 


91  WHAT    CONSTITUTES   A    VAMI)    'IK  \l)i:.\l  \I<K.  [§4^ 

a  repif?tration  as  a  trademark  of  tlic  name  under  whicli  a  citpy- 
rightod  publication  was  known  and  sold,  after  the  expiration 
of  the  copyright,  is  void/"* 

It  is  by  no  means  clear  what  trademarks  applied  to  pat- 
ented articles,  other  than  mere  names  or  words  descriptive 
of  the  thing  patented,  will  l)econie  imhlici  juris  upon  the  expira- 
tion of  the  patent.  Thus  the  8u])reme  Court  of  Massachusetts 
has  held  that  where  a  special  word,  device  or  symbol  is  added 
to  the  general  descriptive  name  of  the  article  of  the  patent, 
it  is  i)ossible  that  the  trademark  right  may  exist  in  the  com- 
bination of  the  word  and  the  device  or  symbol,  notwithstand- 
ing the  expiration  of  the  patent/'** 

In  this  connection,  Lindley,  L.  J,,  says:  "I  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  a  manufacturer  of  a  patented  article  can  not  have 
a  trademark  not  descriptive  of  the  patented  article,  so  as  to 
be  entitled  to  the  exclusive  use  of  that  mark  after  the  patent 
has  expired,  for  instance,  if  he  impressed  upon  the  patented 
articles  a  griffin  or  some  other  device ;  but,  if  his  only  trade- 
mark is  a  word  or  set  of  words  descriptive  of  the  patented 
article  of  which  he  is  the  only  maker,  it  appears  to  me  to  be 
impossible  for  him  ever  to  make  out,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that 
this  mark  denotes  hira  as  the  maker,  as  distinguished  from 
other  makers."  "'* 

In  every  case  of  the  kind  under  consideration,  however, 
others  will  be  enjoined  from  using  the  mark  in  such  a  way  as 
to  deceive  the  public  into  the  false  belief  that  they  are  getting 
the  goods  of  the  original  owmer  of  the  mark/'^ 

Thus  in  the  leading  case,  the  court  found  that  the  Singer 
Sewing  IMachine  sold  by  the  defendant  after  the  expiration 
of  the  Singer  patent,  embodied  features  not  a  part  of  the  pat- 
ented article,  and  Avhich  had  been  used  by  the  complainant 
to  indicate  itself  as  the  manufacturer  of  the  machine ;  and 
Mr,  Justice  White  in  reversing  and  remanding  the  ease  directed 
a  decree  of  injunction  in  favor  of  the  complainant,  "perpet- 

58 — Merriam     Co.     v.     Syndicate  fiO — In  re  Palmer's  Trademark,  L. 

Pull.    Co.,    2.'?7    r.    R.    618.    (522;    59  R.   24  Ch.    D.  504-521. 

L.  Ed.  1148.  61— Rinper    :^rf!?.    Co.    v.    Charle- 

.59— Dover   Stampinp  Co.  v.    Fel-  hois,    16    Rap.   .Tud.   Q.    C.    S.    167: 

lows,    163   Mass.    191,   47    Am.    St.  Centaur  Co.  v.  Link,  62  N.  J.  Eq. 

Rep.    448.  147,  49  Atl.  Rep.  828. 


§4.')]  HOPKINS    ON    TKADK.M  \HK<.  02 

uuUy  enjoining  the  ilciomlant.  its  a^^t'iits.  servants,  and  repre- 
sentatives, first,  from  nsinj;  tlie  word  'iSinper'  or  any  etiuiva- 
lent  tliereto.  in  advert isenwnts  in  relation  to  sewing?  luaehincs, 
withont  elearly  and  nnniistakably  statinj^  in  all  said  adver- 
tisements that  the  niaeliines  are  made  by  tlie  defendant,  as 
distinfjnished  from  the  se\vin{^  nuiehines  nuide  by  the  JSinjxer 
Mannfaetnrinj;  C'omjiany,  seeond,  also  perpetnally  enjoininfj: 
the  defendant  from  markinjx  upon  sewing  maehines  or  upon 
any  ])late  or  deviee  eonneeted  therewith  or  attaehed  thereto 
the  word  'Singer.'  or  words  or  letters  equivalent  thereto,  with- 
out elearly  and  unmistakably  speeifying  in  conneetion  there- 
with that  sueh  maehines  are  the  jjroduet  of  the  defendant  or 
other  mannfaeturer,  and  therefore  not  the  jiroduet  of  the 
Singer  ^lannfaeturing  Company, " '"'- 

It  is  manifest,  however,  that  to  create  this  right  in  the  public, 
two  conditions  of  facts  are  ju'crequisite ;  first,  there  must 
Iiave  l)een  a  i)atent,  second,  the  patent  must  have  expired. 

Where  the  owner  of  the  trademark  iiad  made  an  unsuccess- 
ful application  for  a  patent  upon  the  article  to  whii'h  the  trade- 
mark was  api)lied,  Bradley,  J.,  held  that  he  had  a  valid  sub- 
.sisting  right  to  the  trademark  upon  the  rejection  of  his  appli- 
cation, and  said:  "Ilis  failure  to  establish  his  patent  (which 
■would  have  covered  all  his  rights)  ought  not  to  iireclude  him 
from  falling  back  on  his  right  to  the  trademark. "  "^ 

Tn  a  case  where  the  jiatent  had  not  ex|)iro(l.  Judge  Vann, 
speaking  for  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  New  York,  said:  "As- 
snming  that  upon  the  expiration  of  the  jiatent  any  one  may  use 
the  name,  until  that  time  arrives,  why  should  the  itiventor  be 
deprived  of  a  right  which,  without  question,  would  be  his  if 
he  had  not  taken  out  a  patent  for  his  invention."  "■• 

Where  a  name  indicating  a  patented  article  exists,  an  ex- 
••lusive  licensee  for  the  sale  of  the  patented  articles  muler  a 
license  to  which  the  defendant  is  not  a  party  can  not  enjoin 
liim  from  conducting  an  unfair  competition  by  means  of  the 
name;  the  licensor  not  being  a  jnirty  to  the  action,  and  no 

02— Rinfc'or  Mfj;.  Co.  v.  B.nt,   lO.'J  fit— Waterman    v.    Shipnian,    130 

U.  S.  ino.  204,  41  L.  Kd.   IIR,  131.       X.   Y.   .301,  r.'vorain^  b.  c.   8  N.  Y. 

03 — SawviT  V.  Kellogg,  7  Fod.  Supp.  814.  To  tlic  Hnmi-  ofToct  boo 
Rop.    720,   723.  f;.'i.rp-    Fn.st    (<».    v.    E.    R.    Efltos 

A  SonH,   l.".i5   F..J.    U.'p.  077. 


93  WHAT    CONSTITUTES    A    VAMI)    TKADK.MAICK.  [§^6 

infringement  of  the  i)atcnt  being  cliargod,  and  llm  defendant 
having  the  right  to  deal  in  the  articles  known  l»y  tin-  iianic"'' 
If  tlic  |)at('nt  is  reissut'd  tlie  tradcniark  will  be  valid  chii-ing 
tlie  life  of  tiie  reissued  ])atent.''" 

Names  of  copyrighted  books. — 'i'lu-  i)i-()l('ction  of  sneli  names, 
before  or  after  the  oxi>iration  of  the  eopyi-i;,rht,  is  purely  a 
matter  of  the  application  of  the  rules  of  unfair  eompetition."^ 
The  right  to  the  use  of  the  name  |)asses  to  the  public  upon  the 
expiration  of  tiic  eo|)yri^dit,  but  injunctive  relief  will  be 
granted  against  tlie  passing  off  of  a  reprint  as  and  for  the  pro- 
duction of  the  original   publishers  under  the  copyright."*' 

§46.  Generic  term,  defined. — By  "generic  term"  (Latin, 
genus,  gener;  French,  genre)  is  meant  a  term  which  may  not 
be  ai)propriated  as  a  trademark  because  it  is  too  general  and 
comprehonsivc  in  its  meaning  to  become  the  monopoly  of  an 
individual  in  application  to  merchandise.  The  word  in  its 
proper  signification  includes  the  use  of  geographical  names, 
proper  names,  and  descriptive  words,  used  in  commerce.  It 
is  a  matter  of  regret  tliat  the  courts  have  not  defined  these 
several  phrases  in  their  i-elations  to  eacli  other,  but  such  is  the 
fact.  The  correctness  of  the  author's  definition  is  clearly  es- 
tablished by  analysis  of  the  three  classes  of  words  and  the 
reasons  -why  they  are  not  sustained  as  trademarks.  We  will 
examine  them  in  their  order. 

(a)  Geographical  names. — Mr.  Jnstice  Strong  has  said:  "It 
must  be  considered  as  a  sound  doctrine  that  no  one  can  apply 
the  name  of  a  district  or  country  to  a  well-known  article  of 
commerce,  and  obtain  thereby  such  an  exclusive  right  to  the 
application  as  to  prevent  others  inhabiting  the  district,  or  deal- 

65— Johnson      v.      Seaman,      lOS  A.   '42:1;      10     L.      "R.      A.      (X.R.) 

Fed.  Rep.  051,  48  C.  C.  A.  158:   re-  540;      E.     B.      Estes     &      Sons     v. 

vorsin;:     Seaman    v.    Johnson,    106  CJeorpe    Frost    Co.,    176    Fed.    Rep. 

Fed.  Rep.   915.  .-i.-JS;    100    C.    C.   A.    258;    G.    &    C. 

66 — Hiram    Holt    Co.     v.     Wads-  Merriam   Co.    v.    Oyilvie,    170    Fed. 

Avorth,  41   Fed.   Rep.    34.  Rep.    107;    05    C.   C.    A.    42.3;    0.    & 

67— See  post,  §  8."..  C.    Merriam    Co.    v.    Saal field,    100 

68- Ogilvie  v.    G.   &    C.   Merriam  Fed.   Rep.   027;    117    C.   C.  A.   245; 

Co.,    140    Fed.    Rep.    858;    modified  same    v.    Syndicate    Pub.    Co.,    307 

in  G.  &  C.  ISIerriam  Co.  v.  Ogilvie,  Fed.    Rep.   515;    125  C.    C.   A.    177; 

159     Fed.     Rep.     638;      95     C.     C.  237  U.  S.  618;  59  L.  Ed.  1148. 


§  46]  HOPKINS   ON'    TR.VDRMARKS.  94 

inp  in  similar  articles  comiii^r  I'roiu  tlif  district,  from  truth- 
fully usiuj;  the  same  dcsi^jnatiou.'"  ""  In  our  further  exaniiii 
ation  of  the  use  of  (jeoj^raphieal  names  in  trade,  we  will  liiul 
that  they  are  never  properly  sustained  as  teehnieal  trademarks 
except  where  they  are  used  hy  one  who  is  the  sole  owner  of 
the  entire  locality  to  which  the  name  is  applied.  In  such  a 
case  the  geograjthical  name  has  ceased  to  be  generic,  because 
one  person  has  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  of  trade  or  manu- 
facture in  the  locality.  Thus  the  author  reasons  that  geo- 
graphical names  are  f)rdiiuirily  generic,  and  whenever  they  are 
held  not  to  be  valid  trademarks  it  is  because  they  are  generic. 

Of  course  the  general  rule  does  not  ajiply  to  words  which 
in  their  primary  and  ordinary  signiticance  are  not  geograjih- 
ical.  So  it  has  been  held  that  the  word  "Keystone'"  is  a  valid 
technical  trademark  although  used  as  an  appellation  for  the 
state  of  Pernsylvania."" 

(h)  Proper  names. — The  eminent  English  barrister,  Mr.  Se- 
bastian, has  said  in  his  work  on  trademarks  that  "a  name  is 
in  its  very  nature  generic,  and  is  properly  applied  to  designate, 
not  one  individual  in  the  world,  but,  it  may  be,  many  thou- 
sands, to  all  of  whom  it  is  equally  appropriate."'' 

(r)  Dcscripfirr  words  have  always  been  understood  to  come 
within  the  category  of  generic  terms;  indeed.  Mr.  Browne  in 
his  treatise  npon  the  subject  has  defined  "generic  names"  to 
be  "names  merely  descriptive  of  an  arti<'le  of  trade,  of  its 
qualities,  ingredients  or  characteristics. "  '-  The  United  States 
Supreme  Court  has  held  that  there  can  be  no  technical  trade- 
mark right  in  words  used  to  denote  class,  grade,  style,  quality, 
ingredients    or    characteristics."'' 

It  is  apparent,  therefore,  that  the  definition  of  generic  terms 
which  we  have  adopted  is  scientifically  exact,  including  noth- 

0!) — Dchiwurr     &     HikIhoii     (  uriul  71 — Scluistian       on       'riadcniarks 

Co.   V.   Clark,    1.3  Wall.    (SO  U.    S. )  (4th    cd.),   p.   2:<. 

311327;    20    L.    Ed.    '>81.      Followed  72 — Rrowiic    on     Iiii.l. marks     (2d 

in  Gfiiftuwe  Salt  Co.  v,   Hurnap,  07  «'d.),   §  l.'{4. 

F<-d.  Rep.  .'>34;   aflirnud  in  f;«'n«-8s<'«'  73— Canal  Co.  v.  Clark,   13  Wall. 

Salt  Co.  V.  Ilurnap,  20  C.  C.  A.  27;  311-322;    20   I..    Kd.    .'iSl;    Lawn-nc 

73   F«-d.   Rc'p.   818.  MfK-  Co.  v.  Tennessee  Mfg.  Co.,  138 

70— Buzl.y   V.   Davirt,  80  C.  C.   A.  U.    S.  .'■)37-r)48;   34   L.   Ed.  997. 
103;   \r,0  Fed.  Kep.  275,  277. 


95  WHAT    CONSTITIJTKS   A    VVt-ll)    TKADK.M  AlCK.  [§•!♦) 

ing  more  nor  loss  than  tho  woi-ds  wliifli  aro  not  subject  to  ex- 
clusive appropriation  as  trademark,  because  they  can  not  be 
so  approi)riated  "to  the  advancement  of  the  business  interests 
of  any  particular  individual,  firm  or  comi)any.  The  inability 
to  malce  such  appropriation  of  them  arises  out  of  the  circum- 
stance that,  on  account  of  their  general  or  poj)ular  use,  every 
individual  in  tlie  community  has  an  equal  ri<,'ht  to  use  them, 
and  that  i-ight  is  in  all  cases  paramount  to  the  ri{,'hts  and 
interests   of  any   jjcrsoii.""* 

A  geiuM-ic  or  descriptive  word  can  not  be  made  a  valid  trade- 
mark by  misspelling  it  (as,  for  example,  "Kid  Nee  Kure,"  ap- 
plied to  a  medicine),"^  or  by  printing  it  in  letters  from  the 
alphabet  of  a  f()rei<rn  language.^*' 

Thus  the  word  "Roaehsault,"  applied  to  a  preparation  for 
destroying  roaches,  has  been  held  invalid  as  a  trademark.^" 

It  imist  not  be  inferred,  liOAvever,  that  words  in  common  use 
can  not  be  appropriated  as  trademarks.  They  certainly  can 
be  so  ajiprojiriated  if  used  in  a  new  and  distinctive  sense.  If 
any  other  rule  obtained,  no  Avords  could  be  used  as  trademarks 
unless  the  person  adopting  them  Avas  their  original  and  first 
inventor.  There  is  no  such  legal  requirement  either  as  to  words 
or  devices."'*  "Words  in  common  use  may  be  adopted,  if  at 
the  time  of  adoption  they  w-ere  not  used  to  designate  the  same 
or  similar  articles  of  production.""" 

•  (d)  Suggrslivr  worch. — It  is  obvious  that  the  article  to  which 
the  mark  is  applied  must  be  considered  in  this  connection.  As 
Judge  Wallace  has  put  it,  "whether  a  word  claimed  as  a  trade- 
mark is  available  because  it  is  a  fanciful  or  arbitrary  name, 
or  whether  it  is  obnoxious  to  the  objection  of  being  descriptive, 
must  depend  upon  the  circum.stanees  of  each  ease.  The  word 
which  would  be  fanciful  or  arbitrary  when  applied  to  one  ar- 

74 — Daniels.    .T.,    in    Xcw-man    v.  Similarly    "Dridip,"    a    misspdlincr 

Alvord.  40   Barb.   588;   Cox,   404.  of  "Dry  dip,"  is  not  a  valid  trado- 

7^ — Ex  parte  Hondorson,   8.")  OfT.  mark  for  lico  and  vermin  destroyer. 

Oaz.  453.  Unjrlos-nofrfrette  ^\Uj.  Co.  v.   Farm- 

7G—Ex    parte    Stulimer.    Sfi    Off.  ors'  Hopr  &  Cattle  Powder  Co..  2.^2 

Oaz.    181.  Fed.  Rep.   110    (C.  C.  A.  8). 

77 — Barrett      Chemieal      Co.      v.  78 — Osgood   v.    Allen.    1    Holmes, 

Stern,  170  N.  Y.  27;  08  X.  E.  Rep.  IS.t;    Fed.  Case  Xo.   10003. 

65;  reversing  76  N.  Y.  Supp.   1009.  70— Osgood  v.  Allen,  supra. 


^  4t)J  IIOl'KINS    (t.N     TH    l>i:.M  AKKS.  96 

tide  ma.v  l>o  dosoriptivo  wlion  applied  to  anntlior.  Tf  it  is  5?o 
apt  and  Ic^jitinuitoly  sitrnificant  of  some  (piality  (tl'  the  article 
to  wliii'h  it  is  soiijrlit  to  be  api)lied  that  its  exclusive  eoncession 
to  one  person  wouhl  tend  to  restrict  others  from  properly  de- 
serihiu};  their  own  siniihir  articles,  it  can  not  be  the  subject 
of  a  monopoly.  On  the  otluM-  hand,  if  it  is  merely  su}?};estive, 
or  figurative  only,  it  may  be  a  ^'ood  trademark,  notwithstand- 
ing it  is  also  indirectly  or  remotely  descri|)tive."  ^" 

Thus  the  word  "Teller"  is  a  valid  trademark  for  safes, 
though  "of  a  suggestive  character."  ^'  and  so  of  "Roof  Leak," 
for  li(iuiil  rooting  [Kiint  or  coating.^-  "One  may  make  a  trade- 
mark out  of  a  name  or  jihrase  wliieh  has  some  element  of  sug- 
gestion about  it."'^'' 

While  tlie  following  is  an  extract  from  a  judicial  argument 
delivered  by  a  court  in  a  futile  attem]>t  to  justify  its  decree 
sustaining  as  a  trademark  a  geographical  word  to  which  the 
plaintiff  had  no  color  of  exclusive  right,  it  is  still  a  lucid  ex- 
l)osition  of  the  principle  under  consideration:  "Words  and 
names  having  a  known  or  established  signification  can  not 
within  the  limits  of  such  .specification  be  exclusively  appro- 
priated to  the  advancement  of  the  business  purposes  of  any 
particular  individual,  firm  or  company.  The  inability  to  make 
such  appropriation  of  them  arises  out  of  the  circumstance  that 
on  account  of  their  general  or  popular  use  every  individual  in 
the  community  has  an  equal  right  to  use  them,  and  that  riglit 
is  ill  all  cases  jjaramount  to  the  rights  and  interests  of  any 
one  person,  firm  or  company.  "What  alike  may  be  claimed  and 
used  by  all  can  not  be  exclusively  approju-iated  to  advance  the 
interests  of  any  person.  Numerous  cases  have  been  before  the 
courts  in  wliieh  this  limitation  upon  the  use  of  words  and  names 
as  trademarks  has  been  maintained  and  established,  and  no 
good  7'eason  can  he  given  for  (juestioning  or  impeaching  their 
conclusions.  But  while  this  limitation  is  entirely  reasoimble, 
there  can  be  no  propriety  in  ext(Miding  it  beyond  the  eircum- 
fitance  upon  which  it  is  founded;  and  accordingly  any  member 

ftO_Bonnctt  v.  ^rcKinl.-v.  Or.  F.  d.  fi2— Elliott  ViirniHli  Co.  v.  RoarH, 

■R«'p.   .')0.');    13  r.  (".   A.  2.").  TJoi'linck  &   Co..  221    Kid.  Rrp.   707. 

ftl_Autf.mati<-      Rcccnlin^'      Safe  R.I— T^om-.     .T..     in     Cliiti.in  SiickH 

To.  V.   Bank.TB'   Rcj;.  Safe  Co..  221  Mf^.   C-.   x.  ll.-iull.r   Cr.ani.Ty   Co., 

Fed.  R«'i).  r,on,  .-.11.  2.11  l-Vd.   Hep.  r..-)0,  G.'.l. 


^"  WFIAT    CONS'IITIITK.S    A    V\(.ll)     IKADKMAHK.  [§4G 

of  the  community  whoso  intorosts  and  business  may  be  pro- 
moted by  doing  so,  should  be  at  liberty  to  apply  even  names 
and  words  in  common  use  to  the  i)roducts  of  his  industry,  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  indicate  their  origin  or  i)articular  manu- 
facture, where  such  application  wj-Il  not  intreiicli  upon  and  be 
in  no  way  included  in  their  use  by  tiu!  public.  By  doing  so, 
the  rights  of  no  member  of  tiie  community  can  be  in  any 
manner  infringed,  and  no  public  inconvenience  whatever  can 
be  occasioned  by  it.  The  public  will  still  be  left  at  full  liberty 
to  use  such  words  or  terms  as  tiiey  were  used  before;  while 
for  a  special  purpose  a  new  office  or  purj^ose  may  be  imposed 
upon  them. 

"In  cases  of  that  description  no  greater  inconvenience  or 
embarrassment  can  be  found  in  protecting  parties  in  the  en- 
joyment of  the  new  use  or  purpose  engrafted  upon  a  popular 
term  than  has  been  found  in  extending  that  protection  to  the 
case  of  a  Avord  created  for  the  occasion."  ^4 

(e)  Laudatory  adjectives.— The  rule  as  to  adjectives  claimed 
as  trademarks  has  thus  been  stated  in  a  recent  English  ease: 

"As  pointed  out  by  Lord  Justice  Moulton  in  the  Perfection 
Case  (26  R.  P.  C.  858),  the  quality  of  distinctiveness  may  be 
inherent  in  the  word  itself,  but  in  cases  where  this  is  not  the 
case  the  quality  may  be  acquired  by  the  mode  in  Avhich  it  has 
been  used  and  applied  in  the  market.  The  question  in  reality 
is;  what  amount  of  credence  is  to  be  given  to  evidence  tend- 
ing to  prove  that  a  particular  word  prima  facie  descriptive 
only  has  acquired  the  quality  of  distinctiveness  in  reference 
to  the  particular  goods?  It  is  impossible  to  believe  that  or- 
dinary laudatory  epithets  can  by  any  amount  of  user  acquire 
the  quality  of  distinctiveness.  On  the  other  hand,  there  may 
be  descriptive  words  so  indeterminate  in  meaning,  or  so  rare 
and  unusual  as  applied  to  the  particular  goods,  that  the  Tri- 
bunal may  without  difficulty  accept  the  statement  that  they  have 
been  so  used  as  to  denote  the  goods  of  a  particular  trader."'-"' 
While  this  decision  was  rendered  under  the  English  Trademark 
Act,  it  embodies  the  rule  under  which  adjectives  have  been  con- 

84 — Newman   v.  Alvord.  40  Barb.  S.l — \V.   X.    Sharpc,   Ltd.   v.   Solo- 

588.  mon  Bros.,  31  R.  P.  C.  441,  450. 


§47] 


lUM'KINS    ON    TRAPEMAKKii. 


OS 


dexunod  fts  tnuleumrks  in  the  illustrative  American  cases  in 
the  next  section. 

§47.  Illustrations  of  generic  terms. — In  the  followinf;  in- 
stani'cs  the  winds  aiul  marks  uK'Mtii)iit'd  have  been  held  to  be 
invalid  as  trademarks  because  peneric ;  beinp  peopraphical  or 
descriptive.  The  examples  arc  arraii^rcd  in  aljihalx'tical  order 
for  convenient  reference. 


Claimul  us  Trad^^mark. 

"A.  C.  A.," 
"Acid  Phosphate." 
"Alleoek's      Porous      Plas- 
ters," 
"Aluminum," 
"Always  Closed," 
"American." 
"American." 
"America  Strength." 
"Ammoniated  Hone  Super 

phosphate  of  Lime," 
"  An«rlo-Portupo. " 
"Angostura," 
"  Anticjuarian." 
"Api^le  and  Honey," 

86 — AmoHkcaf.'  Mfp.  Co.  v.  Trnin- 
«T,    101    U.    S.    .51;    2.'->    L.    K«l.    nit.t. 

87 — Rumfonl  Chcm.  WDrks  v. 
Muth.  .3r»  F«'d.   Rep.  .')24. 

88— /n  re  Brandroth,  L.  R.  0  Ch. 
D.  018. 

80 — Ann'rican  Washboard  Co.  v. 
Saginaw  Mfy.  Co.,  10.3  K.d.  Rep. 
28 1,   4:i  C.  C.   A.  23.3. 

no — Van  Kannel  Rcvoh  iii;;  Dour 
Co.  V.  AnnTioan  Revolviii;,'  Dnor 
Co.,  IS.'i  C.  C.  A.  4.39;  21  fl  Fed. 
Rep.  .'>82   (C.  C.  A.  7). 

ni — In  re  American  Sardine  Co., 
.3  Off.  Caz.   4!t.'>. 

02 — American  Wine  Co.  v.  Kolil 
man,  l.'iS  F<(l.  Rep.  8.30;  lint  cum 
pure    Hiiniilt'iti    Hrown    .SIhm;    Co.    v. 


Cla.ss  of  Goods. 
cloth.»« 
medicinal  preparation.*^ 

medicated  plasters.**® 

wa-shboards.**" 

revolving  doors. **" 

sardines.'" 

wine."2 

coflFee  and  spices.^^ 

fertilizer."^ 

oysters."^ 

bitters."" 

book-store."^ 

medicine."'' 

Wolf  Bros.  &  Co.,  240  U.  S.  2.')1 ; 
CO  L.  Kd.  — . 

03 — In  re  Meyer  Bros.  CotTee  &. 
Spice  Co.,  32  App.  D.  C.  277. 

04 — Allefjheny  Fertilizer  Co.  v. 
Wo*^d8ide.  1  Tlu-lies.  IIT);  Fed.  Case 
No.    200. 

05 — In  re  Saunion  &  Co.,  Sell. 
02.');   Cox,  Manual.  02."). 

no— Sie<:ert  v.  Findlater.  L.  R.  7 ; 
Cli.  D.  801 ;  Cox.  "Manual,  .^lOl ;  Sie- 
^'ert  V.  C.andolfi,  140  Fed.  Rop. 
100;  70  (".  C.  A.  142;  reverHinj; 
s.  c.   i:t!t   Krd.  Rep.  017. 

07— Chtiynski  v.  Colim.  :t'.l  Cul. 
.-.(11. 

08-  Ax  iiorff  (i.  V.  Ilciilil.in  & 
Bro.,  87  Oir.  (Jaz.   170. 


99 


WHAT    CONaXITUTES    A    VAI.ID    TK AKK.M  AUK. 
( 'lass  of  (iou'ls. 


[§47 


Claimed  as  Trademark. 

"A  Red  or  Other  Distinc- 
tively Colored  Streak 
Ai)j)Iied  To  or  Woven  In 
u  Wire  Rope," 

"Asbestos," 

"Asbestos," 

"Astral," 

"Balm  of  Thousand 
Flowers," 

"Barber's  Model," 

"Bazaar," 

"Better  Than  Mother's," 

"Birdsboro  Tnip  Rock," 

"Black  Caps," 

"Black  Capsules," 

"Black  Package," 

"Bohemian," 

"Book," 

"Borax," 

"Braided  Fixed  Stars," 

no — A.  Lcsclxn  &  Sons  Rope  Co. 
V.  Brodcrick  &  Bascom  Rope  Co., 
i;54  Fed.  Rep.  571;  67  C.  C.  A.  418. 

1 — Johnson  v.  Brandau,  32  App. 
D.  C.  348. 

2 — Asbestos  &  Asbetic  Co.  v. 
Wm.  Sclater  Co.,  18  Rap.  Jud. 
Que.  C.  S.  3fi0. 

3— Pratt's  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Astral  Re- 
fining Co.,  27   Fed.   Rep.  492-494. 

4 — Fetridge  v.  Wells,  Cox,  Am. 
Tr.   Cas.    180. 

5 — Ex  parte  Knisius  Bros.,  82 
Off.  Oaz.   1087. 

f>— McCall  V.  Theal.  28  Grant 
(Up.    Can.)    Ch.   48. 

7 — Ex  parte  Ervin  A.  Rice  Co., 
83  Off.  Gaz.  1207. 


wire  rope.®® 
shoes.  ^ 

wall  plastcr.2 
oil.3 

cosmetic* 
razors.'' 

patterns  for  clothing.^' 
mince  meat.' 
stone.^ 
medicine." 

transparent     capsules     con- 
taining   dark   medicine.'" 
tea." 
beer. '  2 

the  device  of  a  book,  used 

by  a  publisher. '3 
soap.' ' 
cigar  lights.'^ 

8 — Tolin  T.  Dyer  Co.  v.  Schuyl- 
kill Stone  Co.,   185  Fed.   Rep.   557. 

9 — In  re  Safety  Remedy  Co.,  35 
App.  D.  C.  353. 

>10 — Planten    v.    Canton    Pharmacy 
Co.,  .•].•?  App.  D.  C.  2r.8. 

11— Fischer  v.  Blank,  138  X.  Y. 
244. 

12 — American  Brewing  Co.  v. 
Bienvilh'  Brewery,  153  Fed.  Rep. 
61.5. 

13 — Merriam  v.  Famous  Shoe  &, 
Clothing  Co.,  47  Fed.  Rep.  411. 

14 — Dreydoppel  v.  Young,  14 
IMiila.  226;  Am.  Tr.  Case  No.  70. 
Prive  &  Steuart,  p.  423. 

15— /ji  re  Palmer,  L.  R.  24;  Cli. 
D.  ,504. 


Ul 


liOl'KINS    ON    TK.VDKM.VKKS. 


100 


Claimed  as  Tradvmurk. 
"Hrassiore," 

"Brilliant," 
**Cachemire  Milano.  " 
"California  Synij)  of  Figs," 
"C.  A.  P.," 

"Car  Advertising  Co.," 
"(^astorin."" 

"Celebrated    ytumach    Bit- 
ters," 
"Cellular," 

"Centennial," 
"Cherry  Peetoral," 
"Chill  Stop," 
"Chlorodyne, " 

Ki — C'liai*.  K.  DeBevoise  Co.  v.  H. 
&  \V.  Co.,  GO  Atl.   lU'p.  407. 

17 — SaiHTs  Milling  Co.  v.  Kch- 
lor  Flour  Mills  Co.,  39  App.  D.  C. 
MS. 

18— /n  re  Warburg.  13  Off.Gaz.44. 

11» — Wordrn  &  Co.  v.  California 
Fig  Syrup  Co.,  187  U.  S.  515; 
47  L.  Ed.  282;  rt-viTsing  Wor- 
drn V.  California  Fig  Syrup 
(  ().,  102  F»'d.  Krp.  334;  42 
C.  C.  A.  383;  California  Fig  Syrup 
Co.  V.  Tutnam,  60  F»'d.  Rt'p.  750; 
anirmc<l,  California  Fig  Syrup  Co. 
V.  Putnam,  1(1  C.  C.  A.  370;  «1!»  F.d. 
K«'p.  740;  California  Fig  Syrup  Co. 
V.  St<-arn8,  07  Fed.  Ucp.  1008;  h.  c. 
on  appral,  73  Fi-d.  Hi-p.  812;  In  rr 
California  F'ig  Syrup  Co.,  L.  K.  40 
Ch.  I).  620.  Contra,  wh*  California 
Fig  Synip  Co.  v.  Improved  Fig 
Syrup  Co.,  51  F«d.  I{<p.  200 .  Im- 
proved Fig  Synip  Co.  v.  California 
Fig  Syrup  Co..  4  C.  C.  A.  2(J4 ;  54 
F«*d.  I{«p.  175;  California  Fig 
Syrup  Co.  v.  Wordt-n.  80  Ffil.  Hep. 
212;    H.  c.  05  Fi'd.  R.p.   132. 


f7(/.s-.s-  of  Gooih. 

coiiiMiied   cor-set   cover  and 

bust  su|i|)(»rti'r."' 
flour.'' 
fabric.'"' 

la.xat ivc  ni(>(liciiie.'" 
i-ream  acid  plio.sphate,^^ 
corporate  name.^^ 
medicine. -- 

bitters.2'5 

cloth    of   cellular   construe- 

tion.2^ 
medals.^'^ 
medicine.-" 
medicine.-' 
medicinal  compound.^® 

20 — Provid«'nt  Clicmical  Works 
V.  Canada  Clu-mical  Mfg.  Co.,  2 
Ont.   Law.   Ki'p.    IS2. 

21 — Car  Advertising  Co.  v.  New 
York  City  Car  Advertising  Co.,  107 
N.  Y.  S.  547;   57  Misc.  Rep.  105. 

22 — Centaur  Co.  v.  Robinson,  91 
Fed.  Rep.  880;  C.-ntuur  Co.  v. 
Neathery,  34  C.  C.  A.  118;  91  Fed. 
Rep.  S!tl;  Centaur  Co.  v.  Hughes 
Bros.  .Mfg.  Co..  34  C.  C.  A.  127;  91 
Fed.  Rep.  901;  Centaur  Co.  v.  Link, 
62  N.  J.  Kq.   147 ;  49  Atl.  Rep.  828. 

2.3— Ilostetter  v.  Adams,  20 
Hlatehf.  320;    1(>   I'.d.  K.-p.  838. 

24— Cellular  Clotliing  Co.  v. 
Maxton,    L.    R.    (IS'i'.h     A.    C.    .326. 

2.">— Hartill  v.  Niiuy.  Fed.  Case 
No.   01. ".8. 

20— Ay.r  v.    Husiiton.  7    Daly,  9. 

27 — Kx  parte  Hanee  Bros.  & 
Wliit<s  S7  OIL  Caz.  098. 

28 — Browne  v.  Freeman  (li,  12 
W.  R.  .30.-.;  Sell.  2.30;  Co.\.  Manual. 
230;  Browne  v.  Freeman  (2),  Seb. 
424:   Cux,   Maiiuiil.  424. 


101 


WHAT    CONSTITUTES    A    VAI.II)    TKADIOMAKK. 


[§47 


Claimed  a,<i  Trademark, 
"(circular  Ivooin,'* 

"Club  IIou.so," 
"Coinputiiifj:. " 
"Continental," 


**Coppnlia{r(Mi," 
"Coii^'h    KeiiKHly," 
"Crack  Proof," 
"Cramp  Cure," 
"Cream," 
"Cream," 
"Cresylic," 
"Croup  Tincture," 
"Crystal," 
"Crystallized  Egg," 

"Cylinder," 
"Desiccated," 
"Druggists'  Sundries," 

29 — In  re  American  Circular 
Loom  Co.,  28  App.  D.  C.  450. 

30— Corwin   v.   Daly,   7    Bos.   222. 

31 — Computinfj  Scalo  Co.  v. 
Standard  Computing;  Scale  Co.,  5.5 
C.  C.  A.  450,   118   Fed.   Rep.  905. 

32 — Continental  Ins.  Co.  v.  Con- 
tinental Fire  Ass'n,  96  Fed.  Rep. 
846;  affirmed,  41  C.  C.  A.  326;  101 
Fed.  Rep.  255. 

33 — Weyman  v.  Soderberg,  108 
Fed.   Rep.   0.3. 

34 — CJilman  v.  Ilunnewell.  122 
Mass.   139;   Cox,  Manual,  540. 

35 — In  re  Goodyear  Rubber  Co., 
11  Off.  Gaz.   1062. 

36 — L.  H.  Harris  Drug  Co.  v. 
Stucky,  46  Fed.   Rep.   624. 


CUlss  of  Goods. 

coverings  for  electrical  con- 
ductors.^" 

gin.3" 

scales.^' 

sought  to  be  protected  from 
infrin<rement  as  the  name 
of  a  fire  insurance  corpor- 
ation."'- 

snuff.  "'^ 

cough  medicine.-'* 

rubber."'^ 

medicine.-""' 

rolled  oat8.37 

yeast.'"'^ 

ointment.^* 

medicine.'*" 

beer.^i 

for  a  preparation  of  egg- 
meat.-*2 

glass  products.*^ 

codfish.-** 

cigars.*^ 

37 — All)ers  Bros.  Milling  Co.  v. 
Acme  Mills  Co.,   170  Fed.  Rep.  989. 

38— Gillett  V.  Lumsden,  4  Ont. 
Law  Rep.  300. 

39 — Cariiolic  Soap  Co.  v.  Thomp- 
son, 25   Fed.   Rep.   025. 

40— /n  re  Roach,  10  Off.  Gaz. 
333. 

41 — In  re  New  South  Brewery  & 
Ice  Co.,  32  App.  D.  C.  591. 

42 — Lamont  v.  Lecdy,  88  Fed. 
Rep.  72. 

4.3 — Stokes  v.  Landgraff,  17 
Barb.   608;    Cox,  Am.   Tr.  Cas.   137. 

44 — Town  V.  Stetson,  3  Daly,  53; 
Cox,  Am.  Tr.  Caa.  514. 

45 — Ex  parte  Cohn  (2).  10  Off. 
Gaz.  680. 


§47] 


HOPKINS   ON    TIC  VPKM  ARKS. 


102 


Claiincil  as  Tra<lnnark. 
"Dry  Monopole, " 
"  Durham," 
"  Kdelwoiss-Mnltiiio," 

"  Elastic  Seam,  " 

"EI(H'trii'  Liinii).** 

"Electro." 

"Eljrin," 

"  Emolliorum," 

"Encyclopedia  Brittan- 

iiica," 
"Evaporated,'' 
"Everpreen," 

"Ever  Ready," 

"Extract    of    Night-Bloom- 

inp  Tereus, " 
"Faber," 

"Fairhank's  Patent," 
' '  Famous, ' ' 

4ft— Richards  v.  Biitclicr.  L.  "R. 
(1891)    2  Ch.  522. 

47— Blackw.ll  v.  Writrlit,  73  N. 
C.  310. 

48— PcUt  Rchocnhof.n  Brew.  Co. 
V.    Maltin.-  Co..   30   App.    D.  C.  340. 

4!»— /n  re  l)ol«-  BroH.,  12  OfF.  Gaz. 
fl39. 

FA) — Sorivcii  v.  NOrtli,  124  Fed. 
Rc'p.    894.    89fi. 

.'il — McCIn-w  Coal  Co.  v.  Mcncv 
f.-.-,  144  .'-:.  U.  H.-p.  HiiM;  1(12  Mo. 
App.   209. 

.'>2 — Eli'ctro  St4'<'l  Co.  v.  Lindiii- 
Iktk   St«'<'l  Co.,   43    App.    I).    C.    270. 

r>.3 — IlIinoJH  \Vat<'li  Caw  Co.  v. 
KIj;in  Nat.  Watch  Co.,  94  Fi-d.  H.-p. 
<J07 ;  n'VtTHing  k.  c.  89  Fed.  Brp. 
487. 


CliLss  of  (loods. 
champapne.^" 
tobacco,^" 
beer."* 
macaroni.'" 
drawers.'"' 
coal.''** 
stecl.-'- 
watches.'"'' 

waterproof      dres.sinfr      for 
leather."'' 

title    of    an    encyclopedia. •'''•'' 
food  products."'' 
candied     fruits    and     vege- 
tables."'' 
coffee  mills.'^* 

l)erfume.'''^ 
pencils.''" 
scales.*"'* 
stoves."2 

'A— In  re  Talbot.  8  R.  P.  C.  149. 

r>r)— Black  V.  Ehrioh,  44  Fed. 
Rep.  793. 

.'>6— /m  re  Ald.-n.  If)  Off.  Gaz.  389. 

.')7 — Scars  &  Nichols  Co.  v.  Brake- 
Icy.  3S  Apj).   1).   C.    r)30. 

r)S — Ex  piirtr  Hroii,><on  Co.,  87 
Oir.   (.az.    1782. 

.")!»— IMialoii  V.  Wri-lit.  ;"  Phila. 
4»i4;    Cox,    Manual,   232. 

()(» — von  Fahcr-Caatcll  v.  Faber, 
i:!!i  Fed.  l{.-p.  2.')7  (C.  C.  A.  2),  re- 
vcfHin;;  von  Faber  v.  Faber,  124 
Fed.    Hep.    (iO.T 

111  —  Fairlianks  v.  Jacobus.  14 
lUatclif.    337,    Fed.    Case    No.    4(108. 

r>2 — /■/'x  parte  Brand  Stove  Co., 
<i2  Off.  Gaz.  r)88. 


103 


WHAT    CONSTITUTES    A    VALID   TRADEMARK. 


[§47 


Claimed  as  Trade itiurlc. 
P^'avorite, ' ' 
■ '  Ferro-phosphonited  Elixir 

of  Calisaya  Bark," 
' 'Fire-proof," 
'Flare  Front," 
'Flinch," 

'French," 

'French  Tissue," 

'Fruit," 

'Galen," 

'Getwell," 

'Gibraltar," 

'Glendon," 

'Globe," 

'Golden," 

'Gold  Label," 

'Gold  Medal," 

'Goodyear  Rubber  Co.," 


63— Cook  &  Cobb  Co.  v.  Miller, 
65  N.  Y.  Supp.  730. 

64 — Caswell  v.  Davis,  58  X.  Y. 
223;    17  Am.  Rep.   233. 

65 — Scott  V.  Standard  Oil  Co., 
106  Ala.  475;  31  L.  R.  A.  374;  19 
So.  Rep.  71. 

66 — Rushmore  v.  ^lanhattan 
Screw  &  Stamping  Works,  90  C.  C. 
A.  299;  19  L.  R.  A.  (N.S.)  269; 
163   Fed.    Rep.   939. 

67— H.  B.  Chaffee  Co.  v.  Selchow, 
131   Fed.   Rep.    543. 

68 — Ex  parte  Marsching  &  Co., 
15   OflF.   Gaz.   294. 

69— Draper  v.  Skerrett  (2),  116 
Fed.   Rep.   206,  208. 

70 — Alden  v.  Gross,  25  Mo.  App. 
123. 

71 — Stokes  V.  Landgraff,  17 
Barb.  608;   Cox,  Am.  Tr.  Caa.   137. 


Class  of  Goods. 
letter-file.«3 

medicine.""* 

oil.'"^ 

automobile  lamps."" 

unpatented  pame  so  named 
by  the  inventor."^ 

paints."* 

medicated  paper."^ 

vinegar."'^ 

manufactured  glass.^^ 

medicine. '- 

lamp  chimneys."^ 

iron.'^ 

washing  machines.'^* 

ointment.^'' 

bread."^^ 

saleratus."" 

as  name  for  rubber  manu- 
facturing house."*^ 

72 — In  re  Anti-Cori-Zine  Chem- 
ical Co.,  34  App.   D.   C.    191. 

73 — Ex  parte  Nave  &  McCord 
Merc.  Co.,  86  Off.  Gaz.  1985. 

74 — Glendon  Iron  Co.  v.  Uhler, 
75   Pa.   St.   467;    15  Am.   Rep.   599. 

75 — Dietz  V.  Horton  Mfg.  Co., 
170  Fed.  Rep.  865;  96  C.  C.  A.  41 
(C.  C.  A.  6). 

76— Green  v.  Rooke,  W.  N.  1872, 
p.   49. 

11— Ex  parte  Stuhmer,  86  Off. 
Gaz.   181. 

78— Taylor  v.  Gillies,  59  N.  Y. 
331. 

79 — Goodyear's  India  Rubber 
Glove  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Goodj-ear  Rubber 
Co.,  128  U.  S.  598;  32  L.  Ed.  535; 
reversing   s.   c,   21    Fed.    Rep.    276. 


§47 


HOPKINS   ON    TRADEMAUKS. 


104 


Claimtd  as  2  ra<Umark. 
"Granite." 
"Ciraiiolitliic.  " 
"Granulated    I) irt -Killer.  " 
"Greatest     \'ahie     for     the 

Money," 
"Green   Mountain," 
"Guaranteed.  ' 
"Gnenther's  Best," 
"Gyrator." 
"Half  Spanish," 
"Hamburg," 
"Hand  Grenade," 
"Harvey's  Sauce," 
"Headache  Wafers," 
"Health  Food," 

"Health  Preserving," 
"Hiphly  Concentrated  Com- 

])ound  Fluid  Extract  of 

Buchu," 
"Holbrook's," 

80 — St.  Louis  Stampin<?  Co.  v. 
Piper,  33  N.  Y.  Supp.  443. 

81— Stuart  &  Co.  v.  Scottish  Val 
dc  Trav«T8  I'avin;,'  Co.,  Ct.  Soss. 
Cas.    (4th   wr.)    13,   1. 

82 — Kx  parte  Wucft-rlinp,  Ifi  OIT. 
r.az.  764. 

8.3— f;j  pnrtr  Parker,  IIoIm.H  & 
Co..  8')  Off.  Caz.  287. 

84— Hoyt  V.  .1.  T.  Lovett  Co.,  71 
Fed.  Rep.  173;  17  C.  C.  A.  0.'-)2;  31 
L.    R.  A.   44;    .39  V.   S.   App.    1. 

H.'i — Syminjjton  v.  Footman,  ."lO 
L.  T.  K.  S.  600. 

m—Ex    parte    Cu.-ntli.r     Millin;,' 

Co.,  80  Off.  Cttz.  \'^H^^. 

9,1— Ex  pnrtr  Wolf,  KO  Off.  Ouz. 
1271. 

88—7.  M.  Kildow  Ci^'nr  Co.  v. 
ften.    H.   SpnifMii-  f'i^'iir  Co.,  S.*}  App. 

D.  c   :(»:. 


C/os.s'  of  (loads. 

enameled  kitchen  utensils.*"' 

artificial  stone."' 

soap.''- 

shoes.**^ 
frrapes.*** 
corset.'*'' 
flour.^" 

boltin?  machines."^ 
sto^ries  and  ci^'ars.*^ 
tea.'*-' 

fire  extinguisher.^** 
coiuliment.'" 
medicinal  compound. "^ 
cereal     products    and    pre- 
pared foods."^ 
corsets.""* 


medicine."^ 

school  apparatus.^" 

80— Froso  V.  Baehof.  1 4  Rhitehf. 
432.   Fed.  Case   No.    -)ll(i. 

00 — In  re  Hnnlen  Fire  Kxtin- 
f^uislier  Co's  Tradeiimrlc,  ft')  L.  .7. 
Ch.    -,<M\. 

01— Lazeiiliy  v.  ^Mlit.^  41  L.  .T. 
Ch.   3.-)4. 

02— Cessler  v.  Crieh,  80  Wis.  21; 
27  Am.  St.  Rep.  20;  48  X.  W.  Rep. 
1008. 

03— Full. r  V.  lluir,  W  F.-d.  Rep. 
430  (reversed  l.y  Fulh-r  v.  Huff,  43 
C.  C.  A.  4r)3;    104   F.-d.  Rep.   1411. 

04— Ball  V.  Siefiel,   ItiC,   111.   137. 

0.>— H.-lmhold  V.  H.lml.old  Mfg. 
Co.,  .'•.3  How.  Pr.  4.".3. 

00^ — Sherwood  v.  Andrews,  3  .Xm. 
Law  Reg.  N.  S.  588. 


105 


^V1IA'1'    (ONSTITL'TIOS    A    VAMD    'IK ADKM AltK. 


[§47 


Claimed  as  Trademark. 
"IIonieoi)atliic  ^ledi- 

cines, ' ' 
"ITunyadi." 

"  Ilydro-Rromo  Soda  Mint," 
"Hygienic," 
"Imperial," 
"Indurated  Fibre," 
"Instantaneous," 

"International    Banking 

Co.," 
*  *  Inter-phone, ' ' 

"Iron  Bitters," 

"Ironstone," 

"Johnson's  American  Ano- 

dyne," 
"  Juh'enne," 
"Kaiser," 
"KEEPCLEAN," 

97 — Hiimphrey's  Spec.  Homeo- 
pathic Med.  Co.  V.  Wcnz,  14  Fed. 
"Rep.  250. 

98 — SaxleliiitT  v.  Wagner,  S.")  C. 
C.  A.  321;  l.-)7  Fed.  Eep.  745;  af- 
firmed. Saxlehner  v.  Wagner,  216 
U.  S.  375;  54  L.  Ed.  525. 

99— Ex  parte  Spayd,  86  Off.  Gaz. 
631. 

1 — Jaro9  Hygienic  Underwear 
Co.  V.  Fleece  Hygienic  Underwear 
Co.,  60  Fed.  Rep.  022 ;  s.  c,  65  Fed. 
Rep.  424. 

2 — Beadleston  &,  Woerz  v.  Cooke 
Brewing  Co.,  20  C.  C.  A.  405;  74 
Fed.   Rep.   229. 

3 — Indurated  Fibre  Co.  v.  Amos- 
keag  Indurated  Fibre  Ware  Co.,  37 
Fed.  Rep.  695. 

4 — Rennet  v.  McKinley.  65  Fed. 
Rep.  505;   13  C.  C.  A.  25. 


Class  of  Goods. 

description  of  articles  so 
called."' 

mineral  water."" 

medicine."'' 

underwear,* 

beer.2 

wood-pulp  products,^ 

tapioca  prepared  for  speedy 
cooking.^ 

as  name  of  banking  con- 
cern.'' 

telephone  switching  appa- 
ratus.'' 

bitters  containing  iron.'' 

water  pipe.* 

liniment.® 

soup.*" 

beer.** 

toilet  brushes.* 2 

.')— Kohler  v.  Sanders,  122  X.  Y. 
65;    affirming  s.   c,  48  Hun.  48. 

6 — In  re  Western  Electric  Co.,  39 
App.   D.  C.  420. 

7 — Brown  Chem.  Co.  v.  Stearns, 
37  Fed.  Rep.  36;  Brown  Chem. 
Co.  V.  Meyer,  139  U.  S.  540;  Cox, 
Manual,    726;    35    L.    Ed.    247. 

8— In  re  Rader,  13  Off.  Gaz.  .596. 

9— /n  re  Johnson,  2  Off.  Gaz.  315. 

10— Godillot  V.  Hazzard,  81  N. 
Y.  263. 

11 — Luyties  v.  Hollender,  30  Fed. 
Rep.  632.  Per  contra,  see  Kaiser- 
brauerei  v.  Baltz  Brewing  Co.,  71 
Fed.  Rep.  695;  affirmed  in  J.  &  P. 
Baltz  Brew.  Co.  v.  Kaiserbrauerei, 
Beck  &  Co.,  20  C.  C.  A.  402;  74 
Fed.   Rep.   222. 

12 — Florence  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Dowd, 
171  Fed.  Rep.  122;  178  Fed.  Rep. 
73;    101  C.  C.  A.  565    (C.  C.  A.  2). 


§47] 


UOlKlNt.    UN    TIWPKMAKKS. 


lOG 


Claimed  as  Trademark. 
"KtMitiK'ky  Chib." 
"Kid  Nee  Kurr, " 
"  Kidney  &  Liver," 
*■  Lackawanna." 
"Lake.- 
*"  La  Nonnandi." 
"Liohiji's  Extract  of  Meat," 

"Tjiewtenaiit    James'    Horse 

lilister." 
"Linoleum." 
"Loch  Katrine," 
"London  Siiop, " 
"Majrnolia," 
"Mailed  Milk," 
"Marshall's  (Vlebrated," 
"Marshall  Erecting," 

13 — DavifH  County  l)i8tillin<;  Co. 
V.   Martinoni,    117   Fed.   Rep.    186. 

14 — Ex  parte  Ilciuh'rson,  8.')  Off. 
r.az.   453. 

l.V— SpjekiT  V.  Lasli,  102  Cal.  38; 
36  Pac.   R«'p.  302. 

16 — Dt'lawan-  &  lludsini  t'anal 
C-o.  V.  Clark,  13  Wall.  311;  2(»  L. 
Kd.  581. 

17 — StokeH  V.  Land^^raff,  17  Barb. 
608;   Cox,  Am.   Tr.  Cas.   137. 

18— StaclH-UMTK  V.  Ponce.  12K  l^ 
K.  686;  32  L.  Ed.  .')6it ;  Hllirmin;.'  23 
F«-d.  Kep.  430. 

1»— I.i.-I.i^r-H  Kxtract  of  M.at  Co. 
(Ltd.)  V.  Ilanl.iiry.  17  I,.  T.  N.  S. 
298;  AnderHon  v.  Lieliiji'H  K.\tra<t 
of  Meat  Co.  (Ltd.),  45  L.  T.  757; 
Cartmi-ll.  47;  Liehi^'V  Kxtract  of 
Meat  Co.  V.  Lihl.y.  McNeill  4  Lil.- 
I.y.  103  Fed,  Rep.  87;  LieLi^^'H  Kx- 
tract of  M.at  Co.  V.  Walker,  115 
Fed.  Rep.  822. 


Class  of  (loinls. 
whiskey.'"' 
metlieine.'^ 
bitter."*."^ 
eoal."' 

plass  produet.*^ 
cijrars.''^ 

meat     extract     made    under 
Liebip's  formula.'" 

ointment.'" 
floor-cloth. 2> 
■whiskey.-- 
trading::  luime.-'* 
alloy  metal. -^ 
infants'  food.^^ 
lininient.'-" 
engines.2" 

20— .James  v.  .lames,  L.  R.  13 
Kq.  421;  41  L.  J.  Ch.  353;  20  L.  T. 
N.   S.  568;   20  W.  R.  434;   Seb.  388. 

21 — Linoleum  Mfp.  Co.  v.  Nairn, 
L.  R.  7  Ch.  1).  834;  47  L.  J.  Cli. 
4.30;  38  L.  T.  N'.  S.  448;  2(i  \V.  I  J. 
4r.3;  Seh.  .-)36. 

22— Hulloeh.  Lade  &  Co.  v.  Cray, 
lii  Jour.  Juris.  218;   Seb.  4.V2. 

23— Rosenthal  v.  Blatt  (X.  J. 
Ch.).  H3  Atl.  Rep.  3S7. 

24 — Ma<i:nolia  Metal  Co.'s  Trade- 
marks, 66  L.  J.  Ch.  N.  S.  312. 

25 — Hx  pnrti  llorlick's  Food  Co., 
84  Off.  da/..  1870;  Tlorliek's  Food 
Co.  V.  El^in  Milkine  Co..  :M  C.  C. 
A.  .544:    120  Fed.  Rep.  2tM. 

26— Marshall  \  I'inkliain,  .Vi 
Wis.    572. 

27 — Marshal  Kn;,'ine  Co.  v.  New 
Marshall  Kn^'ine  Co.,  S!t  N.  K.  Rep. 
548;  203  Muh8.  41U. 


107 


WHAT    CONSTrriTK.S    A    VAIJI)     IHADKM  AKK. 


[§47 


C'laittK  (I  as  Tradnnark. 
"Maryland  Club  Rye," 
"Masonic," 
"MatzooM," 
"Medicated   I'nmes," 
"Metallic  Clinton," 
"Microbe  Killer," 
"Moline," 
* '  Montserrat, ' ' 
"I\rountain  Dew," 
"Mufiler," 
"Naphtha," 
"National  Sjierm," 
"Native  Guano," 
"New  Manny," 
"New  York," 
"Nonfluid," 
"No  sag," 

28— Calm  v.  TTolTman  TIoiiso,  2S 
N.  Y.  Supp.  .388.  Contra,  see  Cahn 
V.  Gottschalk,  2  X.  Y.  Supp.  U. 

2Q—Kx  parte  Smith  (:i),  1(5  Off. 
Gaz.  704. 

30 — Dadirrian  v.  Ya(iil)iiui,  72 
Fed.  Ri'p.  1010;  Dadirrian  v.  Vacii- 
hian  (2),  00  Fed.  Rep.  812.  But 
see  Dr.  Dadirrian  &  Sons  Co.  v. 
Ilauenstfin,  74   X.   Y.   Supp.   700. 

31— /vx  parte  Smitli  (2),  IC.  Off. 
Gaz.  670. 

32— Clinton  ^letallic  Paint  Co.  v. 
Xow  York  Metallic  Paint  Co.,  50 
X.  Y.  Supp.  437. 

33— Alff  V.   Radam,   77  Tex.   r)30. 

34 — Candee,  Swan  &  Deere  v. 
Deere  &  Co.,  .54  111.  4.J0;  .")  Amir. 
Rep.   125. 

35 — Evans  v.  You  Laor,  '^•2  Fi-d. 
itep.   153. 

36 — Chas.  Donnelly  &  Co.  v.  Rob- 
ertson, Sanderson  i.  Co.,  32  App. 
D.  C.  355. 


Class  of  (loods. 
whiskey.^" 
ci^Mi's.-" 

feniieiited  niilk.'"^ 
inedicine.'" 
paint."'- 
antiseptic. •''•'* 
plows.'" 
lime  jniee.-"'^ 
wliiskey.-**" 
neck  scarfs.''^ 
soap.-'** 
candles.''" 
fertilizer.'"' 
harvester.  •♦' 
glass  i)roduets.'*2 
oil.^"' 
handbags.^^ 

37 — Hvf^icnic  Fleeced  Underwear 
Co.  V.  Way,  70  C.  C.  A.  553;  137 
Fed.  Rep.  502  (C.  C.  A.  3)  ;  revers- 
ing  133   Fed.   Rep.   245. 

38— Fels  V.  Hedley,  20  Times  L. 
R.  00. 

30— /w  re  I'ric.-'s  Patent  Candle 
Co.,  L.  R.  27  Ch.  D.  081. 

40 — X'ative  Guano  Co.  v.  Sewage 
Manure  Co.,  8  P.  R.   125. 

41 — In  re  Graham,  2  Off.  Gaz. 
018. 

42 — Stokes  v.  Landgraff,  17 
Barb.   608;   Co.x,  Am.  Tr.  Cas.    137. 

43 — Xew  York  &  Xew  Jersey  Lu- 
bricant Co..  V.  Young.  77  X^.  J.  Eq. 
.321;  77  Atl.  Rep.  344;  Xew  Y'ork 
A  Xew  .Jersey  Lubricant  Co.  v.  0. 
W.  Young  (X.  .L  Ch.),  04  Atl.  Rep. 
570. 

44— /»  re  Freund  Bros,  i  Co.,  37 
App.  D.  C.  100. 


§47 


llOl-KISS    l)N    TltAUKMAKKS. 


108 


Claimed  as  Tnuhnuirk. 
"Xoiirishinpr  Loiulfn," 
**No  Wash  I'p," 
"01(1  Hoiirbon," 
"Old  Country," 
"OKI  Innishowon," 
"01(1  Loxinpton  Chib," 
'•01(1  Loiulon  Dock," 
"Olive," 

"Oraiipo  Grove," 
"Orient." 
"Oriental  Oream," 
"Owl  Creek," 
"Paraffin," 
"Pareheesi," 


"Parson's  Piir{?ative," 
"Perfect  Face  Paste," 

4.-, —  Raj:j.'«>tt  V.  Fiiidlixtrr,  L.  R. 
17  Kq.  20:  43  L.  J.  C"h.  f)4;  2i>  L.  T. 
N.  S.  44H;  22  \V.  U.  M;   Scl..  4:J1. 

40 — Ault  4  Wyhor-r  Co.  v.  Clu'S- 
hiro.   IHI    Fed.    Ucp.   741. 

47— Hardy  v.  CutU-r,  :\  OIT.  flaz. 
4C8. 

48 — All'-n  H.  WriHlt-y  Co.  v.  Iowa 
Soap  Co.,  104  F«d.  Hop.  MS;  Allen 
B.  Wrihlcy  Co.  v.  Iowa  Soap  Co., 
no  C.  C.  A.  M;    122  Fed.   lUp.   lOfi. 

40— Watt  V.  O'Hanlon.  4  T.  R.   1. 

.riO— K.ntuoky  DiHtillcri.-H  4  Ware- 
liouw  Co.  V.  Old  I^'xin^ion  Club 
Dint.   Co..   :n    App.    1).    C.    22:i. 

.'•1— HinnJnuiT  v.  WattlcH,  28 
H<.w.   I'r.  200. 

:>'l—Ex  parte  (»liv.-  W  li.-.l  Co.,  H4 
Off.  Gaz.   1871. 


Class  of  (loods. 

stout. '•• 

cleansin};  preparation.*' 

whiskey.^' 

soap.** 

■wiiiskey.''" 

Avhiskey.'"' 

pin.'"^* 

bieyeles  havinp:  olive-col- 
ored franies."'""- 

flour.'"^ 

typewriter  supplies." 

cosmetic  lotion. ^'^ 

coal.'"' 

oil.-'" 

pame.  invalid  because  a 
mere  variation  of  the  Ilin- 
doostanee  name  for  the 
same  pame.^^ 

l)ills.-'*' 

medicine."" 

-..3— II.  R.'ckor  4  Co.  v.  C.  A. 
C.ainl.rill  Mf^'.  Co.,  .38  App.  D.  C. 
.■>3."). 

.')4 — Iti  re  Cn>8cent  Typf\vrit<T 
Supply  Co.,  30  App.  1).  C.  324. 

"»."» — /«  »T  IIoi)kiiis,  2!>  App.  D.  C. 
118. 

50 — Esseylstyn  v.  Ilolmos,  114 
Pac.   Rep.    118;    42   Mont.   ;)()7. 

r)7 — Youn;,'  V.  Macrae,  9  Jur.  N. 
S.  322. 

;-,S— Sclfliow  V.  Cliaircc  4  St'lohow 
Mf;r.  Co.,  132  Fed.  Rep.  !»00;  appeal 
diHrniKKcd.  72  C.  C.  A.  «i83;  140  Fed. 
Rep.  !>8<.t.  For  tlie  preliminary  or- 
der,  we    lis    F.d.    Rep.    1023. 

.-,<!_/„  ,-,.  .lolitison.  2  OlT.  fJaz. 
:;i.'.. 

00— /;j»  parte  Rail,  8:.  UlT.  Gaz. 
453. 


109 


WJIAT    CONSTITUTES    A    VAIWK     TK  ADKM  AltK. 


l§47 


Claimed  as  TnuU mark. 
"Philadelphia," 
"Pocahontas," 
"Pocono, " 
"Pork  Roll," 

"Post  Office," 
"Porous." 
"Prime  Leaf," 
"Princess,"    (because   com- 
mon to  the  trade), 
"Prize  Medal,  1862," 


"Purity," 

"Quaker  City," 

"Red," 

"Rexall," 

"Richardson's        Patent 

Union," 
"Rose," 

61— Efi-rcrs  V.  nink,  63  Cal.   445. 

62 — Coffman  v.  C'astncr,  87  Fed. 
Rep.  457;  31  C.  C.  A.  5.");  alfirmed 
in  Castner  v.  Coffman,  178  U.  S. 
168;  44  L.  Ed.  1021,  and  overruling 
Atwater  v.  Castner,  32  C.  C.  A.  77; 
88  Fed.  Rep.  042. 

63 — Poeono  Pines  Assembly  v. 
Miller,  77  Atl.  Rep.  1004;  229  Pa. 
33. 

64 — Taylor  Provision  Co.  v. 
Gobel,  180  Fed.  Rep.  938. 

65— Kelly  v.  Byles,  40  L.  T.  623. 

66 — In  re  Brandreth,  Seb.  626. 

67 — Poi)liam  v.  Wilcox,  66  X.  Y. 
69. 

68 — Spiepel  v.  Zuckerman,  175 
Fed.  Rep.  979;  affirmed,  110  C.  C. 
A.  133;    188  Fed.  Rep.  63. 


Cla.ss  of  Goods. 
beer."  • 
coal,'"' 
{?arage."'* 
pork      manufactured      i)ro- 

duct/"* 
directory."'' 
medicinal  plasters."" 
lard."^ 

shirt  waists."* 

on  goods  sold  by  oiu; 
awarded  a  medal  at  tin; 
London  International  Ex- 
hibition of  1862.«9 

oleomarprorine."'^ 

cereal  i)r()ducts.^^ 

snuff.'^'^ 

blood  purifier."^ 

leather  splitting  machine.^^ 
vanilla  extract.^^ 

69— Batty  v.  Hill,  1  H.  &  M.  264; 
8  L.  T.  N.  S.  791;  11  \V.  R.  745; 
2  N.  R.  265;   Seb.  218. 

70 — Ex  parte  Capitol  City  Dairy 
Co.,  83  Off.  Gaz.  295. 

71— Quaker  City  Flour  Mills  Co. 
v.  Quaker  Oats  Co.,  43  App.  D.  C. 
260. 

72 — Ex  parte  Pearson  Tobacco 
Co.,  85  Off.  Gaz.  295. 

73 — Tlieodore  Rectanus  Co.  v. 
United  Drug  Co.,  226  Fed.  Rep.  545 
(C.  C.  A.  6)  ;  compare  Regis  v. 
•laynes,  77  N.  E.  Rep.  774;  191 
Mass.    245;    see    "Rexall."    §48. 

74 — In  re  Richardson,  3  Off.  Gaz. 
120. 

75 — Clotworthy  v.  Schcpp,  42 
Fed.  Rep.  62- 


§47] 


11()1'KINS    ON    THAHK.M  \KKS. 


110 


Cl-aiinrd  as  Trademark. 
"Roscndale, " 

"  HuMtorst't." 

*'Rnb(M-<)i(l."" 

"Rye  aiul  Rock," 

"Safety," 

"Sanitary," 

"Sarsajiarilla  and  Iron," 

"Satinine," 

"Satin  Polish," 

"Schiedam  Schnapps," 

"Security,"' 

"Selected  Shore," 

"Self-Loading," 

"She," 

76— New  York  Cement  Co.  v. 
Coplay  Cement  Co.  (1),  44  Fed. 
Rep.  277 :  New  York  Cement  Co.  v. 
Coplay  Cement  Co.  (2).  45  Fed. 
Rep.  212. 

77_Hu1)Iht  &  Celluloid  11.  T.  Co. 
V.  F.  \V.  Devoe  &  C.  T.  Reynolds 
Co.,  22:}  Fed.   Kep.    150,   153. 

78 — Standard  Faint  Co.  v.  Trini- 
dad Asphalt  Co..  220  U.  S.  441);  55 
L.  i:d.  5:i(»;  alTirmin;,'  Standard 
Paint  Co.  V.  Trinidad  Asphalt  Mfj,'- 
Co.,  mi  C.  C.  A.   105;    K).-}  Fed.   Hep. 

n77. 

7n— Van  Beil  v.  Preseott,  82  N. 
Y.  6.30. 

80 — Hx  parte  Safety  Powder  Co., 
10  Off.  Gaz.   i:ifi. 

81— /n  re  Atkins  Filt.T  Co.,  3  P. 
R.   164. 

fl2— Rehmidt  v.  Brief;.  100  Cal. 
f>72;  Same  v.  MeKwen,  :{5  Par.  Rep. 
8.54 ;  Same  v.  Crystal  Soda  \Vati>r 
Co..  Id.  855;  Same  v.  Steinke.  lil.. 
855;  Same  v.  ITaake,  Id.,  855;  Sanir 
V.  LilH-rty  Soda  Works  Co.,  Id.,  85(5. 


Class  of  Goods. 
cement.''' 
hrwslies.  hri.stles  set  in  rub- 

l)cr.-' 
w  atci'pi'dot"  footing'."'' 
licjiior.''' 

cx{)h)sive  powder.'*" 
filter.»» 
tonics- 
starch  and  soap.**^ 
boots  and  shoes.** 
liquor.**^ 
tires.**" 
mackerel.'*^ 
cartridges.**^ 
cigars.'*" 

83— /w  re  Meyerstein,  7  R.  P.  C. 
114;  L.  R.  4.3  Ch.  1).  (504;  .50  L.  .T. 
Ch.  401;  62  L.  T.  .52(5;  .38  \V.  R. 
440;   Cartmell,  225. 

84 — J-Jx  parte  Kriu'liani.  20  OtT. 
C.az.  891. 

85 — Wolf.'  V.  Coiiiar.l.  IS  How. 
Pr.  04;  Seh.  171>;  Cox,  Am.  Tr.  Cas. 
220;  Burke  v.  Cassin,  45  Cal.  407: 
Wolfe  V.  Hart.  4  V.  L.  R.  Eq.  125; 
Wolfe  V.  Alsop,  1(1  V.  L.  U.  K<|.  41; 
12  V.  L.  R.  421;  WOlfe  v.  Laii;:,  Li 
y.  L.  R.  752. 

80— BulTalo  ItuLl-.r  l^Ifj;.  Co.  v. 
Batavia  KviI.Imt  Co..  15.3  N.  Y.  S. 
77!t. 

87 — Trask  Fish  Co.  \.  Wooster, 
28   Mo.   Api).   408. 

88 — TNiiiehester  Rei)eatinK  Arms 
Co.  V.  Peters  C«rtri(l<,'e  Co.,  .30  App. 
I).   C.   505. 

SO — (A  stock  hilirl  ease).  Sar- 
tor V.  Seluiden.  lOl  N  W.  Rep.  511; 
125   Iowa.  000. 


Ill 


WHAT    CONSTITUTES    A    VAI-ID    TRADEMARK. 


[§47 


Claimed  as  Tradenmrk. 

"Shredded  Whole  Wheat," 
"Singer," 


"Siiowflake," 


"Somatose," 


"Spearmint," 

"Splendid," 
"Stajre," 
"Standard," 
"Standard  A,' 
"Star," 
"Steel  Shod," 

"Sterlinjr," 
"Stoga  Kip," 
"  Straight-Cut,' 


Wil- 


90— Natural     Food    Co. 
Hams,  30  App.  D.  C.  348. 

ni — Sinjicr  Mfjr.  Co.  v.  Junf  Mi>. 
Co.,  163  U.  S.  100;  41  L.  Ed.  118. 

02 — Larrabeo  v.  Lev.ie,  07  Ga. 
561 ;  44  Am.  Rep.  735. 

93— Farbcn-fal)rikcn  T.  'M.  K.,  7 
R.  P.  C.  430;  L.  R.  (1804)  1  Ch. 
645. 

04— \Vm.  Wrifjley,  Jr.,  &  Co.  v. 
Grove  Co.,  101  Fed.  Rep.  885;  af- 
firmed in   183  Fed.  Rep.  00;    105  C. 

C.  A.  301  (C.  C.  A.  2).  See  also 
Wm.  Wrin;ley,  Jr.,  &  Co.  v.  Xorris, 
34  App.  D.  C.  138. 

Qb—Ex  parte  Stokes,  04  OlT.  Ga/. 
437. 

96— United  States  Playinj,'  Card 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  Clark  Pub.  Co.,  30  App. 

D.  C.  208. 


Claas  of  Goads. 

cereal  product."" 

sewing  machines,  after  ex- 
piration of  the  Singer 
I)atents.'" 

crackers,  the  word  heing 
descriptive  of  the  quality 
of  flour  used."- 

meat  extract,  from  the  Greek, 
"soma,"  Angl.  "body," 
genitive,  '  *  somatos. ' '  "•'^ 

chewing  gum  flavored  with 
spearmint."' 

flour.s"' 

playing  cards.^*' 

])hon()grai)hs."" 

cigars."* 

condensed  milk."" 

shoes  having  soles  quilted 
with  steel  wire.^ 

ale.2 

boots.3 

cigarettes.^ 

07 — In  re  National  Phonograpli 
Co.,  20  Api).  D.  C.  142. 

08— A'j-  parte  Cohn  (1),  16  Off. 
Gaz.   680. 

00 — Michif,'an  Condensed  ^lilk 
Co.  V.  Kenneweg  Co.,  30  App.  I).  C. 
401. 

1 — Breniian  v.  Emery-Bird-Thay- 
er  Dry  Goods  Co.,  00  Fed.  Rep.  071; 
s.  c.  io8  Fed.  Rep.  624;  47  C.  C.  A. 
532. 

2 — Worcester  Br«'wing  Corp.  v. 
Renter  &  Co.,  84  C.  C.  A.  665;  157 
Fed.  Rep.  217. 

3— Walker  v.  Reid,  Fed.  Case  No. 
17,084. 

4 — Ginter  v.  Kinney,  12  Fed. 
Rep.  782. 


§47] 


IIOI'KINS    ON    TKAHF-MARKS. 


112 


Claimed  as  Tradcwark. 

"Stud." 

"Sveiiska    Snusnuniiini.set," 

"Sweet  Lotus. 

"Swiu}:." 

"Syphon." 

"TAHASrO." 

"Taffy  Tolu," 

"Ta.steless," 

"Thermopene," 

"Thomsonian," 

"Timekeeper," 

"Tipo," 

"ToothaeheGum," 

"Traveler's." 

"Trophy," 

"Tyeoon." 

"Tueker  Spring," 

.f) — flrcrnc.  Twffd  &  Co.  v.  Manu- 
fac-tur.rs'  H.lt  Il.x.k  Co.,  IfiS  Fod. 
Rep.  640. 

6 — Boland.r  v.  I'.lcrson.  I'M)  111. 
215. 

7— W.-llman  &  Dwin-  Toh.  Co.  v. 
Ware  Tob.  Works.  4(>  Fed.  Rep.  289. 

8 — Ei  parte  Thompson.  I)erl)y  & 
Co.,  10  OfT.  Caz.  VM. 

0 — Seeder  Refri^'erator  Co.  v. 
Wliit<'  Knamel  Hefri;.'triitor  Co.. 
17H  Fed.   Rep.  f)!;?. 

10 — New  Ii»eria  Extract  of  Ta- 
liasro  I'epper  Co.  v.  K.  Mellhenny'H 
Son.  r,l  So.  Rep.  KU;  1  :»2  I.a.  14!); 
following'  tlie  dec-iHion  of  the  Court 
of  AppialH,  I).  ('..  in  Melllienny  v. 
New  Ilteria  Kxtract  of  Tahafk-o 
Pepper  Co.,  .14   App.   I).  C.   430. 

11 — Colj;aii  V.  Danheiwr.  ;{.">  Frd. 
Rep.   l.-iO. 

12— /n  re  Dick  A  Co..  !l  ( HT.  Cii/. 
5.38. 


Class  of  (toods 
buttons.'' 
meaning;       Swedish       snuff 

store." 
tobaeeo.' 
scythe-.sockcts.* 
refrigerators.® 
pepjier  sauee.'** 
chewin{;-t;um.*^ 
dnips.'- 

eotton  waddinf^.*^ 
medieines.'^ 
watches,'^ 
wine.'" 

remedy  for  tootiuichc.'^ 
insurance  compan}'."* 
coffee. '** 
tea.2" 
bed.=' 

13— ThermopMie  Co.  v.  Thermo- 
zine  Co.,  22r)   Fed.   Rep.   44(). 

14 — Thompson  v.  Winchester,  36 
Mass.   214. 

1.') — Kx  parte  Strasltur^^er  &.  Co., 
20  OfT.  Gaz.  1  .').'>. 

16 — Italian  Swiss  Colony  Co.  v. 
Italian  Vineyard  Co.,  laS  Cal.  252; 
110  Pac.   Rep.  1)13. 

17_I)i.vlin  V.  MeI.eod.  13.')  Fed. 
Hep.  164;  Devlin  v.  I'.ck,  13.'>  Fed. 
Kep.   167. 

18 — Traveler's  Insurance  Machine 
Co.  V.  Traveler's  Insurance  Co.,  134 
S.  \V.  i:.|).  877;  142  Ky.  523;  judg- 
ment mollified  in  136  S.  W.  Rep. 
l.-)4;    143  Ky.  21(1. 

ID — In  rr  Meyer  Hros.  CotTee  &, 
Spice  Co.,  38  App.  1).  C.  520. 

2o_C„rl.in  v.  (Jonld.  133  V.  S. 
308;    33    L.    Kd.    611. 

21 — Tucker  ^Ifp.  Co.  v.  Royin;;ton. 
!)  OfT.  Caz.  45.-.,  Fed.  Cn^>'  No,   I  1.22!). 


113 


WHAT    CONSTITUTES    A    V\MI)    Tit  \I)I;M  AICK. 


[§47 


Claimed  as  Trademark 
"Union," 
"United  States," 
"Vacuum  Cup," 
"Vacuum  Tread," 
"Valvolene," 
"Vertical  Top," 
"Victoria," 
"Vitae-Ore," 

"V-0," 

"Water  of  Ayr," 
"Webster's    Dictionary," 

"Wliirlinjr  Spray," 

"White  Swan," 

"Wire," 

"Wister's  Balsam  of  White 

Cherry, ' ' 
' '  Worcestershire, ' ' 
"Yale," 

22 — Aiiu-ricaii  Tobacco  Co.  v. 
Glo1)o  Tol)acco  Co.,  103  Fed.  Rep. 
101  f). 

23— Cady  v.  Schultz,  19  R.  I.  193; 
61  Am.  St.  Rep.  763. 

24 — Pennsylvania  Rubber  Co.  v. 
Dreadnau'rht  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.,  22."> 
Fed.  Rep.  138. 

2') — Pennsylvania  Rubber  Co.  v. 
Dreadnaufibt  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.,  225 
Fed.  Rep.  138. 

26— /w  re  Horsburgli,  53  L.  J.  Ch. 
237. 

27— F^ternberfT  Mfp.  Co.  v.  Miller, 
Du  Brul  &  Peters  Mffj.  Co.,  88  C.  C. 
A.  398;  Kil  Fed.  Rep.  318  (C.  C. 
A.  8). 

28— Wotherspoon  v.  Gray,  Ct. 
Seas.  Cas.    (3rd  ser.)    2,  38. 

29— Noel  V.  Ellis,  89  Fed.  Rep. 
978-981. 


Class  of  floods. 
tobacco  package8.22 
dental  rooms.^-** 
tires.- ' 
tires.^'^ 

cij^ar  molds.2^ 
lozenges.2« 
medicine.2» 
medicine.'"' 
stone.''* 

a})plied  to  the  standard  lexi- 
con of  that  name.^^ 
syringes.^^ 
flour.^-* 
glass."'^ 

medicine.^* 

saiice,^^ 

locks.''^ 

30— Noel  v.  Ellis,  89  Fed.  R.-p. 
978-981. 

31 — Mont^fomerie  v.  Donald,  Ct. 
Sess.  Cas.   (4tli  ser.)    11,506. 

32 — Mcrriam  v.  Texas  Siftinj^s 
Rul).  Co.,  49  Fed.  Rep.  944-947. 

33— Marvel  Co.  v.  Pearl,  133  Fed. 
Rep.  160,  162;  66  C.  C.  A.  226. 

34— Bulte  V.  Tglehart  Bros.,  137 
Fed.  Rep.  492;  70  C.  C.  A.  76. 

3.") — Mississippi  Wire  Glass  Co.  v. 
Continuous  Glass  Press  Co.,  81  Atl. 
Rep.  374;  79  N.  J.  Eq.  277. 

36— Towle  V.  Spear,  7  Penn.  L.  J. 
176;  Co.x,  Am.  Tr.  Cas.  67;  Seb.  90. 

37— Lea  v.  Deakin,  11  Biss.  23, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,154;  Lea  v.  WolfT, 
15  Abb.  Pr.  N.  vS.  1;  46  How.  Pr. 
157;  Seb.  407;  Lea  v.  Millar,  Seton 
(4th   Ed.),  242;   Seb.   513. 

38— Pj  par^c  Yale  &  TovTie  Mfp. 
Co.,  81  Off.  Gaz.  801. 


§48] 


IIOI'KINS    ON    THVDK.M  VUKS. 


114 


V}  48.  Examples  of  valid  trademarks,  fancy,  arbitrary  or  dis- 
tinctive words.  -Tlie  followiiifj  iiistaiu'cs  arc  ilhistrutive  of 
famy.  arbitrary  or  distinctive  words,  whicli  have  been  either 
held  jtropcrly  prote<*tcd  ji^'ainst  unfair  competition,  or  their  use 
uplieUl  as  trademarks  in  application  to  the  classes  of  merchan- 
dise in  connection  with  which  the  words  have  respectively  been 
used,  in  some  cases  the  (pu'sfion  of  validity  was  not  raised, 
nor  are  nil  of  thcni  to  be  upheld  as  technical  t radcnnirks.  These 
illusti-ations  are  ^riven  in  their  alphabetical  order  to  facilitate 
reference. 


('l(iim(<I  (IS  Tfdttcmark. 
"Yucatan," 
"888," 

"Abricotine," 

"  Ainsworth." 

"  Alderney," 

"  Aljtenkrauter," 

"Amei-ican  ("old  Japan," 

"American   Express," 

"American  (Jirl," 

"American  \'olunteer," 

"Anatolia," 

.10— A'j  partr  W.il.  83  OIT.  Oaz. 
1H()2. 

40— Rocky  Mountiiin  Bi'll  Tcl.- 
plionc  Co.  V.  Utali  Indcpcntlcnt  Tflo- 
I)lioni'  Co.,  88  Pac.  Ri'p.  20;  .31  Utah, 
377. 

41— ''Iiiriiitr  v.  Rossman,  ID.")  Fi-d. 
l{<|i.  17."»;  adirmiti,  RoHHinunn  v. 
(iarni.r,  211  I'.d.  R.p.  401;  128  C. 
C.  A.  7.'}   (C.  C.  A.  8i. 

43 — AinHwortli  v.  WalmfHlcy,  41 
L.  R.  1  E<|.  r>\H. 

44— Laufcrty  v.  WIumIct.  11  Alil). 
N.  C.  220;  11  Daly.  l!»4;  rt.'l  How. 
Pr.  488. 

4.'i— Dr.  P(t«T  IT.  Fuhrn.  y  A  SonH 
Co.  V.  RtimiinT.  l.'i.T  F<'d.  R«'p.  I'irt; 
82  c.  c.  A.  «;2i  re.  C.  A.  7). 


Class  of  (laods. 

leather  and  leather  poods. •''" 
telephone     n  umber     for 

trouble  department.""' 
licpHMir." 
thread.-'-'' 
oleomarprerine.'*'' 
blood  remedy. ^'^ 
I)aint.^" 
sealintr  wax,'*^ 
shoes. '"" 
shoes.-**' 
licorice.'^" 

40- R.'cdcr  v.  Brodt,  fi  Oh  in  Doc. 
248;  4  Ohio  N.  P.  205. 

47 — Dcnnisoii  Mf^'.  Co.  v.  Tliomas 
'Sli^^.  Co..  !)4  Fed.  Rep.  Ofil-OS.S. 

48 — Hamilton  Brown  Shoo  Co.  v. 
Wolf  Bros.  &  Co.,  240  V.  S.  2.')1  ; 
00  L.  Kd.  — . 

4!t^.I(isc|)li  Bani;;aii  Riililxr  Co. 
V.  Blooniin^rdal.'.  S!)  OlT.  Oaz.  1070. 

.'■.0— McAndr.'W  v.  Bansott,  4  DoD. 
.1.  &  S.  .380;  .3.3  L.  .1.  Ch.  .'iOO;  10 
.Tur.  X.  S.  r,r>0;  10  L.  T.  N.  S.  442; 
12  \V.  R.  777;  4  N.  R.  123;  Cox, 
000.  .\natolia  ih  a  jroo),'raphioal 
jiamo.  Iiiit  itw  line  luTo  wan  pri>tr<'tt'd 
on  the  tiioory  of  unfair  compctitiou. 


115 


WHAT    CONSTITUTES    A    VM.ID    'lltADIO.M  AltK. 


[§48 


Claimed  as  Trademark. 
"Anchor  Brand," 
"  Anfjostura," 
"A.  N.  Iloxie's  Mineral," 
"  Anniliilator, " 
"Anti- Wash-board," 
*' Apollinaris," 
"Argyrol," 
"Atlas," 

*  *  Auburn  Lynn, '  * 

"Auto," 

"A.  V.  H.," 

"Baco-Curo," 

"B.  B.  B.," 

"B.  B.  II.,"  (with  a  crown), 

"Baffle," 

"Balm      of      Thousand 

F'lowers, ' ' 
"Bates," 

r,l— Ed.'lstcn  V.  Edclston,  1  DoO. 
J.  &  S.  ISf);   Cox,  607. 

52— Siegort  V.  Gondolfi,  140  Fed. 
Rep.  100;  79  C.  C.  A.  142  (C.  C. 
A.  2),  reversing  Siegert  v.  Gandolfi, 
139  Fed.  Rep.  917. 

53 — Hoxie  v.  Chancy,  143  Mass. 
592. 

54 — Fulton  V.  Sellers,  4  Brewst. 
42. 

55 — O'Rourke  v.  Central  City  Soap 
Co.,  26  Fed,  Rep.  567. 

56 — ApoUinaris  Co.  v.  Xorrisli, 
33  L.  T.  X.  S.  242;  Same  v.  Moore, 
Cox,  Manual,  Case  No.  675;  Same 
V.  Herrfeldt,  4  P.  R.  478;  Same  v. 
Scherer,  27   Fed.   Rep.    18. 

57 — Barnes  v.  Pierce,  164  Fed. 
Rep.  213. 

58 — Atlas  Assurance  Co.  v.  Atlas 
Insurance  Co.,  112  N.  W.  Rep.  232; 
138   Iowa  228. 


Class  of  Goods. 
wire.'"' 
bitters.'"'^ 
soap.''-' 
medicine.''''' 
soap.'"'' 

mineral  water. '^''* 
antiseptic.''^ 
corporate  name  of  insurance 

company."'** 
shoes.-'''* 
chocolate.'"* 
gin.«i 

remedy  for  tobacco  habit."' 
medicine."-' 
iron."^ 
safes."-"' 

coismetic."" 
juimbering  machines."'^ 

59— W.  R.  Lynn  Slioe  Co.  v. 
ATiliurn-Lynn  Shoe  Co.,  62  Atl.  Hep. 
499;     100   Me.    461. 

60— Walter  Baker  &  Co.  v.  Dela- 
penha,   160   Fed.   Rep.   746. 

61 — Van  Hohoken  v.  Mrdnis  & 
Kaltenhach,   112   Fed.  Rep.  52S. 

6'2 — Sterling  Remedy  Co.  v.  Eu- 
reka Chemical  and  Mfg.  Co.,  80  Fed. 
Rep.  lO.");  49  U.  S.  App.  709;  25 
C.  C.  A.  314. 

63— Foster  v.  Blood  Balm  Co., 
77   Ga.   216,  3   S.   E.   Rep.   284. 

64— Hall  V.  Barrows,  4  DeG.  J. 
&  S.   l.-)0;  Cox,  668. 

6.5— Talhot  V.  Wel>hy,  3  R.  P.  C. 
276;  Cartmell,  324. 

66 — Fetridge  v.  Merchant.  4  Ahh. 
Pr.    156. 

(i7— Bates  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Bates  Xum- 
hering  Machine  Co.,  172  Fed.  Rep. 
892,  178  Fed.  Rep.  681;  102  C.  0. 
A.    181. 


§48] 


IIOIKINS    ON     TU.\1>K.M  AKKS. 


116 


Claimed  as  Trad-cmark. 

"Beailcd," 

"Bcatty's  Ilondliiip." 

"Bell  of  Mosi'ow.  " 

**Bcnciliftiiu\" 

"Best     &     Vo..     Lilliputian 

Bazaar." 
"Bcstyette," 

"Bothosda," 

••Billikcn." 

"Bismark," 

"Blac'kstonc," 

"Blairstowii," 

"Blood  Searcher," 

"Blue  Lick." 

"Boker's  Stomach  Bitters,*' 

"Bonnie  Rye," 

"Bovilene." 

68 — Unit«'(l  Lar«-  &  Braid  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Bartli.lH  Mfg.  Co.,  221  Fed. 
Rop.  4. "SO. 

CO — C;ag«-  V.  (Himda  I'lilil.  CO.,  11 
Can.  Sup.  Ct.  :m\;  (>  Ont.  Rt'p.  68; 
11  Ont.  App.  402. 

70 — In  rr  CharU's  Narcissc  Ferro, 
Cert.  No.  89.39. 

71 — iSocic't*?  Anonymi-  v.  Wcfitorn 
DiHtilling  Co..  43  Ft-d.  R.j).  410; 
S<>oic't4-  Anonymi*  dc  la  DiHtilh-rit' 
dc  la  Benedictine  v.  Miciilovitch, 
Fl.-tohcT  A  Co..  M  All..  Law  .T.  .Sfi4  ; 
A.  Bauer  &  Co.  v.  DiBtillorie  do  la 
Liqueur  Benedictine,  .Ifi  C.  C.  A. 
480;    120   Fed.    Rep.   71. 

72 — Ball  V.  Urondwiiy  Baziinr.  87 
N.  E.  Rep.  fi74;  104  N.  Y.  429, 
reverHing  lon  N.  Y  S.  249.  121 
App.  Div.  .''.4fl 

73 — \ew  York  Mackintosh  Co.  v. 
Flam.   108  Fed     Rep    .n?! 

74_T>„n».Rr  v.  Gknn.  42  WIb. 
118;    S4»..   r,20. 


(lass  of  Goods. 
lace  tips."" 
copy  book."® 
wine.""' 
liipuMir.' ' 

t-hildrcn's  clotiiinp  store."* 
waterproof      capes      and 

clokcs.''' 
mineral  water.'* 
dolls.'f 

I)aper  collars.'" 
cigars."' 
garage,"*' 
medicine.^® 
water.***' 
medicine.^' 
whiskey.**^ 
pomade.*'^ 

7r> — Billiken  Co.  v.  Baker  &  Ben- 
not  Co.,  174  Fed.  Rop.  829. 

76 — Messorolo  v.  Tynborg,  4  Abb. 
I'r.  X.  S.  ^10;  30  How.  Pr.  14; 
Cox,  479  ;  S.o.  300. 

77— Lo\->'  V.  Waitt,  r>C>  Fed.  Rop. 
1010. 

78— Iluir  V.  Wulhu'c  (N.  J.  Ch.), 
93   Atl.    Rop.   702. 

79 — Fulton  V.  Sollors,  4  Browst. 
42;   Cox,  Manual.  Case  No.  279. 

SO— Nortlicutt  V.  Turnoy.  101  Ky. 
.114:  41  S.  W.  Rep.  21;  Parkland 
Hill  Blue  Lick  \Vator  Co.  v.  ITaw- 
kins.  20  S.  W.  Rep.  389;  9.'.  Ky. 
.^02:  If.  Ky.  Law  Rep.  210;  44 
Am.    St.    Rep.    2:)4. 

fll_Funko  V.  DreyfiiH.  31  La. 
Ann.  80;  44  Am.  Rep.  413. 

82— Bonnie  &  Co.  v.  Bonnie  Bros. 
(Ky.K  100  R.  \V.  Rep.  871. 

8.3 — Loclrwood  v.  Bowtwlck,  2  Daly, 
ri21. 


n 


\V1I\I'    ((INSTITI'TKS     \    V\MI)     I  K  \l  )i;.\I  \I(K. 


§48 


Claimed  as  Tradt  iniirl;. 
"Bovril," 
"Bromidia," 
* 'Bromo-CafTiMiie, " ' 
"Buster  Brown," 

"CarboliiKMim," 

"Carmel." 

"Carrom," 

"Cashniore  Bouquet," 

•'Celluloid,' 

"Celery  Compound," 

"CenteTinial," 

"Centeiuiial," 

"Ceresota," 

"Champion," 

"Chantecler," 

"Charley's  Aunt," 

84— /n  rr  Bovril.  L.  R.  (1896) 
2  Ch.   D.   600. 

85— Battle  v.  Finlay  (2),  r)0  Fed. 
Rpp.  106;  Battle  v.  Finlay  (1),  4;") 
Fed.   Rep.   796. 

86 — Keasbey  v.  Brooklyn  Chem- 
ical Works,  37  N.  E.  Rep.  476;  142 
N.  Y.  467;  reversing  s.  c,  21  N.  Y. 
Supp.  696. 

87— New  York  Herald  Co.  v. 
Star  Co.,  146  Fed.  Rep.  1023,  76  C. 
C.  A.  678    (C.  C.  A.  2). 

88 — Avenarins  v.  Kornely,  121  X. 
W.  Rep.  336;    130  Wis.  247. 

89 — Jewish  Colonization  Ass'n  v. 
Solomon  &  Germansky,  154  Fed. 
Rep.    157. 

90 — Liiddinpton  Novelty  Co.  v. 
Leonard.  119  Fed.  Rep.  937;  Wil- 
liams V.  Mitehell.  45  C.  C.  A.  265, 
106  Fed.  Rep.   168. 

91— Colpate  &  Co.  Cert.  No.  914: 
Colgate  V.  Adams,  88  Fed.  Rep. 
899. 


Clnss  of  (loods. 
meat  extract."* 
medicine,'*'' 
medicine.^' 

comic      section      (jf     news- 
paper.'*" 
paint.'*'* 
wine.'*" 
pame-board."" 
toilet  soap.'" 

compound  of  j)yroxyline.^^ 
medicine."' 
clothin^."^ 
alcoholic  spirits."^ 
flour.9« 
flour."" 

name  of  play."" 
name  of  farce."" 

92— (•(■lluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Read, 
47  Fed.  Rep.  712;  Celluloid  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Cellonite  Mfg.  Co.,  32  Fed. 
Rep.    94. 

93— Wells  &  Richardson  Co.  v. 
Siegel.  Cooper  &  Co.,  106  Fed.  Rep. 
77. 

94 — Sternberger  v.  Thalheimer,  3 
OfT.  Gaz.    120. 

95— /n  re  Bush  &  Co.,  10  OfT.  Gaz. 
164. 

96 — Northwestern  Consolidated 
Milling  Co.  V.  ^fatiser  &  Cressman, 
162  Fed.  ivep.  1004;  Northwestern 
Consolidated  Milling  Co.  v.  Wm. 
Callam   &    Son,   177    Fed.   Rep.   786. 

97 — Atlantic  Milling  Co.  v.  Robin- 
son. 20  F.d.  Rep.  217:  27  Off.  Gaz. 
1.322. 

98— Froliman  v.  ^forris.  123  N. 
Y.  St.   1090;   6S  Misc.  Rep.  461. 

99— Frohman  v.  Miller.  29  N.  Y. 
S.    1109;   8  Misc.  Rep.  379. 


§48] 


IltH-KlNS    ON     IRADK.M  AUK^ 


118 


I'laimid  as  Tnidi mark. 
"Charter  Oak." 
"  Chart  reuse' 
"Chatterbox.  " 

"Chieano  Waists/' 
"Chicken  Cock."' 
■■Chiiu'se  Liniinciit." 
"Climax." 
"Chib." 

'Chil)  Coektails," 
"Club  Soda." 

"Coal    Oil    J(.1iiiii\-s    Petro- 
leum." 
"Cocoaine.* 
"Coe's    Superidiosphate    of 

Lime,  " 
"Cohesive."' 
"Comfort." 
"Compactuiii." 

l_Fillry  V.  Fassrtt.  44  Mo.  ITS; 
100  Am.  Di'c.  27r>:  Cox,  Am.  Tr. 
Tan.  Mi);  0  Am.  L.  R«r-  N.  S.  402: 
SU'h.  31:};  FilU-r  v.  Child,  Hi  Batilif. 
:J76. 

2 — Ba}.'lin  v.  Ciisiiiicr  Co..  221  U. 
S.  .'iKO;  .'>.')  L.  ¥a\.  8«i:i;  Kt-V  v.  L«'C- 
•luturior.   L.    K.    (1908|    2   Cli.    72(1. 

:i— KHt<-H  V.  LchUo,  20  F<(1.  Uep. 
01;  E«t<»  V.  Worthin^'ton,  31  Fed. 
Rpp.  I'tA;  KhU'H  v.  Lfwlif,  27  Fid. 
Ili-p.  22;    F<d.  Caw  No.  4787. 

4 — Gat,'fI)o\vnH  Co.  v.  Fi'utlii-r- 
lionc  .Corwt  Co.,  83  Fwl.   H.-p.  213. 

.'V-^r,.  O.  WhiU'  Co.  V.  Mill»T,  .10 
Fed.  Rop.  277. 

n — CofTf«-n  V.  Brunton,  4  McLi-iiii 
."ilfi;   :•  Mcl>-an  2r.fi. 

7 — Killcy   V.    FaHwtt.   44    Mo.    173. 

H — Houbloin  V.  AdamH,  12r)  Fed. 
K«i..  782. 


Clans  of  (loods. 
stoves.' 
liijueur.- 
juvenile     b()oks,     published 

periodically. •' 
corset    waists.* 
whiskey.'' 
liniment." 
stoves.^ 
cocktails.'* 
cocktails." 
carbonated  water.** 

soap." 
hair  oil.'- 

fertilizer.'^ 

tile.'* 

periodical    publication.*^ 

umbrellas."' 

9 — /„  re  S.  C.  Ilorbat  Importing 
Co.,  30  App.  D.  C.  297. 

10 — Coclirarn'  v.  Macniah  (P.  C.) 
!..  R.  (18n<J)  A.  C.  22;');  6.")  L.  J. 
P.  C.  N.  S.  20;    74   Law  T.  R.  109. 

ll_p,.trolia  Mfj,'.  Co.  v.  Bell  & 
Bojiart  Soap  Co.,  !17   F.d.   Rop.  781. 

12 — Burnett  v.  Pit  a  Ion.  3  Koyca, 
.-)'.t4;  :>  Al.l>.  Pr.  N.  S.  212;  9  Bos. 
193. 

i:j_Hra(ll.v  V.  Norti>n.  33  Conn. 
l.">7;  Cox'h  American  Trademark 
("aws    331;    87    Am.    Dee.    200. 

14 — u.  Cuastavino  Co.  v.  Com- 
•  rma.    1S4    F.«l.    K»'p.    r.49. 

l.->— Canm-rt  v.  Ruj.ert.  127  Fed. 
Rep.  902,  02  C.  C.  A.  '>94,  revers- 
ing'  ».   e.    119   Fed.    Rep.    221. 

1H_/m  rr  Davit*  TrademarkB,  22 
Trademark   Itecord,  50. 


Jl!) 


WHAT    CONSTITUTES     V    VAI-ID     IHADK.M  AKK. 


l§48 


Clainu  d  as  Tnuh  mark. 

"Computing     Cheese     Cut- 
ter," 
"Congress  Water," 
"Coon," 
"Cottolene," 
"Cough  Cherries," 
"Cream," 
"Creamalt," 
"Crow," 
"Crown," 
"Cuticura," 
"Delsarte," 
"Derringer," 
"Dominion," 
"Don  Carlos," 

17 — (Strictly  an  unfair  competi- 
tion case).  Computinj,'  C'liccsi-  Cut- 
ter Co.  V.  Dunn,  4r>  Ind.  App.  20, 
88  N.  E.  Rep.  93. 

18 — Conpress,  etc.  Spring  Co.  v. 
High  Rock  Congress  Spring  Co.,  57 
Barb.  526;  Cox,  599;  45  N.  Y.  291; 
10  Abb.  P.  R.  X.  S.  348;  6  Am. 
Rep.  82 ;.  4  Am.  L.  T.  168 ;  Cox,  Am. 
Tr.  Cas.  624;   Sob.  354. 

19 — ^^'e.stern  Grocer  Co.  v.  Caf- 
farelli  Bros.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  108 
S.  W.  Rep.  413  (not  ofiicially  re- 
ported) ;  reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  Caffarelli  Bros.  v.  Western  Gro- 
cer Co.,  127  S.  W.  Rep.  1018;  102 
Tex.   104. 

20— X.  K.  Kalrl.ank  Co.  v.  Central 
Lard  Co.,  04  Fed.  Rep.  133;  X.  K. 
rairl)ank  Co.  v.  Ogden  Packing  & 
Provision  Co.,  220   Fed.   Rep.   1002. 

21 — Rtoughton  v.  Woodard,  39 
Fed.  Rep.  002. 

22— Price  Baking  Powder  Co.  v. 
Fyfe,  45  Fed.  Rep.  799;  Interna- 
tional Food  Co.  v.  Price  Baking 
Powder  Co.,  33  App.  D.  C.  137. 

23— Geo.  G.  Fox  Co.  v.  Glynn, 
78  N.  E.   Rep.   89;    191   Mass.   344. 


( 7a.s.v  u(  (luudK. 

machine.'" 
mineral  water.'" 
mohisses.'" 
lard  substitute.^" 
confectionery.  -' 
baking  powder. '-^^ 

bread.*-"' 
whiskey.  2^ 
baking  products.^'^ 
toilet  soap.2« 
shoes.-" 
fire  arms,28 
hotel.29 
olives.^" 

24— W.  A.  Gaines  &  Co.  v.  Rock 
Spring  Dis.  Co.,  141  C.  C.  A.  287, 
226   Fed.   Rep.   531. 

25 — ^'irginia  Baking  Co.  v.  South- 
ern Biscuit  Works,  68  S.  E.  Rep.  261, 
111   Va.   227. 

26— Potter  Drug  &  Chem.  Co.  v. 
Miller,  75  Fed.  Rep.  656.  Held 
infringed  by  the  word  "curative" 
and  imitative  devices.  The  mark 
assumed  to  be  valid  in  Potter  Drug 
&  Chem.  Corp.  v.  Pasfield  Soap  Co., 
102  Fed.  Rep.  490;  Same  v.  Same. 
106  Fed.   Rep.   914,  46  C.  C.  A.  40. 

27— M<-dlar  &  Holmes  Shoe  Co. 
V.  Delsarte  :\rfg.  Co.,  N.  J.  Eq.,  46 
Atl.  Rep.  1089.  affirmed,  X.  .1.  Eq., 
61    Atl.    Rep.   410. 

28- Derringer  v.  Plate,  29  Cal. 
292;  Cox.  Am.  Tr.  Cas.  324. 

29— O'Grady  v.  :McDonald.  66  Atl. 
Rep.  175.  72  X.  .T.  Eq.  805. 

30 — (But  held  not  infringed  l)y 
"Don  Caesar").  Chance  v.  Gulden, 
165  Fed.  Rep.  624;  92  C.  C.  A.  58 
(C.  C.  A.  3).  reversing  Gulden  v. 
Chance,  163  Fed.  Rep.  447. 


§48] 


nOl'KINS    ON 


Claimid  as  Tnuh  marh. 

' '  Hr.  Drake's  (icnnaii  <  r(iiii» 

HcmtMly."" 
"Dr.    Ldbcntliars    E.ssonlia 

Antiphthisica," 
"Dublin.' 
"Durham." 
"Dyspepticure," 
"  Edohvci.ss, " 
"Elastic." 
"Electro-Silicon," 
"Elk," 
"Emollia." 
"Enii)ire," 
"Epicure," 
"Ethiopian," 
"Eureka.  " 
"Eureka," 
"Eureka." 
"Eureka." 

.31  —  Driikr  Mfdicinc  Co.  v.  Gless- 
ncr,  r.K  oliio  St.  XM ,  f.7  N.  E.   Uf-p. 

;22. 

32— /n  rr  Rdlilimd.  Id  ( )fT.  Oaz. 
{•SO. 

33— /n  re  Cornwall  i  Co..  12  OIT. 
Ca/..  312. 

34 — Hlackwtll  v.  Armistfad.  Fi'd. 
Caw  No.  1474,  .'i  Am.  L.  T.  8.-);  3 
Huj:lii-H,  103;  Armistcad  v.  lUack- 
w.Il,  1  Off.  Oaz.  003;  Rlackw.-ll  v. 
Dil.nll.  14  Off.  ('.&/..  033.  F<d.  Caw 
Xo.  147r»;  Hla<k\v.ll  v.  \Vri;rlit,  73 
\.  C.  310. 

3r>— Ex  pnrtr  F.d.  V  &  Co..  87  Off. 
Ga/.    10.'i7. 

30 — UoHiii^'  V.  AtkiiiHon.  27  S(d. 
.r.  .'•>34. 

37 — Glol>c\Vfrni<'kr  ('<>.  v.  Hmwii, 
121    F«-d.   H.'p.    IH.'. 

38 — Kl<-<'tro-Siliron  (  n.  v.  Hazard, 
2«  Hun.  309;  30  N.  V.  Sup.  Ct. 
309. 


TKAHI.M  AUKS. 
CJilSS  of  (loods. 


JL>0 


IIKMllCIIie." 

iiHMliciiie.'^^ 

.soaj  ).•'•' 

smoking:  tobacco.^* 

medicine.  •""* 

jierfunie.'"' 

bookcases. •'' 

j)olishiM;;  l)repa ration.^" 

cigars.-'" 

toilet  cream.'*" 

stoves." 

canned  salmon. ""^ 

stockiuf^js.^^ 

fertilizer.^* 

shirts.^'' 

fire  ho.se. ^''' 

pressing:  boards.*" 

.30— Liditonstcin  v.  C.oldsmith,  37 
Fi'd.    Rt'i).   3.-.n. 

40— /«  re  Grosamitli,  00  L.  T.  X. 
S.    012. 

41— Fill.-y  V.  FaHwtt,  44  Mo.  173; 
Sob.   313. 

42— Georjjc  v.  Smitli.  .')2  Fed. 
Rep.    830. 

43— Hiiii'  V.  Lart.  10  .lur.  100; 
7    I..   T.   O.    S.   41;    Sol).   80. 

44 — .\llo;:liaiiy  Fortilizor  Co.  v. 
Woodsidc.    1    llu^'lios    11;-.;    Sob.   .304. 

4.'.— Ford  V.  Fostor,  L.  R.  7  Ch. 
I).  Oil;  41  L.  J.  Ch.  082;  27  L.  T. 
X.  S.  219;  20  W.  R.  818;  Sob.  384. 

40 — Fun-ka  Firo  How  Co.  v. 
Kunka  Hublior  Mf^'.  Co..  09  X.  J. 
K.|.  1.-.9;  00  Atl.  Rop.  r.Ol;  72  X.  .1. 
i;i|.  .^..-1.-..  0.-.  Atl.  Hop.  870;  aflirmod 
ill   71    Atl.    U.|..    Ii:i4.  71    X     .1.    Kq. 

47 — Caw  V.  Murjihoy,  31  .\\ip.  D. 
C.  24.'). 


121 


WllVr    CONSTITI'TES    A    VAMI>     Tit  \I»I..M  AICK. 


§48 


Clainud  as  Tradf  )nark. 
"Eureka," 
"Excelsior," 
"Excelsior," 
"Excelsior," 
"Faber," 
"Family," 
"Favorita," 
"P'ibre  riiamois," 
"Filofloss," 
"Filtre  Rapide," 
"Finney's  Famous," 
"Foutz." 
"Freemont         Undertaking 

Co.," 
"G.  J.  G.," 
"Glenfield," 
"Glenfield," 
"Golden  Crown," 
"Golden  Wedding," 

48 — Symonds  v.  Greene,  28  Fed. 
Rep.  834. 

49— Filley  v.  Fassett,  44  Mo.  173; 
Seb.  313;  Sheppard  v.  Stuart,  13 
Phila.  117. 

50 — Braham  v.  Bustard,  1  11.  & 
M.  447.  0  L.  T.  N.  S.   190. 

51— Udell-Predock  Mf<r.  Co.  v. 
Udell    Works,    32   App.    D.    C.    282. 

52— Faher  v.  Faber,  40  Barl).  357; 
3  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  115;  Cox,  Am.  Tr. 
Cas.  401. 

53 — Reinhart  v.  Spauldingr,  40  L. 
J.  Ch.  57. 

54— Menendez  v.  Holt,  128  U.  S. 
514;  32  L.  Ed.  526;  Cox,  Manual, 
Case  No.  707. 

55 — American  Fibre  Chamois  Co. 
V.  De  Lee,  67  Fed.  Rep.  329;  71 
Off.  Gaz.  1458. 

56 — Rawlinson  v.  Brainard  & 
Armstrong  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  Supp.  880; 
28  Misc.  Rep.  287. 


Class  of  ( loads. 
steam-packing.** 
stoves,'*" 
soap.^"' 

stej)  ladders.°^ 
l)encils.'''- 
salve."'-'' 

flour'-^  ,      . 

dress  linings.^'* 
silk.'"' 
filters.-'''" 
orchestra.  ^^ 
anininl  remedies.^^ 

corporate  name.**^ 

automobiles."^ 

starch."- 

washing  powder."^ 

cigars."'* 

whiskey.'""'' 

57 — In  re  Maignen's  Application, 
28  W.   R.   7.50;   Cartmell,  216. 

58 — Finney  Orchestra  v.  Finney's 
Famous  Orchestra,  126  N.  W.  Rep. 
108,   161   Mich.   280. 

.50— David  E.  Foutz  Co.  v.  S.  A. 
Foutz  Stock  Food  Co.,  163  Fed.  Rep. 
408. 

60 — Rosenburg  v.  Freemont  Un- 
dertaking Co.,  114  Pac.  Rep.  886; 
63   Wash.   52. 

61— G.  &  J.  Tire  Co.  v.  G.  J.  G. 
Motor  Car  Co.,  39  App.  D.  C.  508. 

62 — Wotherspoon  v.  Currie,  L.  R. 
5  H.  L.  508;  42  Law  J.  Ch.  1.30; 
27  L.  T.  N.  S.  303. 

63— X.  K.  Fairbank  Co.  v. 
Luckel,  etc.  Soap  Co.,  88  Fed.  Rci-. 
604. 

64 — Palmer  v.  Harris,  60  Pa.  St. 
1.56. 

65 — Pontefract  v.  Isenberger,  loii 
I\d.   Rep.  400. 


§481 


lli>l'KlN>    ON    ■! 


Claimfd  <ix»'  Tnuh  mark. 

"Gouraud's         Oriental 

Cream, 
"(Jraiul  Master." 
"Green  Mountain," 
"Green  Kiver.'* 
"Grenade." 
"Guastavino  Tile." 
"llanfoni's        Chestnut 

(Jrove. " 
"  Ilansa," 
"Harvard  Classics," 

"Ileliotype." 

"Hero." 

"High  Standard," 

"11.  M.," 

"Holeproof," 

"Home," 

"  Hoosier. " 

"Howcjua's  Mixture," 

"Hunter," 

(\Ci — Coiirauil  v.  Trust.  10  X.  Y. 
Sup.  Ct.  027. 

07— Yale  ('i;,'nr  Mf^'.  Co.  v.  Yale, 

:{n  Off.  Ga/..  ii8:j. 

(58— Pik«-  yUii.  to.  V.  Cleveland 
Stone  Co.,  :5')  Fed.  Rep.  81I(J. 

(in — Lanj<  V.  Green  River  Dist.  Co., 
.{.3  App.  I).  C.  nofl. 

70— Rillet  V.  Carli.r,  (11  «arb. 
43.1. 

71 — R.  GiniHtavino  Co.  v.  Cnm- 
.rma,    180    F.<l.    K.p.    !t20. 

72— Haiifurd  v.  W.-Htoott,  K".  off. 
(Jttz.    1181. 

73— Kx  parte  TietpenH  &  RolM>rt- 
tu}»,  87  Off.  f!a/..  2117. 

74 — Collier  V.  .?<>neH.  120  N.  Y. 
St.   »ni  ;    00  Miw.    Rep.   »7. 

TTj — ()Hii(Hx\  V.  Rorkwood,  11 
Hlatilif.    :no.    Kid.   CuKi-    No.    lOOOf). 


KA1>KMAKK.S.  122 

CliLts  of  (ioods. 

eosmetie."" 

cigars.'"' 

scythe-stones."* 

whiskey."" 

syrui).'" 

arches."* 

Avliiskey.'- 

lard,  sausages  and  bacon.''' 

set  of  selected  books.'* 

prints.''' 

jars."" 

paints  and  varnishes.''^ 

plumbers'  suj)plies."* 

hosiery.'-' 

se^vin^l:  machines.*" 

drills.«i 

tea.*2 

whiskey.'*' 

70 — Udwlev  V.  Ilouphton,  2 
Brewst.    303. 

77 — Lowe  Bros.  Co.  v.  Toledo 
Varnish  Co.,  lOS  Fed.  Rep.  027;  04 
C.  C.  A.  83. 

78_H.  Mucll.T  MlV.  Co.  V.  A.  Y. 
McDonaly  &  Morrison  Mfjr.  Co.,  164 
Fed.   Rep.   1001. 

79 — Hol<'i)roof  Hosiery  Co.  v. 
Wallaeh  Bros..  100  Fed.  Rep.  606; 
decree  modified,  102  Fed.  Rep.  .')34 
(C.   C.   A.   2). 

80 — New  lIoHK-  Sf\vin<:  Machine 
Co.  V.  Blooniiii^.'ii«le.  TiO  Fed.  Rep. 
284. 

81 — Tulian  v.  Hoosier  Drill  Co., 
78  Ind.  408. 

82— Pid.liiiK  V,   How,  8  Sim.  477. 
83 — Lanahan  v.  Kissel  &  Son,  135 
Frd.    Rrp.    899. 


123 


WHAT    CONSTITUTES    A    VALID    TKADK.M  AlCK. 


§48 


Claimed  as  Trademark. 
"Iluiiyadi  Janos," 

~~"  "IIygieni(iues," 
"Ideal," 
"Imj)erial," 
"Indian  Pond," 
"Indian  Root," 
"In-er-seal," 
"Insectine," 
"Insurance," 
"Invip:orator, " 
"Iron  Clad," 
"Java," 
"Jewel," 
"Junket," 

84 — Saxleliner  v.  Eisner  &  Men- 
delson  Co.  (3).  170  U.  S.  10;  4;") 
L.  Ed.  (iO. 

85 — Waukeslia  Hygeia  Mineral 
Springs  Co.  v.  Hygeia  Sparkling 
Distilled  Water  Co.,  63  Fed.  Rep. 
438;  II  C.  C.  A.  277;  Hygeia  Dis- 
tilled Water  Co.  v.  Hygeia  Ice  Co. 
(2),  72  Conn.  G4G;  45  Atl.  Rep. 
957;  49  L.  R.  A.  147;  Same  v. 
Same  (1),  70  Conn.  516,  40  Atl. 
Rep.  534;  Consolidated  Ice  Co.  v. 
Hygeia  Distilled  Water  Co.,  80  C. 
C.  A.  506;  151  Fed.  Rep.  10;  affirm- 
ing Hygeia  Distilled  Water  Co.  v. 
Consolidated  Ice  Co.,  144  Fed.  Rep. 
139;  Waukesha  Hygeia  Min.  Springs 
Co.  V.  Hygeia  Sparkling  Distilled 
Water  Co.,  II  C.  C.  A.  282,  63  Fed. 
Rep.  443. 

86 — Bailly  v.  Nashawannuck 
Mfg.  Co.,  51  Off.  Gaz.  !)7n:  10  X. 
Y.  Supp.  224. 

87 — Waterman  v.  Shipman,  130 
N.   Y.   301. 

88— McGraw  Tire  &  Rubber  Co. 
V.  Griffith,    198   Fed.   R^-p.   566. 


Class  of  (ioods. 

medicinal  water.^"* 
water.*^'' 

su.spondors.**" 

fountain  jjons.'^^ 

autonu)l)il('  tires."** 

scythe-stones."'^ 

pills."" 

bakery  products.'*^ 

insect  ])owder."- 

oil.='" 

spring  bed  bottoms.^^ 

boots."''' 

face  powder."''' 

stoves."^ 

rennet  preparation. "^ 

89— Pike  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Cleveland 
Stone  Co.,  35  Fed.  Rep.  896. 

90 — Comstock  v.  Wliite,  18  How. 
Pr.   421. 

91 — Ohio  Baking  Co.  v.  National 
Biscuit  Co.,  62  C.  C.  A.  116:  127 
Fed.  Rep.  116;  affirming  National 
Biscuit  Co.  V.  Ohio  Baking  Co.,  127 
Fed.  Rep.   160. 

92 — Arthur  v.  Howard,  19  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  81. 

93— Insurance  Oil  Tank  Co.  v. 
Scott,   33   La.   Ann.   946. 

94 — Ex  parte  Heyman,  IS  off. 
Gaz.  922. 

9.") — Hecht  V.  Porter,  9  Pac.  Coast 
L.   J.   .369. 

96 — Wertheim»'r  v.  Bacheller  Im- 
porting Co.,  185  Fed.  Rep.  850. 

97 — American  Stove  Co.  v.  Detroit 
Stove  Works.  31  App.  D.  C.  304; 
Barstow  Stove  Co.  v.  Detroit  Stove 
\\'orks,  31  App.  D.  C.  304. 

98 — Hansen  v.  Siegel-Cooper  Co. 
(2),  106  Fed.  Rep.  691. 


§48] 


IIOIKINS    ON    TK  \I>^;MAHK^ 


rj4 


Claimtil  «'.<  Tro(h  mark. 
"Kaiser." 
•'Kntluiiroii." 
"Keystone," 
"  Keystone," 
"  Kinj;  Hee." 
'"Kitehen  Crystal," 
"  Knickerboeker, " 
"Koflio.  " 
"La  Carolina," 
"La  C'roniea." 
"Lacto-Pi'ittine," 
"La  Favorita," 
"  Lamoille," 
"La  Norma." 
"La  Normandi,"' 
"  Leojjold.  " 
"LePage," 
"Le  Bon  Ton."" 
* '  Lieensed  \' ict nailers, 

90 — KaiHcrUrautTfi  v.  Hlat/.  Brew- 
ing Co.,  71  Ffd.  Rep.  6!).");  s.  c. 
affirmed,  74   Fi-d.   Rep.  222. 

1— H<-atli  V.  Wri<;ht,  ("•>x.  .\ni.  Ir. 
Cas.   l')4,  .3  Wall.  Jr.   1. 

2_ColH'n  V.  Naglf,  73  N.  E.  Rt'P- 
270;    mo   MasH.   4. 

3— Buzliy  V.  Daviri,  l.'tO  l"i»l.  Itip. 
27r>,   80   C.    C.    A.    1(53. 

4 — Sarrazin  v.  W.  R.  Jrl.y  ri;;«r 
Co.,  93  Fed.  R.p.  <;24,  3.">  ('.  C".  A. 
406. 

ry—In  rv  KaHtmaii.  W.  N.  IHSO, 
p.    128. 

«V— Burt  V.  Tuc-k.-r.  17H  Muhrt.  4!»:{, 
.','»  N.  !■:.  H.-p.  nil.  -Vi  L.  15. 
A.    112. 

7 — Sleepy  Ey«-  Milling  Co.  v.  (  . 
F.  Blanke  Tea  A  ('off.'.'  Co.,  S.')  OtT. 
r.az.    I!»0.'.. 

8 — Havana  ('cimmereial  Co.  v. 
NichoU,  155  Fed.  Rep.  302. 


Class  of  (lood^. 
beer."' 
remedy.' 
cijrars.'- 
oil.-' 

snH)kint;  tobaeeo.* 
soaj).-' 
shoes." 

cereal  I'oflfee." 
cigars.'' 
ne\vsi)ai)er." 
medieine.'" 
flonr." 

scythe-stones.'^ 
cigar-boxes.'^ 
cigars.'^ 
woolen-cloth.'^ 
glue.'" 

jiublication.'" 
relish.'*^ 

«l — Strpliciis  V.  DcConto,  4  Abb. 
I'r.   N.   S.  47. 

10 — Carnriek  v.  Morsoii,  Sel).  .')43; 
(ox,  Manual,  .")43. 

11— Menendez  v.  Holt.  128  I'.  S. 
.-.14:  .32  L.  Kd.   ".2(1. 

12— Pike  Mf<:.  Co.  v.  Cleveland 
Stone   Co.,  3.".  Fed.   Rep.   89(5. 

13 — Kx  parte  K;.'yptiHii  (,'i;,'arftti' 
(•<..,  S.->  Oir.  C.az.    liMI.-). 

14— Staclielber;;  v.  Tono-.  23 
Fed.    R.'p.   430. 

1.-, — Hirst  V.  D.iiliam.  I-  K  14 
Kq.  .->42'.  27  K.  T.  N.  S.  .-.C;  41  I.. 
•  J.    Cb.    7:.2. 

lt» — RuKsia  Cement  Co.  v.  Katz- 
.nHt.in,    ion   Fed.   R.-p.  314. 

17_S.  T.  Taylor  .^  Co.  v.  Nant. 
1.-.4   N.   Y.    S.   !»H2. 

lfi_Cotton  v.  (;illar<l.  44  L.  .1. 
Cb.  90. 


125 


WHAT    CONSTlTUTLb    A    VAMK    'lUADK.M  AHK. 


[§48 


L'laiincd  (/.v  Tradi mark. 
"Lightning," 
"Lion," 
"Listerine," 
"Liverpool," 
"Lockport  Canning  Co.," 
"London  Wiiiffs," 
"Lone  Jack," 
"Magic," 
"Magnetic  Balm," 
"Magnolia," 
"Maizena," 
"Mammoth," 
"Marvel," 
' '  Medicated         Mexican 

Balm." 
"Mellwood," 
"Menlo  Park," 
"Metnchen  Inn," 
"Metropolitan," 

10 — Ilirum  Holt  Co.  v.  Wads- 
worth,  41  Fed.  Rep.  34. 

20— /ji  rr  Weaver,  10  Off.  Gaz.  1. 

21 — Lambert  Pharmacal  Co.  v. 
Bolton  Chemical  Corporation,  210 
Fed.  Rep.  32");  Lamhert  Pharmacal 
Co.  V.  Kalish  Pharmacy,  210  Fed. 
Rep.  323. 

22— Hirst  V.  Dinham.  L.  R.  14 
Eq.   542. 

23 — Lockport  Canning  Co.  v. 
Pusateri,  130  X.  Y.  S.  040;  70  Misc. 
Rep.  203. 

24 — Feder  v.  Brudno,  .">  Ohio  X.  P. 
275. 

2.5— Carroll  v.  Ertheiler,  1  Fed. 
Rep.   688. 

26 — Pike  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cleveland 
Stone  Co.,  35  Fed.  Rep.  806. 

27 — Smith  v.  Sixbury,  25  Hun. 
232;   32  N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  232. 


( 'lass  of  (loods. 
hay  knives.''' 
merchandi.se.-" 
anti.septic  solntion,^' 
woolen  cloth. -- 
corporate  name.'-' 
cigars.-' 

smoking  tobacco. ^•'' 
scythe-stones.-" 
ointment.^" 
liquor.-*^ 
corn  flour.2** 
toilet  soap.^" 
mill  products,^* 

medicine.'*''^ 
whiskey.-'^ 
watches,"*^ 
hotel. 35 
confectionery,-'*" 

28— Kidd  &  Co.  v.  Mills,  .Johnson, 
&  Co.,  5  Off.  Gaz.  337;  Kidd  v. 
.Fohnson,  100  U.  S.  617;  25  L.  Ed. 
760. 

20— Glen  Cove  Mfg.  Co.  v.  T.ude- 
liiig,  22  Fed.  Rep.  823. 

30 — Summit  City  Soap  Works  v. 
Standard  Soap  Co.,  37  App.  I).  C. 
(;(14. 

31 — Listman  Mill  Co.  v.  William 
Listman  Milling  Co.,  60  N.  W.  Rep. 
261;   88  Wis.  334. 

32— Perry  v.  Truefit,  tJ  Beav.  56; 
1    L.   T.   384;    Seb.   73. 

33 — Mellwood  Dist.  Co.  v.  Harper, 
1C.7    Fed.   Rep.   380. 

34 — Ex  parte  Hamjjdeii  Watch 
Co.,  81  Off.  Gaz.  1282. 

3.5— Bush  V.  Gross,  (N.  .1.  Ch.) 
64   Atl.   Rep.  754. 

36 — Reymer  &  Bros.  v.  Huyler's, 
100   Fed.   Rep.   83. 


§48] 


HOPKINS    t).N    TKADKMAKKS. 


126 


(laimtd  (IS  1  ra<h  mark. 
"Monitor.  ■■ 

"Mojava.  " 

"Morion  SjuM'ial  Di'livi-ry," 

"Muftlot/" 

"  Napoleon, '■ 

"New  Era," 

"Nickel," 

"Niokel-ln," 

"No-To-Bac," 

"Navy," 

"Necco," 

"Norub," 

"Nubia," 

"0.  F.  r.." 

"Old  Crow," 

"Old   Smokehouse   Blend," 

"Old  Style  Lager," 

"Omega  Oil," 

'M — Kdiiu  Smiltinj;  &  Rcfininn  Co. 
V.  Nathan  Mfj:.  Co.,  30  App.  D.  C. 
487. 

38 — AmtTicaii  (Iroccry  Co.  v. 
Sloan,  (18  Fi-d.   Rep.   539. 

30— Morton  v.  Morton,  82  Pao. 
H.-p.   (104:    1    L.    R.    A.    (N'.S.)    f.tW. 

40 — Ilyffii-nic  Fk'oci-d  Undt-rwcnr 
Co.  V.  Way,  70  C.  C.  A.  r>.-)3.  137 
Fed.  Rfp.  r)»2,  .'iO.'-). 

41— OoldBfccin  v.  Win Ian,  (\1  F.<1. 
R«-p.    124. 

42— Hill  V.  Lock.-.  K  I'aip-,  7.'.; 
Cox,  Am.   Tr.   Can.   11. 

43— A'x  parte  IJutl.'r,  87  <  MF.  Caz. 
1781. 

44 — Schondfl  v.  .Silver,  IH  .\.  V. 
Supp.    1;   (33  Hun.  330. 

4.'i — St^Tlinn  Rcnu'dy  Co.  v. 
Eunka,  t-U-.  Mf^r.  C«).,  70  Fed.  R.  |>. 
704;   80  F.d.   R.p.   10.-). 

40 — In  rr  National  Candy  Co.,  3.') 
Ai-p     I),   C.   3.-.I. 


('hiss  tif  Ciovils. 

injectors    and     feeders    for 

steam  boilers.-'' 
blendeil  coflfee.-'^ 
transfer  business.^* 
neek-scarfs.^" 
eigars.^' 
newspaper. ^2 
8oap.*3 
cigars.^^ 
medieine.^'^ 
candy.'"' 
confectionery.*^ 
laundry  aid.''** 
cigarettes,*'* 
whiskey. •'^'* 
whiskey.-'''' 
tobacco.''" 

beer,  with  picture."^' 
liniment.-''^ 

47 — New  Knj,'laiid  (.'onfectioniTy 
Co.  V.  National  Wafer  Co.,  224  Fed. 
Rep.   344. 

48— Van  Zilc  v.  Nonih  Mfj.-.  Co.. 
228   Fed.    Rep.   8-2fi. 

40— IVrkina  v.  Apollo  Hroa.,  I'.t7 
Fed.   Rep.  47(5. 

.")(»- t;eo.  T.  Stajrp  Co.  v.  Taylor, 
!!.->   Ky.   O.-.l  ;    27    S.  W.   Rep.   247. 

")! — W.  A.  Caines  &  Co.  v.  Los- 
lie,  'A  N.  Y.  Supp.  421;  W.  A. 
CaineH  &  Co.  v.  K.  Whyte  Grocery, 
Fruit  &  Wine  Co.,  107  Mo.  Ajiji. 
.^)07:  81   S.  W.    Rep.  048. 

.'i2 — laeoway  v.  YoiuiK,  228  Fed. 
Ri'I).   (').■!(». 

C\'.\ — (;.  Heilenian  Hrew.  Co.  \. 
independent  Rrew.  Co.,  101  P'ed. 
R.-p.   480    (C.  C.   A.  0). 

r,4 — Dme^a  Oil  Co.  v.  W'esehler, 
71    N.    V.    Su|.p.   083. 


127 


WHAT    CONSTITUTES    A    VAMD     ri<\l>l.M\KK. 


L§48 


Clai)ii((l  (IS  Tra<l( mark. 
''Osman," 
"Otaka." 
"Oxford," 
"Pain-Killer," 
"Parabola," 
"Paris," 
"Pectorine, " 
"Poi)to-:Maiip:an," 
"Perfection," 
"Persian," 
"Pigs  in  Clover," 
"Poplar  Log," 
"Portland," 
"Portuondo," 
"Pride," 
"Puddine," 
"Queen," 
"Queen  Quality," 

vtly — Barlow  &  .lonos  v.  Johnson, 
7  P.   R.   ;3!>r). 

56— A'j-  parte  Lorcnz,  89  0(T.  Gaz. 
2067. 

57 — Chancollor  of  Oxford  Univer- 
sity V.  Wilmore- Andrews  Pub.  Co., 
101  Fed.  Rep.  443. 

58— Davis  v.  Kendall,  2  R.  I.  566; 
Davis  V.  Kennedy,  13  Grant  Up. 
Can.   Ch.   523. 

59 — Roberts  v.  Sheldon,  Fed.  Case 
No.  11,916;  18  OfT.  Gaz.  1277;  8 
Bias.  398. 

60 — A.  Stein  &  Co.  v.  Liberty 
Garter  Co.,  198   Fed.   Rep.  959. 

61— Smith  V.  Mason,  W.  R. 
(1875),   p.  62. 

62— :M.  J.  Breitenbacli  Co.  v. 
Spannrenberp,  131  Fed.  Rep.   160. 

63 — Kyle  v.  Perfection  Mattress 
Co.,   127  Ala.  39;   28  So.  Rep.  545. 

64— Taylor  v.  Carpenter  (1),  3 
Story,  458. 


( 'lass  of  (loods. 
towels.'"' 
biscuits.'"' 
bibles." 
medicine.''** 
needles.''" 
garters,''" 
medicine.''' 

medicinal   i)reparation.'* 
mattresses."-' 
thread.''^ 
puzzle.'''' 
whiskey."" 
stoves."' 
cigars."** 
cigars.''" 

I)udding  i)reparation.'^'' 
shoes.'' 
shoes.'- 

().') — Lyman  v.  Burns,  47  Off.  Gaz. 
(160. 

66 — Somers  v.  Newman,  31  App. 
D.   C.    193. 

67 — Van  Horn  v.  Coogan,  52  N. 
.1.  Eq.  380;  28  Atl.  Rep.  788; 
aflirnu'd,  Van  Horn  v.  Coogan,  52 
X.  J.  Eq.  588,  33  Atl.  Rep.  50. 

68 — Juan  F.  Portuondo  Cigar 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  \'incente  Portuondo 
Cigar  Mfg.  Co..  70  Atl.  Rep.  9()8 ; 
222   Pa.    116. 

69— Hier  v.  Abrahams,  82  N.  Y. 
519;   37  Am.  Rep.  589. 

70 — Clotworthy  v.  Sehepp,  42  Fed. 
Rep.    62. 

71— Thomas  G.  Plant  Co.  v.  May 
Co.,  44  C.  C.  A.  534,  105  Fed.  Rep. 
375;  Thomas  G.  Plant  Co.  v.  May 
Co.,  100  Fed.  Rep.  72. 

72— Thomas  G.  Plant  Co.  v.  May 
Mercantile  Co..  153  Fed.  Rep.  229; 
Thos.  G.  Plant  Co.  v.  Hamburger, 
153  Fed.  Rep.  232. 


§48] 


llOl'KlNs    ON     IK  \I>I,M  \UKS. 


128 


Clainud  as  T rail c mark. 
"Rndiuin." 
"  Hanu'Sfs." 
"KanitT." 
"Roxall." 
"Kisclioii-lc   Zioii." 
"Rising  S\iii,'" 
"Roai-h  Sault." 
"Robe  &  Taimiiip  Co.," 
"Roper  Williams,'' 
"Roof  Leak." 
"Rosebud,'* 
"Rowley,  " 
"Royal." 
"Royal  Blue," 
"Sapolio," 
"Saj)()uifier, " 
' '  Sarony, ' ' 

7.1 — Kiwmnn  v.  SphifTcr,  \7u  Fod. 
Ut'p.   47:}. 

74 — Stt'phnno  v.  SatmatopouloB, 
109  Fi-d.  R.'p.  4.'>1. 

7.'! — Kostcrin;;  v.  Scattlr  IJrt'wiii^' 
\  Maltinjr  to.,  \A  V.  C.  A.  7f.,  IKi 
F.'d.  H«'p.  020. 

7n — Ri'j,'iB  V.  Jaynea,  70  N.  E.  Rep. 
480;  18.')  Mass.  4.')8;  airirnu'd  in  77 
N.  K.  R.p.  774.  191  Mass.  24.');  com- 
j)an-  Tln'odorr  Rretanus  Co.  v. 
UniU-d  Dru;,'  Co..  22(5  Ft-d.  Rep.  .')4.'i 
(C.   C.    A.    Oi,   Hcc   Hi'f.    47. 

77 — .L'wish  Colonization  Aes'n  v. 
Solomon  A  Cicrmansky.  I'll  r<il. 
Rep.   ir,7. 

7R_Morw  V.  Worr.ll.  lo  I'liila. 
1(18. 

79_Stprn  v.  Rarntt  Clnrn.  C... 
29  Misc.  Rep.  fiOO;  reverwd.  Rarrett 
<  li.m.   Co.    V.   St«Tn,    170    \.    Y.    27. 

80— Dyment  V.  L.-win  (Iowa),  123 
V     \V     R.p     244 


Class  tif  (looils. 
silk.'-' 

ci^rarettes.'* 
l)eer."' 

(lyspepsiii  n'liH'ily."" 
\viiu\' ' 

stove  polish.'^ 
inseetieide,'" 
trading  naine.**" 
eotton  clotii.''' 
roof  j)aint.'*'- 
canned  salmon. ''^ 
artificial  limbs.'*'* 
bakino;  powder. **''^ 
cari)et  sweeper. **•' 
scourinp:  brick.**^ 
concentrated  lye.** 
photop:rai)hs.'''' 

SI — Barrows  v.  Knipht,  0  U.  1. 
4:{4;    t"o.\.  Am.  Tr.  Cas.   238. 

82 — Klliott  Varnish  Co.  v.  Sears. 
Roehuek   &    Co..   221    Fed.    Rep.    797. 

83 — A'jT  parte  Kinney.  72  OIT. 
C,H/..  1.349. 

84 — J.  F.  Rowley  Co.  v.  Rowley, 
ir)4   Fed.    Rep.   744. 

8.") — Royal  Bakin;;  Powder  Co.  v. 
Raymond,  70  Fed.  Rep.  376;  Ray- 
mond V.  Royal  Bakin;.'  Powder  Co., 
8.-)   Fed.    Rep.   231.  29   C.   C.    A.   24.'>. 

SO — Kx  pnrh-  Crand  Ra|)idrt 
School  Furniture  Co.,  87  <MT.  (!a/.. 
19. -.7. 

S7 —  llnoeii  Mor;,'an"s  Sons  Co.  v. 
Wendover,  43  Fed.  Rep.  420;  Enoch 
Morjian's  Sons  Co.  v.  Ward.  l.'>2  Fi-d. 
Rep.   090;   81    C.  C.   A.   010. 

88— Pennsylvania  Salt  Mf^'.  Co. 
V.    Meyers.   79    Fed.    Rep.    87. 

89— Burrow  v.  Marceau.  109  N. 
Y.  St.    10.-.;    124   App.   Div.  Oflr>. 


12!) 


wiivr  ((iNs'rriTTKS  a   valid    ik  \I)i;m  \kk. 


f§48 


ClaitiK  <l  (IS  'intih mark. 
"Sclmii|)ps," 
"Scl'loii." 
"JShawkiiit,  " 
*' Shipmate," 
"Silver  Grove," 
"Six  Little  Tailors," 
"Slate  Roofinp." 
"Sliced  Animals," 
"Social  Register," 
"Sozodoiit." 
"Spanish, " 

"Standard  T.  O.  C.  Co.,"  . 
"Star," 
"Star," 
"Star," 
"Star," 
"Star," 
"Star," 
"Sterling," 

90— Pv.  J.  Reynolds  Toh.  Co.  v. 
Allen  Bros.  Tol).  Co..  Ill  Fed.  Rep. 
819. 

91— Hirst  V.  Deiiliam,  L.  R.  14 
Eq.   r)42. 

92— Shaw  Stocking'  Co.  v.  :Mack, 
12  Fed.  Rep.  707. 

93 — Stamford  Fouiidrv  Co.  v. 
Thatcher  Furnace  Co..  2(»()  Fed.  Rep. 
324. 

94— Seltzer  v.  Powell,  8  Pliila. 
296. 

9.1 — Mossier  V.  Jacobs,  0.1  111.  App. 

r.7i. 

96— /tt  re  Glines,  8  Oflf.  Gaz.  43.-). 

97— Selchow  v.  Baker,  93  X.  Y. 
r)9. 

98 — Social  Re<x.  Ass'n.  v.  Howard, 
60  Fed.  Rep.  270;  ()7  (^IT.  Gaz. 
1448. 

99— Hall  &  Ruck.'l  v.  lnj,'rani.  2S 
App.   D.  C.   454. 

1 — R.  Guastavino  Co.  v.  Com- 
erma,    184   Fed.    Rep.    549. 


Class  II f  (l()<)({s. 
\)\n\z  lohacco."" 
cloth. '" 
stockings."' 
stoves."'' 
■whiskey."' 

tailoi'ing  firm's  namc^** 
paint.'"' 
toys."' 
directory."** 
dentifrice."" 
tile.' 

corporate  name.^ 
shirts.^ 
iron.^ 
oil.-' 
soap.'' 

lead  jiencils.'^ 
tobaeeo.** 
ale." 

2— Standard  Tahle  Oil  Cloth  Co. 
V.  Trenton  Oil  Cloth  k  Linoleum 
Co.,  03   Atl.  Rep.   840,  71   X.  J.    E'l. 

3 — Morrison  v.  Case,  9  Blatchf. 
r)48;  2  Oir.  Gaz.  544;  Fed.  Case  No. 
984.1;  Hutchinson  v.  Blumberg,  51 
Fed.  Rep.  829;  Hutchinson  v.  Covert, 
.11    Fed.   Rep.  832. 

4 — Dixon  V.  .Jackson,  2  Scot.  L. 
Rep.    188. 

;1 — In  re  American  Lubricatinj^ 
Oil  Co.,  9  OIT.  Gaz.   138. 

6-  In  re  Cornwall,  12  Off.  Gaz. 
138. 

7 — Faber  v.  Hovey,  Codd.  Dig. 
79,   242;    Seb.    481. 

8— Liggett  &  Myer  Tob.  Co.  v. 
Sam  Reid  Tob.  Co.,  155  Mo.  843; 
Liggett  &  ilyer  Tob.  Co.  v.  Hynea, 
20   Fed.   Rep.   883. 

9 — Worcester  Brewing  Corpora- 
tion V.  Renter  &  Co.,  157  Fed.  Rep. 
217;  84  C.  C.  A.  665    (C.  C.  A.   1). 


§48] 


HOPKINS    ON    TKAPK.M  \I{K>^. 


i:u) 


Claimtil  lis  Tnuh  nunk. 
"St.  James," 
"St.  .Tames," 
"Suiili^'lit." 
"Sunshine," 
"Swan  Down." 
"Sweet  Caporal." 
"Sweet     O  p  ()  i>  <)  n  a  X     of 

Mexii'o," 
"Syrup      of      Red      Spruce 

Gum."' 
"Taniar  Indien," 
"Teller," 

"The  Good  Things  of  Life," 
'•  Til e  Nile," 

"Tidal  Wave." 
"Tivoli." 
"Tobaseo," 
"Trilby," 
"Turpentine  Shellae," 

10_Gil.U-tt  V.  Rrad.  0  Mod.  4.->0: 
Sob.  3,  Kx  parte  Fobs,  In  re  Bald- 
win, 30  L.  T.  354;  2  DcG.  &  .1. 
230;  27  L.  J.  Bkptcy.  17;  4  .Tur. 
X.   S.    522;    21    L.   T.  30;    S.I..    150. 

11— Kinm-y    v.    Basch.    S.I..    542. 

12— L«'V«T  Bros.  (Ltd.)  v.  Pas- 
field,  S8  F.d.   R.'p.  4S4. 

1.3— K<'adinf,'  Stov.-  Works  v.  S. 
M.  IIowi'B  Co.,  87  N.  K.  R.p.  T^l; 
201    Ma«8.   437. 

14— Ti'tlow  V.  'la|.i.aii,  S.'.  F.-d. 
H.p.  774. 

1,') — Kinnry  Toh.  Co.  v.  Mailer, 
.'•.3  Hun,  340;  «  N.  Y.  Supp.  380; 
lIornl»oHt4'l  V.  Kiniu'V,  110  N.  Y.  04, 
17   N.   K.    H.-p.  «««. 

Ifl — Smitli  V.  \\'<M>dniir.  JS  Biirl>. 
438. 

17— Ki-rry  v.  Tmipin.  t,n  |',  ,1    i:.|. 


Class  of  (loods. 
newspaj)er.'"' 
rijjarettes.' ' 
soap.'-' 
stoves.''' 

complexion  powder.'* 
ei^'arettes. '•'■ 

pcrfiiiiie.""' 

medicine.'" 

lozenpes."* 

recordinjr  safe.'" 

l)eriodieal.-" 

l)layin<2:  cards  registered  as 

a  i)rint.-' 
tobaceo.-- 
beer.--* 
sauce. -^ 
gloves.^'"^ 
wood  filler.-" 

IS^drillon  v.  (luiniii.  W.  X. 
1S77.   p.    14. 

lit — Automatic  Kccordiii;,'  Safe  Co. 
v.  Bankers"  Rej.;isterin;;  Safe  Co., 
2'24  Fed.   Rep.  50«i. 

20- Stokes  V.  Allen.  0  .\'.  V.  Supp. 
S4(>;    50    Hun.    52(). 

21 — /v'j-  parte  United  States  Play- 
iiifT    Card    Co.,    82    Off.    V.nz.    1200. 

22— Sor-,'    V.    Welsl).    It;    ()ir.    Caz. 

2.'i — Berliner  Bruuerei  (.Jeaell- 
sel.aft  V.  Knight,  W  .  N.  1883,  p.  70. 

24 — E.  Mcllhenny's  Son  v.  New 
llteria    Kxtract    of    Talmsco    Pe|)per 

Co.,  30  App.  1).  c.  .i:':. 

2."> — /h  rr  Holt  &  Co's  Trademark 
(C.    A.),    L.    R.     (IHOl  I     1    Ch.    711. 

2<'» — (,\h  ajjainst  unfair  oompeti- 
tiimi.  ^tandar<l  Varnish  WorkH  v. 
Fislier,  'I'lii.rsen  &  Co..  l.'':i  Fed.  Rep. 
028. 


131 


WHAT    CONSTITl-rKS    A     VAI>11)     1  HADDM  AKK. 


§48 


t'ldimcd  as  TnuU mark. 
''Twin  Brothers,*' 
"Uneeda," 
"Vulvoline," 
"Velvet  Grip,"   • 
"Victor," 
"Victoria," 
"  \'irgiiiia  Leaf," 
"  Vitaseope," 
"Vulean," 
"Warner," 
"Waverly," 
"  Wearever, " 
"White  House," 
"White  Rock  Lithia," 
"Wilh)u<?hby  Lake," 
"Wistar's  Balsam  of  W^ild 

Cherry," 
"Yankee," 

27— Burton  v.  Stratton,  12  Fod. 
Rpp.  {•.!)(). 

28 — National  Biscuit  Co.  v.  Baker, 
05   Fed.   Rep.    1:3.'). 

21) — Leonard  v.  White's  Golden 
Lubricator  Co.,  38  Fed.  Rep.  022; 
Leonard  v.  Wells,  L.  R.  20  Ch.  D. 
288.  Per  contra.  In  re  Horsbur<rli, 
53  L.  J.  Ch.   237. 

30— E.  B.  Kstes  &  Sons  v.  Geo. 
Froat  Co.,  170  Fed.  Rep.  338;  100 
C.  C.  A.  2r)8. 

31 — Andrew  McLean  Co.  v.  Adams 
Mfg.  Co.,  31  App.  D.  C.  500. 

32 — Andrew  McLean  Co.  v.  Adams 
Mfg.  Co.,  31  App.  D.  C.  500. 

33 — American  Tob.  Co.  v.  Polac- 
sek,    170    Fed.    Rep.    117. 

34 — ^'itascope  Co.  v.  U.  S.  Phono- 
graph  Co.,   83   Fed.   Rep.   30. 

35 — Taendsticksfabriks  Aktiebol- 
aget  Vulcan  v.  ^Myers,  130  X.  Y. 
304. 


Class  of  (j'oods. 
yeast.2^ 
biscuit.*"* 
lubricatint;  oil.^" 
hose  supporter.'"' 
millinery  ^oods.^' 
millinery  goods.-'^^ 
tobacco. •'•' 
machine.''^ 
matches.''" 
corsets.'"' 
bicycles,'*^ 
aluminum  ware.^^ 
coffee.^'' 
water.  ^" 
scythe-stones.*^ 

medicine.^2 
soap.^-' 

30 — Warner  Bros.  Co.  v.  Wiener, 
218  Fed.  Rep.  035. 

37 — Ex  parte  Indiana  Bicycle  Co., 
72  Off.   Gaz.   054. 

38 — Aluminum  Cooking  Utensil 
Co.  V.  National  Aluminum  Works, 
226  Fed.  Rep.  815. 

30— Dwinell-Wright  Co.  v.  Co- 
operative Supply  Co.,  148  Fed.  Rep. 
242;    155  Fed.  Rep.  000. 

40— National  Water  Co.  v.  O'Con- 
iiell,  150  Fed.  Rep.  1001;  affirmed, 
S8  C.  C.  A.  487,  101  Fed.  Rep.  545 
(C.  C.  A.  3)  ;  National  Water  Co. 
V.   Hertz,   177   Fed.  Rep.  607. 

41— Pike  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Cleveland 
Stone  Co.,  35  Fed.   Rep.  806. 

42— Fowle  V.  Spear,  7  Pa.  L.  J. 
170. 

43 — Williams  v.  Adams,  8  Biss. 
452;  Fed.  Case  No.  17711;  Williams 
V.  Spence,  25  How.  Pr.  300:  Wil- 
liams V.  Johnson,  2  Bos.  1. 


§49] 


HOPKINS    DN    TU.VOEMARKS. 


132 


g  49.  Generic  terms  judicially  defined.  It  is  confusing  to 
the  stutlont  to  ho  t(»lil  that  words  indit-uting  (iwality  can  not 
Ik'  valiil  trademarks,  and  yet  to  he  confronted  ])y  tlie  j)hysi- 
cal  fact  and  judicial  dictum  that  the  lii},'hest  function  of  tiie 
trademark  is  its  iudicalion  of  (|ualify.  In  a  lt';u^m^J:  case 
Mr.  .Justice  Field  said  that  a  traih'marU  is  "a  si<rn  of  the 
(inality  of  the  article;"'^  and  in  the  leadiii};  ease  of  Anios-kauj 
Manufaiturn\(j  Co.  v.  Sprdr,  the  learned  court  says  that  the 
tradeuuirk  of  a  numufacturer  "is  an  assurance  to  tlie  i)ublic 
of  tlie  (juality  of  his  floods."  '•'■        In   the  same  ojjiuion,  iiow- 


44 — Miinliattiui  MfdiciiK-  Co.  v. 
W.Mxl.  KIS  U.  S.  21S--2'22:  27  L.  K.l. 
7()U. 

4'j — Amoskeag  Mf>j.  Co.  v.  Spi-ar 
(1840).  2  Sand.  S.  C.  500;  Cox,  87; 
Sol).   100. 

In  a  rrct-nt  caso  .Iiid^'i'  Hradf»)rd 
has  called  attention  to  the  use  of 
the  word  "quality"  in  the  casea, 
and  distin^juished  its  two  differ- 
ent meaninps,  in  tlie  following 
lanjnuijre : 

"A  tradiniark  in  (h-si^ined  to  en- 
able one  h'jiitimately  to  huihl  u|> 
or  protect  his  ImsineH.s,  hut  not  to 
deprive  otinTH  of  the  ri;;lit  to  use 
ni-cessary  or  proper  mi  ans  for  car- 
rying on  an  honoral)lc  competi- 
tion in  trade.  No  one  lias  a  right 
to  appropriate  a  sign  or  a  Hyml)ol 
wliich,  from  tiie  nature  of  the  fact 
it  is  uwd  to  signify,  otliers  may 
emjiloy  with  e(|ual  truth,  and  tiiere- 
fore  have  an  i-<puil  riglit  to  employ 
fr  r  the  same  purpose.  Caiuil  Co. 
V.  Clark,  13  Wall.  311,  324.  Hence 
no  one  can  acquire  an  exclusive 
right  to  tlu'  uw,  as  a  trademark, 
of  a  genj-ric  name,  or  word,  whicli 
Ik  merely  descriptive  of  an  article, 
or  a  sign,  syndwd,  figure,  lettt-r, 
hrand,  form  or  device,  wliich  either 
on  its  face  or  hy  association  indi 
cat<*H  or  denotes  merely  grade, 
quality,     class,     shape,     style,     size, 


iM;,'ri(liitils  <ir  composition  of  an 
article  or  a  word  or  words  in  com- 
mon u.se  designating  locality,  sec- 
tion or  regi<m  of  country.  The 
word  'quality'  is  used  in  difTercnt 
senses  in  the  cases.  It  is  emjdoyed 
in  some  to  denote  tlu-  grade,  ingre- 
dients or  priqierties  of  an  article, 
and  in  others  to  indicate  generally 
the  merit  or  excellence  of  an  ar- 
ticle as  associated  with  or  coming 
from  a  certain  source.  While  there 
can  lie  III)  valid  trademark  as  de- 
noting <iuality  when  used  merely 
in  the  former  sens*',  there  may  be 
a  valid  trademark  as  indicating 
quality  wlieii  used  in  the  latter 
sense.  Thus  in  McLean  v.  Flem- 
ing. !M1  1'.  S.  24.'>-2.")3,  the  court 
said : 

"  'Such  a  proprietor,  if  he  owns 
or  controls  the  goods  which  he  ex- 
j.(  ses  to  sale,  is  entitled  to  the  ex- 
elusiv*'  use  of  any  trademark 
adopted  and  applied  hy  him  to  tin- 
goods  to  distinguish  them  as  being 
of  a  particular  mamifaitiire  and 
i|iiality.'  et<'. 

•In  Medicine  Co.  v.  Wood.  108 
f.  S.  21S.  222;  2  Sup.  Ct.  430,  the 
<-ourt  said : 

"  'He  may  thus  notify  the  public 
of  the  origin  of  the  article  and 
secure     to     himself      the      benefits     of 


I'Mi  ^VIIAT    CONSTITUTES    A    VALID    THAHK.M  AUK.  [§*19 

ever,  the  jiul^e  (I)iier)  observes  tliat  the  iiiaiuifacturer  "has 
110  ri^ht  to  approjjriate  a  si{,Mi  or  symbol  wliieli,  from  the 
nature  of  the  fact  wliich  it  is  used  to  signify,  others  may 
employ  with  (Mjual  truth,  aud  therefore  have  au  equal  rif^ht  to 
emjjloy  for  tlie  sanu*  purpose.  Were  such  au  a|)propriation 
to  be  saiH'l  idiM'd  hy  au  iujuuct  i(ui,  the  action  of  a  eourt  of 
equity  would  be  as  injurious  to  the  public  as  it  is  now  benefieial ; 
it  would  have  the  elTect  in  many  instaix-es  of  ereatiuf?  a 
monopoly  in  the  sale  of  j)ar1icular  ^oods  as  exclusive  as  if 
secured  by  a  patent,  aiul  freed  from  any  limitation  of  time. '^ 
In  aiu)ther  early  ease  tlie  chancellor  observed:  "In  respect 
to  Avords,  marks  or  devices  which  dok  not  denote  the  goods 
or  j)ro])erty  or  particular  place  of  business  of  a  person,  but 
only  the  nature,  kind  or  quality  of  the  articles  in  which  he  deals, 
*  *  *  no  i)r()i)erty  in  such  words,  marks  or  devices  can 
be  acquired.  There  is  obviously  no  good  reason  why  one 
person  should  have  any  better  right  to  use  them  than  another. 
They  may  be  used  by  many  different  persons  at  the  same  time, 
in  their  brands,  marks  or  labels  on  their  respective  goods, 
■with  perfect  truth  and  fairness.  They  signify  nothing,  when 
fairly  interj)i'eted,  by  which  any  dealer  in  a  similar  article 
could  be  defrauded."^"'  And  in  more  recent  cases  the  rule 
has  been  explained  in  somewhat  similar  terms:  "It  is  true 
that  no  one  can  ajipropriate  as  a   trademark  the  commercial 

any  i)artic'iilar  excellence  it  may  Ity  tium  to  possess  a  certain  de- 
possess  from  tlie  manner  or  mate-  <;ree  of  excellence.  ♦  •  •  And 
rials  of  its  manufacture.  His  tlie  fact  that  flour  so  marked  ac- 
trademark  is  l)<)th  a  sijrn  of  tlie  (juired  an  extensive  sale,  because 
quality  of  the  article  and  an  as-  the  public  discovered  that  it  mijjht 
surance  to  the  pulilic  tliat  it  is  a  be  relied  on  as  of  a  uniformly 
genuine  ])r()(luct  of  his  manufac-  nn'ritorious  quality,  demonstrates 
ture.'  that     the     brand     deserves     protec- 

"In  Menondez  v.   Holt,  128  U.   S.  tion    rather   than    it   should  be   de- 

514,  520;  9  Sup.  Ct.   144,  the  court,  barred    therefrom,    on    the    {rround, 

8peakin<j    of    the    words    'La    Favo-  as    arpued,    of    beinp    indicative    of 

rita'  as  applied   to  flour,   said:  <piality  only.'"     Dennison  ^Ifp.  Co. 

" 'Tt  was  equivalent  to  the  si<rna-  v.    Thomas   Mf<,'.    Co.,    04    Fed.   Rep. 

ture  of  Holt  <St  Co.  to  a  certificate  Cui\Cuu. 

that  the   flour  was  the  penuine   ar-  4C) — Stokes  v.  LandprafT,  17  Barb, 

tide    which     had    been    determined  608;    Cox,    137;    Seb.    121. 


§50]  IIDIKINS    ON    '1  KADEMARKS.  134 

nnnio  of  an  nrtido  wliicli  every  man  lias  tlie  ri^rlif  to  make 
ami  soil."  *' 

"No  manufacturer  can  acquire  a  special  property  in  an 
ordinary  term  or  expression,  the  use  of  which  as  an  entirety 
is  essential  to  the  correct  and  truthful  desijjnation  of  a 
particular  article  or  compound.  The  courts  liave  {lone  a  long 
way,  and  with  i)lain  justice,  in  i)rotectinj;  the  honest  and 
enterprisiiif;  nuiinifacturcr  of  any  pood  and  useful  article 
from  tlie  unscru|)ulous  |)iratiiijr  of  his  sp<'cial  reputation;  but 
they  have  been  eipmlly  carefid  to  ])revent  any  attempted 
mono|ioly  of  that  which  is  common  to  all.''  ''' 

'"Xoi*  can  a  <r(>Meric  name,  or  a  tiani(>  merely  descriptive  of 
an  article  of  trade,  of  its  (lualitics.  iii<ri-cdients  or  character- 
istics. 1)0  emi)loyed  as  a  trademark,  and  the  exclusive  use  of 
it  he  entitled  to  le<ral  protection.  No  one  can  claim  jirotection 
for  the  exclusive  use  of  a  trademark  or  tradename  which 
would  i)ractically  pive  him  a  monopoly  in  the  sale  of  any 
poods  other  than  those  produced  or  made  by  himself.  If  he 
could,  the  public  would  be  injured  rather  than  i)rotected.  for 
competition  would  bo  destroyed."*^" 

The  fact  that  the  article  to  wliicii  tlic  tradcniai-k  is  apjilied 
lias  obtained  such  a  wide  sale  that  the  mark  has  become 
indicative  of  quality,  as  well  as  of  oripin  and  ownership, 
is  not  of  itself  suflRcient  to  render  the  mark  itxhiiri  juns  and 
so  deprive  its  owner  of  the  ripht  to  relief  apainst  infrinpers.^" 

§50.  Marks  common  to  the  trade. — The  expression  "com- 
mon to  the  trade'"  is  used  in  the  Tradcnuirk  Act  of  Enpland 
in  the  followinp  connection  (T.  ]\I.  A..  liX)'),  s.  ir>)  : 

"(3)  Any  device,  niai-k.  bi-aiui.  Iieadiiip.  label,  ticket,  letter, 
word,  fipuro.  or  combination  of  lctt(M's,  words  or  tipures.  which 
was.  or  wore,  before  the  thirteenth  day  of  Aupust.  one  tliousand 
oipht    hundred   and   seventy-five.    p\il)Iicly   used   by    more   than 

47— DnydopiM-l      v.      Yoiinfr.      U  I.     IM.    '>;•  1  .     "•    .\m.    L.    T.    1H.'>;    1 

PhilH.    '22fi;     Prici-    A     St.iiiirt,     VIA.  « »IT.    Ca/..   27!t;    S.-U.    ;»27. 

424.  .'>0 — I.ftwn'iipr  Mfj;.  Co.  v.  IN-nneB- 

4g_To\vn  V.   Sti'tBon,  f.   .M.l..    Pr  ««••.   Mfjr.   Co..    \:\H   V.    S.    'u\7,   r>47 ; 

N.    S.   21S;    fox,  r.l4.   rA't.  :i»   K.    K<l.   !«>7:    Hiirton  v.  Strutton, 

40— n.'lHwan-     A      niiilw.n     Cnniil  12   I'.d.   Ucp.   tfl'ti. 
Co.    V.   (lurk.    1.5    Wall.   .U 1  :i2.'{ ;    20 


11^5  Wll  \'l'   CONS'!  I'ri'I'I'.S    \    V  \l,ll>    IK  \l)i:.M  \UK.  f§''>0 

tlirop  jxTsoiis  oil  the  saiiio  or  n  sitiiilnr  (lrs('ri{)tion  of  goods 
shall,  for  tlir  imrposcs  of  this  soction,  Ix'  decraed  coramon 
to  the  trade  in  siifli  goods." 

Til  ap{)lyiiifr  th*'  statute  the  Hiigiish  eouits  have  interj)roted 
the  words  "eoiiiiiioii  1o  the  trade"  in  their  ordinary  signifi- 
eaiiee.  which  fact  makes  the  Eiiglisli  decisions  concerning 
iiuirks  of  this  class  valiiahle  as  precedents  in  this  country. 
Speaking  of  this   term,   Mr.   Justice   Chitty   siiid : 

"Tlie  ai)j)licant's  contention  is  tliat  'common  to  tlie  trade' 
means  that  which  is  open  to  the  trade  to  use,  substituting 
another  phrase,  in  order  to  bring  out  exactly  the  meaning 
■which  the  applicant  contended  ought  to  be  ])laced  upon  the 
■words;  and  in  support  of  liis  contention  he  puts  this  case:  Sup- 
posing that  there  is  some  word  which  has  been  used  by  the 
trade  largely,  some  ten  years  or  so,  or  by  twenty  or  thirty 
persons  before  the  application  for  registration  under  this  Act 
of  1883 ;  but  for  certain  reasons  all  those  persons,  except  two 
or  three,  have  dropped  the  user;  they  may  have  recourse  to 
the  user  again  at  any  time.  If,  says  the  applicant,  the  term 
'common  to  the  trade'  is  confined  to  user,  it  must  mean  user 
at  the  time  of  the  application.  That  Avas  also  the  contention 
on  the  part  of  the  respondent,  that  'common  to  the  trade' 
meant  common  user  at  the  date  when  the  a])])lication  was 
made;  and  T  think  that  is  a  very  good  illustration  to  sho-w 
that  the  legislature  could  not  have  intended  to  employ  this 
term  in  that  sense.  But  the  true  resolution  of  the  question  is 
very  simple;  the  phrase  'common  to  the  trade'  is  not  to  be 
inteqircted  otherwise  than  according  to  the  ordinary  rules 
of  grammar,  and  I  think  'common  to  the  trade'  means  exactly 
what  it  says.  I  can  not  really  make  use  of  a  better  term ; 
but  I  can  make  use  of  a  term  which  T  think  exactly  corresponds 
with  the  meaning — I  do  not  say  it  is  better — that  it  is  'open 
to  the  trade.'  "  ^^ 

In  examiiiing  the  cases  in  which  marks  have  been  found  to 
be  common  to  a  trade  some  cnrious  instances  will  be  found. ^^ 

r>l— Biirlaiul  V.  Broxl.urn  Oil  Co..  Iluddart,    21    B.    P.    C.    140;    hi    re 

6  R.  P.  C.  482.  480.  Ba-rots,   Hutton   &   Co.,  Ltd.,   .32   R. 

52 — lUnstratious    of    marks    com-  P.   C.   333,  347;   the  word  "Tower," 

mon  to  the  trade.     The  device  of  a  to  the  tea  trade,  Great  Tower  Street 

cat,    to    the    ^'in    trade,     Boord    v.  T.-a   Co.   v.   Smith.   6  R.  P.   C.   172; 


§51]  llOIKINS    t)N    TIIADEMARKS.  \'M] 

^  51.  The  name  given  an  unpatented  invention  by  the  in- 
ventor.— 8iu*li  nunies  clearly  should,  if  otherwise  unobjection- 
able, be  treated  as  valid  trademarks  in  the  hands  of  the  inven- 
tor or  his  assifjns.  Under  the  rule  discussed  in  the  next 
section,  if  the  inventor  patents  his  invention,  he  can  not 
lenpthcn  his  monopoly's  dnralion  by  apjilyinpr  a  trademark 
to  the  p;it(Mited  article;  his  ripht  to  the  trndemark  expires 
with  tlie  life  of  the  letters  patent.  "Wliere  he  elects  to  dedicate 
his  invention  to  the  public,  his  ri<rht  to  ndo]it  a  trademark 
for  such  sjiecimens  as  lie  himself  may  manufacture,  is  obvious. 
But  the  name  by  which  he  distiii<ruishes  his  invention,  beinp 
the  necessary  name  of  the  article,  can  not  be  used  by  another, 
holdinp  no  assigTiment   from   the  inventor.^^ 

§  52,  Necessary  name  of  a  product, — The  necessary  name 
of  a  ])ro(1u('t.  natural  or  mainifactuj-cd,  can  not  be  a  trademark, 
ff)r  the  reasons  we  have  discussed.  This  is  true  of  goods 
maiMifactured  under  a  ])atent.  The  descri]>tive  name  by  which 
they  are  known  durinpr  the  life  of  the  letters  jiatent  becomes 
their  popular  name  in  the  trade — the  name  by  which  they  are 
necessarily  known  and  distinpruished.  When,  therefore,  the 
protection  of  the  patent  has  expired  the  name  is  puhlici  juris, 
and  the  manufacturer  under  the  letters  patent  can  claim  no 
trademark  in  it."'^ 

tho   drvicf    tif    a    milkmaid,    to   tho  picture    of    a    swan     floatinj.'    upon 

Initt^T  trade.  In  re  An;,'lo-S\vi88  Con-  water,  to  the   flour  trade,   Hulte   v. 

den.ed   Milk  Co.,  20   R.    P.   C.   r)09;  I<,deheart  Bros.,   137   Fed.   Rep.  492, 

tlib   words   "Bank    of    England,"    to  ilOl;    70    C.    C.    A.    7(5;     the    word 

the  sealing-wax  trade.  In  re  Hyde  "Velvet,"    to    the    ice-cream    trade, 

&    Co.,    7    Ch.    D.    724;    the    words  Chapin-Sacka    Mfp.    Co.    v.    Ilendler 

"Parchment"    and    "Bank,"    to    the  Creamery  Co.,   2.31    Fed.    Rep.    5.')0; 

paper  trade.  In  re  Coodall,  42  Ch.  D.  the  "saw-huck"  or  "crosa-har"  mark, 

.'">0((;    the    words   "Old    Innishowcn,"  to    the    tea    trafle.    Castle    v.    Siep- 

to  the  whisky  trade.  Watt  V.  O'Han-  fried,    lO.S    Cal.    71;     'M    Tao.    Rep. 

Ion,  4  R.  ]'.  C.  1;  the  words  "Kxtra"  210. 

and   "Coki-r,"   to   the   canvas   trade,  .">:{ — H.  B.  ChalTee  Mffj.  Co.  v.  Sil- 

Jn    rr    Ilayward    &    Sons,    'A    L.   .1.  chow,  l.Jl  Fed.  Rep.  M'^. 
Ch.  100.3;  the  words  "Braided  Fixed  M — Centaur  Co.   v.    Robinson,   91 

SUr,"    to    the    match    trade.    In    re  Fed.    Rep.    889;    Same   v.    Neathery, 

T'almer,   24    Ch.    D.    noi ;    the    word  !>1    Fed.    Rep.  891;   Same  v.   Hughes 

"S<>lected,"    to  the   Ht«'el    p.-n    trad<>,  Bros.    Mfg.    Co.,   91    Fed.    Itep.    901. 

In  re  Kiihn  &  Co.,  .'i.3  L.  .1.  Ch.  .328;  The   cubcb   are   collected,  ante,    §  4.'). 
the    words   "White    Swan"    and    the 


137  WU  A'l'    CON.STITITKS    A     VALID    'Il<AI)i;.M  \KK.  I  §  ^2 

Thus,  tlic  wofd  "  Ijiiiok'imi"  as  applied  to  a  kind  of  floor 
covering,-'^"''  "Singer"  a])plicd  to  seuint^  machines,'"'*  and 
"Lanolinc"  aj)plied  to  a  wcjol-l'at  ]>rej)ai'ation,"''  were  lield 
to  be  puhlu-i  juris  upon  tlie  expiration  of  tlie  letters  patent 
covering  the  articles  to  which  they  were  applied. 

Analogous  to  this  class  of  eases  is  that  where  new  com- 
binations of  old  elements  are  found,  and  it  is  sought  to 
distinguish  such  a  new  compound  or  combination  by  joining 
the  descrii)tive  names  of  its  constituent  elements.  This  is 
best  illustrated  by  a  case  where  the  words  claimed  as  trade- 
mark were  "Ferro-phosphorated  Elixir  of  Calisaya  Bark," 
which  claim  was  distinctly  negatived  by  the  New  York  Court 
of  Appeals,  Folger,  J.,  saying:  "They  may  not  be  appropriated 
by  one  to  mark  an  article  of  his  manufacture,  when  they  may 
be  used  truthfully  by  another  to  inform  the  public  of  the 
ingredients  which  make  up  an  article  made  by  him."'^''  For 
this  reason  the  name  "Acid  Phosphate"  applied  to  a  medicinal 
preparation, "9  and  "Indurated  Fibre"  applied  to  wares  made 
of  wood-pulp/'"  are  not  valid  trademarks;  and  the  word 
"Bromo-Quinine"  was  refused  registration  as  a  trademark 
for  medicines,*^ ^  as  was  also  the  word  "Ferro-Manganese" 
as  a  mark  for  mineral  waters.*''^  g^id  the  word  "Bromo-Celery" 
for  a  medicinal  preparation.'^^ 

There  are  cases,  however,  where  such  words  or  combinations 
of  words  have  been  held  not  to  be  descriptive.  Thus  the  word 
"Cocoaine"  as  applied  to  a  hair  wash  compounded  from  cocoa- 
nut   oil   and   other    ingredients,"^    and    "Magnetic    Balm"   as 

5;") — Linoleum  Mfjj.   Co.   v.   Nairn,  60 — Tndurated       Fibre       Co.,       v. 

L.   R.   7  Ch.   D.   834;   47   L.  J.  Cli.  Amoskea<?  Fibre  Co.,   37    Fed.    Rep. 

430;  38  L.  T.  N.  S.  448;  26  W.  R.  60"). 

463;   Seb.  536.  01 — hi    re    Grove,    New-ton,    Dig. 

r,6_Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Bent,  163  lfl2;    s.   c,  Ibid.    191;   67   Off.   Gaz. 

U.  S.   205;    41  L.  Ed.    131;    Singer  1447. 

Mfg.   Co.   V.  June,    163  U.    S.    KiO;  62— //i    re   Excelsior   Spring    Co., 

41  L.  Ed.  118.  Newton,  Dig.   153. 

57 — Jaffe  v.  Evans  &   Sons,  Ltd.,  63 — In  re  Bromo-Celerj'  Co.,  New- 

75  N.  Y.  Supp.  257.  ton,  Dig.  100. 

58— Caswell    v.    Davis,    58   N.   Y.  64— Burnett  v.   Phalon,  3  Keyes, 

223-233.  594. 

50 — Rumford      Chemical      Works 
v.  Mutli,  35  Fed.   Rep.   524. 


§52]  llOl'KINS   ON    TUAUKMAKKS.  138 

applied  to  a  niediciiml  coinpound,'  '  have  boon  iiphcld  as  valid 
trademarks.  The  word  "Elcctro-lSilicon"  applied  to  a  polish- 
ing compound  has  also  been  upheld,""  and  it  appears  very 
clear  that  the  wxirds  "Ma^iictiv"  or  "Eltvtric"  as  used  in 
tlie  t>\'0  cases  last  referred  to  are  purely  arbitrary  and  fanciful. 
AVe  have  noted  that  the  ])atent  office  has  refused  rcfjistra- 
tion  to  an  applicant  offcriii;^  the  word  "  Broino-(^uiniiH'"  as 
the  name  of  a  nuMlicinal  jircj)aratio!i.  This  decision  is  in 
hopeless  conflict  with  some  of  the  adjudicated  cases.  The 
word  "Hromidia.*"  as  a  trademark  for  a  i-hcmical  combination 
of  chloral  hydrate,  bromide  of  jiotassium  and  other  substances, 
was  admitted  to  I'c^Mst ration  and  sul)se(iuently  u|)held  as  valid, 
the  court  upon  final  hearings  saying  that  the  word  "has  no 
meaning  whatever  except  as  connected  with  complainants' 
business,  and  as  associated  with  and  iiulicativo  of  a  soothing 
or  soporific  mixture  ]irepared  and  sold  by  them.""^  The 
word  "Bromo-Caffeine"  was  admitted  to  registration,  and 
upheld  judicially.,  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  New  York  saying, 
per  Peckham,  J.:  "We  thiidc  there  is  a  distinction  between 
the  facts  in  this  case  and  that  of  Caswell  v.  Dai'isS'^  In  this 
case  the  term  ]ierhaps  suggests  that  some  one  among  the 
hundreds  of  substance's  that  bromine  may  combine  with  has 
been  used  in  such  combination  together  with  calTeine.  There 
are,  however,  some  seven  dilTercnt  ingredients  in  the  plaintiff's 
preparation,  and  there  is  no  free  bromine  among  them,  and 
there  is  no  evidence  as  to  what  the  substance  is  which  the 
bromine  (if  any)  had  combined  with  before  being  used  in  the 
pre]iaration,  and  so  it  is  ])lain  that  the  words  'Bromo-Caffeine* 
do  not  in  fact  describe  the  ingredients  or  even  give  any  clear 
general  idea  as  to  what  they  are."""  It  is  the  general  rule 
tkat  "when  an  article  is  made  that  was  theretofore  unknown, 
it  must  be  christened  with  a  name  by  which  it  can  be  recog- 
nized and  dealt   in  ;   and   the  name   thus  given   to   it  becomes 

05 — Smitli    V.    Sixliury,    2.'.    Hum,  7!m;.     (fiiml  li.arin;;)     r>()    F.-d.    Rep. 

232.  100. 

00— Klc-ctro-Silicon    Co.   v.   Trank,  OR— .'■)S   N.   Y.  2'2:i.  rit.d.  supra. 

.'in    How.    I'r.     IHO;     KI(ftroSilic«>n  (ill  — KiiihIm  y    v.    Ilrooklvn    Cluini- 

Co.   V.   Hazard,  29   Hun,  :«09.  cal   WurkH.    142    .N'.    V.    107-470. 

07 — Batth'  4  Co.  v.   Finlay    (pre- 
liminary   lii-aring),    4.')    ¥vd.    Ilcp. 


i;j«J  WHAT    CONSTITUTES     \    VALID    TUADKM  AUK.  f  § '^"^ 

public  property,  aiul  all  wiio  deal  in  the  article  liave  llie  rit^'lit 
to  designate  it  by  tlif  name  by  which  alone  it  is  recogniz- 
able." '" 

Under  ])ee\diar  circumstances  a  mark,  otherwise  a  valid 
trademark,  will  become  the  common  i)roperty  of  two  or  more 
merchants,  each  of  whom  may  have  a  rifjht  to  its  use,  [)rovided 
he  so  uses  it  as  not  to  pass  ofT  his  floods  as  those  of  one  of  the 
others  entitled  to  use  the  mark.  Tlius  a  plaintiff  was  refused 
an  injunction  rcslfaiiiiii^''  tlie  use  of  the  mark  "Araminpo 
Check"  to  desifj:nate  i)rinted  cloth  made  at  the  Araminpo 
Mills,  where  the  defendant  showed  that  the  cloth  sold  by  him 
under  the  mark  was  the  product  of  the  same  mills,  and  the 
labels  used  by  the  res])ective  jiarties  differed  in  size  and  color 
so  that  confusion  could  not  result  from  their  use.'^ 

§  53.     The    trademarked    article    not    a    trademark. — It    is 

obvious  that  if  a  comnu'rcial  rn'ticle  itself  could  constitute  a 
trademark,  there  would  be  little  use  for  jjatent  laws.  As 
Judge  rari)enter  said,  "in  the  very  nature  of  the  case, 
*  *  *  the  trademark  must  be  .something  other  than,  and 
separate  from,  the  merchandise."  '^ 

Nor  can  the  article,  by  being  colored,  constitute  a  trademark. 
This  is  illustrated  by  the  ease  in  which  it  Avas  sought  to  protect 
a  bronzed  horse-shoe  nail  as  a  trademark. '^^  It  is  again 
illustrated  by  the  attempts  to  hold  as  a  trademark  a  "dis- 
tinctively colored  streak  in  a  wire  rope,""^  a  "rose-colored 

70 — Wallace,     J.,     in     Lcclanclia  aflirming  s.  c,  67  C.  C.  A.  418;   1.34 

Battery    Co.    v.    Westpni    EIpc.    Co.,  Fed.   Rep.   iiTl;    and  9.  c.,   12.3   Fed. 

23   Fed.  Rep.   276.  l^^ep-  l'>2.    Followed  in  J.  A.  Scriven 

71— Colloday    v.    Baird,    4    Thila.  Co.    v.    Morris,    l.")4    Fed.   Rep.    014, 

130;      Cox      American      Trademark  018.     To  the  same  effect  see  Dod<.'e 

Cases,  257.  Mfg-  Co.  v.   Sewall  &  Day  Cordage 

72— Davis  v.  Davis,  27  Fed.  Rep.  Co.,  142  Fed.  Rep.  288;   A.  Leschen 

400,  402.  &    f^ons    Rope   Co.    v.    ^Macomher    & 

73— Putnam  Nail  Co.  v.  Dulaney.  W'liyte  Hope  Co.,  142  Fed.  Rep.  280; 

140  Pa.   20.").  A.     Leschen    &    Sons    Rope    Co.    v. 

74— A.   Leschen   &   Sons  Rope  Co.  Fuller,   134  C.  C.  A.  570;    218  Fed. 

V.    Broderick   &    Bascom   Rope    Co.,  Rep.  786. 
201    U.    S.     166;     50    L.    Ed.    710; 


§54]  UOPKINS   ON    THAHEMARKS.  140 

metallic   capsule'"    for   a   chainpa^no   bottle.*'    or   a    vod   head 
with  a  blue  tip  for  niatehcs.""  or  illustrated  j)ost  eards."" 

In  the  ease  of  an  alh'fred  trademark  eonsistinp  of  the  words 
"Merrie  Christnias."'  apiilied  to  ribbons  by  wravini^,  .Judge 
Holt  very  correctly  said,  "a  t  radcinai-k  ordinarily  does  not 
add  anythinfj  to  the  value  of  the  ^'oods  in  the  estimation  of 
the  buyer.  It  is  simply  a  mark  to  identify  the  manufaeturer 
of  them.  •  •  •  Of  course,  a  trademark  is  sometimes  im- 
])ressed  ujion  the  article  sold,  but  1  do  not  think  that  it  ever 
proj^erly  constitutes  an  element  of  vabic  in  the  tiling  itself.""* 

§54.  Packages  as  trademarks.  It  is  oiiually  obvious  that  a 
commercial  packafre  can  not  be  a  trademark.  In  one  of  the 
early  eases  upon  this  rule,  .ludirc  Johnson  said:  "It  appears 
that  the  ornamental  tin  jjail  which  the  plaintiff  employs  is  a 
common  article  in  commerce,  and  that  pails  made  of  tin, 
ornamented  or  unornamented,  are  aiul  have  lon<r  been  in  use 
for  all  such  i)urposes  as  any  one  chose  to  apply  them  to. 
The  question  whether  any  one  can  seize  upon  such  an  article 
and  make  title  to  its  exclusive  use  for  a  special  purpose,  by 
callinpr  it  a  trademark,  must  be  far  frf)m  clear  in  favor  of  the 
claimant.  The  forms  and  matciials  of  jjackatres  to  contain 
articles  of  merchaiulise.  if  such  claims  should  be  allowed, 
would  be  rapidly  taken  up  and  appropriated  by  dealers,  until 
some  one,  bolder  than  the  others,  might  go  to  the  very  root 
of  things,  and  claim  for  his  goods  the  lu-imitive  brown  paper 
and  tow  string,  as  a  peculiar  jiroperty.  It  will  be  observed, 
that  it  is  not  a  mark  at  all  which  is  claimed,  but  the  whole 
enveloping  package,  the  whole  surface  of  which  is  covered 
by  the  ornamental  pattern."''' 

Xor  can  a  package  be  made  a  trademark  by  being  colored.'"' 
Judge  Coxe  concisely  end)odied  the  rule  in  these  words:  "The 
trend    of    the   law    is    strongly    towards    the    pi-oposition    that, 

7.-» — Miimm   \     Kirk,    to  F.il.    H<  )>.            7S — Sniitli     \.     Kraus.-,     ICO  r.<l. 

-.80.  i:.|».  270.  271. 

70 — Diamond   Matrti   Co.   v.   Saj.'i-            7!» — Hnrrinyton     '.     l/il.l.y,  Fod. 

naw  MatHi  Co..  74  C.  C.  -\.  SO;    142  Case    No,    (1.107:     12    <  XT.    Caz.  1R«. 

F<-d.   R«-p.  727.                                                       80— J'liilad.ii.liiii      Novelty  Mfj?. 

77 — Hamfortli    v.     DoukI"!***    l'<>"t  <<»•    v.    HlakcHl.-y     Novelty    Co.,    40 

Card   4    Mach.    ('<».,    l.'.S    K.-d.    Kcp.  K<<1.   H.-p.  .')S8. 


141  WHAT    CONSTITUTES    A    VAI.ID    THADKM AKK.  I  §  55 

ill  orcliiiiii-y  rii'ciiiiistaiiccs,  tin'  adoption  oi'  j)acUa^'cs  of  jxMMiliar 
i'unn  and  color  alone,  unai'C(»ni|iani('(l  \)y  any  <lislinf,'uishiiiK 
synilKil,  Ifttor,  si^'ii,  or  seal,  is  not  snnicienl  to  constitute  a 
trademark."  ''^ 

§  55.  Pictures  as  trademarks. — I'ictures  are  peculiarly  sus- 
ceptii)le  of  use  as  trademarks,  because,  with  but  few  excep- 
tions, they  are  neitlier  descriptive  nor  deceptive,  and  hence  are 
not  open  to  the  objections  which  inhere  in  words  having  those 
characteristics.  It  has  been  judicially  stated  that  "trade- 
marks are  of  two  kinds.  They  may  consist  of  pictures  or 
symbols,  or  a  peculiar  form  and  fashion  of  label,  or  simply  of 
a  word  or  words.  *  *  ♦  Where  the  trademark  consists 
of  a  picture  or  symbol,  or  in  any  peculiarity  in  the  appearance 
of  the  label,  the  imitation  (to  be  enjoined)  must  be  such  as 
to  amount  to  a  false  representation,  liable  to  deceive  the  public, 
and  enable  the  imitator  to  pass  off  his  goods  as  those  of  the 
person  whose  trademark  is  imitated."**-  Of  course  a  picture 
may,  just  as  a  word-mark,  become  common  to  the  trade ;  in 
which  event  it  is  nobody's  trademark,  and  no  user  can  com- 
jilain  of  its  infringement.^^ 

While  the  ])icture  of  a  public  building  (as,  the  Town  Hall 
of  Glasgow)  may  be  used  as  a  valid  trademark,  it  is  not 
infringed  by  another  view  of  the  same  building,  presenting  a 
substantially  different  effect  to  the  eye.^"*  Although  a  dis- 
tinctive form  of  container  for  merchandise  does  not  entitle 
the  user  of  that  container  to  have  it  protected  as  a  trade- 
mark,'^'* the  picture  of  a  dome-shaped  cake  of  black-lead  has 
been  upheld  as  a  valid  trademark  by  the  Court  of  Appeal  of 
England,  where  it  apjieared  that  the  picture  was  used  as  a 
trademark  on  black-lead  formed  in  other  shapes."'"' 

§  56.  Words  as  trademarks. — As  stated  by  Judge  Rapallo, 
"trademarks     *     #     *     may  consist     *     »     *     simply  of  a 

81_rhila(lclphia      Novelty     :Mfj:.  84— Cowic    Bros.    &    Co.    v.    Horh- 

Co.  V.  Rouss,  40  Fod.  Rep.  r)8r),  587.  .-rt.   14  R.  P.  C.  4.30). 

82 — Rapallo,      J.,      in      Hier      v.  8.") — Moorman  v.  Iloge,  Fed.  Case 

Abrahams,   82   X.   Y.    'AO,   r)23.  Xo.  0.783 ;  Harrington  v.  Lihby,  Fed. 

83 — In   re    Socicte   Aiionyme    Du-  Case  Xo.   6,107. 

bonnet,   31    R.   P.   C.   453,  468.  86— James   v.    Parry.   3    R.    P.   C. 

340. 


§57]  HOPKINS    ON    TKADKM  AUKS.  142 

vonl  or  words. "  ""'  It  is  no  oltjcct  ion  to  tlu'  approijriatioii 
of  a  word  as  a  li  aiKiiiaik  that  it  is  "in  coniinoii  use."'*'*  Of 
tourst'  tlu'  word  so  adopted  must  neither  he  descriptive  nor 
deceptive,  or  open  to  either  of  tlie  other  discnialilitat ions  wliieh 
prevent  its  servin«r  as  a  i)r()i)er  indication  of  ori^^in  or  owner- 
ship. Possihly  tlie  most  vahiahle  word-marks  in  \ise  are  to 
be  found  amonp  the  newly-coined  words,  so-caUed  for  want 
of  better  nomcnehitu re  ;  they  are  sometimes  called  "made-up" 
^vo^ds.^"  Suvli  "new  coina^'c. "'  as  it  is  termed  hy  .lud^'e  l^ay, 
lias  frequently  been  considered  hy  the  courts.""  A  descriptive 
word  may  be  eonp'cil  with  an  arbitrary  term  to  fdiiii  a  word 
•svhich  is  a  jiroper  tradenuirk,"'  Such  made-up  wi)rds  are 
termed  "invented  wor»ls"  in  sec.  9  of  the  Hritish  Trademarks 
Act.  IMO'),  and  ai-e  re{?istrable  even  when  they  have  "a  direct 
reference  to  the  character  oi'  (piality  of  the  ^'oods. " '•'' 

§  57.  Method  of  arranging  goods  as  trademark. — The  ar- 
ran^rcmi-nt  of  <:oods  in  a  jiacka^re  can  not  constitute  a  trade- 
mark, dudfie  Welker  said  :  "The  eomplaiiuxnts  eould  not  obtain 
a  trademark  *  *  *  in  the  maimer  in  which  the  fjum  might 
ho  ])laced  in  the  boxes.  "'•'■'  Judfre  Carpenter  made  the  same 
ruling  with  reference  to  tlie  arrani^cmcnt  of  cakes  of  .soap  in 
red  and  yellow  wrai)pers,  the  colors  alteriuitin}.'.''* 

The  importance  of  these  rulinjrs  has  vastly  decreased  of 
late  years,  owinf?  to  the  fact  that  all  of  these  matters,  pack- 
ages, labels,  and  methods  of  packing,  are  now  understood  to 
relate  only  to  |)roof  of  fraudulent  intent  in  competition.  No 
technical  trademark  right  exists  in  either  of  them;  in  the 
abstract,  they  are  each  of  common  right.  Rut  like  size,  shape, 
form  and  color,  each  readily  becomes  subservient  as  an  in- 
strumentality of  fraud  where  nnfair  competition  is  intended. 

87_IIi.r   V.   Al.niliiimw.   K2  N.  Y.  01— S.     H.     K.il    f...    v.    .Tohn    E. 

.MO,  .'■)2.3.  I'.nl.liiiiR  Co..   l.Jtl  C.  r.  A.  2.')8;  220 

88 — D.-lawan-     A     I!ii(ls..ti  (anal  Kt-d.  Ucp.  (iCtO. 

Co.   V.   Clark,    I'J    Wall.    iJl  1  ;  20   L.  02— /n  rr  Cnrl  Lindstrocm  Aktien- 

Kd.  .'■.81.  ^'.-H.-lisciiaft.  :n  n.  V.  c.  2(i:). 

ai» — North\vcHt«Tn  ConHol.  Mill  Co.  D.'J— Adams     \.     Ij.is.l.     .U      I-Vd. 

V.  Maiim-r  4  Cn-BHinari,  it>2  I'.d.  ll.p.  Ui-p.  27)>. 

1001.  ni — Daviri  V.   Davis,  27   Ki'd.   Rep. 

00— RuHhinnr<>  v.  Saxon,  158   I'.d.  »!»0. 
Rip    VMi,   .M»8. 


143  WHAT  coNSTrnTi-.s  a  vamd  thadk.makk.  [§58 

Tlicy  ciitcr   into  lln-   lili^rafiuri   of  foday,  not.  upon   tlic  theory 

that    property    is    clai d    in    tln-ni,    hut    iiKTcly    as    l)U(lt,'('.s   of 

I'l-aiid. 

§  58.  Words  taken  from  the  dead  languages.  Words  inmi 
tlie  dead  hmt^uatrcs  have  frccjiiontly  Ix'cn  api)li<'d  to  merchan- 
dise and  sustained  as  valid  trademarks,  as,  for  cxami)le,  the 
Greek  "Eureka"  as  a  mark  for  shirts"''  or  for  a  fertilizing 
material,"'  and  the  Latin  "Excelsior"  for  stoves*^  or  soap."" 
The  Latin  phrase  "Xe  Plus  Ultra"  was  invalid  as  a  trademark 
solely  heeause  the  i)laintiff  did  not  show  exclusive  user  in 
himself,  and  the  words  and  an  accompanying  device  were  found 
to  he  common  to  the  trade.""  It  has  heen  said  hy  the  Canadian 
Supreme  Court  that  tliere  can  he  property  in  a  word  of  a  dead 
laiifTuage  even  if  it  he  expressive  of  (piality,^  hut  this  dictum 
is  incorrect,  as  ajjjiears  from  the  authorities  reviewed  in  the 
next  succeeding  section.  A  descrii)tive  word  from  a  dead 
language  can  not  he  other  than  a  generic  term  when  used  as 
a  mark  for  goods.  Thus,  on  an  application  for  registration 
for  the  word  "Sanitas"  for  medicines,  Kay  J.,  remarked: 
"The  truth  is  that  if  this  word  were  applied  to  medicines,  it 
would  mean  to  any  ordinary  i)erson  that  the  medicines  were 
health  medicines;  that  is,  health-giving  medicines;  and  that 
is  descriptive  of  the  quality  or  of  the  effect  of  the  use  of  these 
medicines.    Ilow  is  it  possible  that  it  is  not  descriptive?"  ^ 

§  59.     Words  and  phrases  from  modern  foreign  languages.— 
This  tojiic  has  been  fruitful  of  conflicting  holdings.     It  is  not 

nr,_Ford   V.   Foster.   V.    T?.    7    Ch.  2—Tn  re  Ranitas  Co.,  4  R.  P.  C. 

D.   611.  •'"».3.3;    58   L.   T.    166;    Cartmell,   30."). 

1)6 — Allofiliany    Fertilizer    Co.    v.  Similar     reasoninp     forbade     the 

Woodside,     1     Hughes,     115,     Fed.  registration     of    "Somatose"     as    a 

Case.  Xo.  206.  trademark    for    a    nourishing    meat 

97— Slieppard       v.       Stuart,       13  j.roduct;    tiie    Creek    "Soma,"    gen- 

Phila.  117;  Price  &  Steuart,  193.  itive   "Somatos,"   being   the   cquiva- 

98 — Braham  v.   Bustard,   1    H.   &  lent    of    the    English    "body;"    "so- 

M.     447.       "Excelsior"    applied     to  mat"  being  the  root  of  many   Eng- 

gun-eotton    goods   was    not    upheld.  lish    words    and    "ose"    a    common 

Steintlial   v.   Samson,   Seb.    .546.  EnglisJi     sufTix.        In    re    Farben-fa- 

99_Board    v.    Turner,    13    L.    T.  briken  T.  M.  K.,  L.  R.   (1894)    1  Ch. 

.  N.  S.  746;   Seb.  2.")1.  D.  64.'). 

1— Partlo  V.  Todd,   17   Can.   S.  C. 
R.  196. 


§59]  HOPKINS    ON    TKVDKMAKKS. 


144 


settletl  wliat  ilianntor  of  words  so  taken  will  be  sustaini'd  as 
valid  trademarks. 

The  Eiijrlish  eourts  have  consisteiilly  adhered  to  the  v\i\o 
annouiu-ed  hy  Clutty.  .)..  in  Pais  r.  Stribolt:  "1  am  of  the 
opinion  that  in  referenee  to  an  artiele  prodiiecd  in  a  forei^yn 
eountry  ami  imjiorted  into  En{?land.  where  it  was  previously 
unknown  ami  without  a  name,  the  word  used  in  that  foreign 
eountry  as  the  eommon  term  to  describe  or  denote  the  artiele 
is  not  a  fancy  name  within  the  meaning  of  the  aet."'  For  these 
reasons  tlie  Norwe«rian  words  "Rokel"  and  "Rokol"  (mean- 
ing "beer")  were  iifld  not  valid  as  trademarks  for  beer?'' 

A  curious  ease  is  that  of  Rr  Ttoihcrhnm.  The  house  of  Rother- 
bam  of  Coventry  liad  loiip  made  and  exported  watches  to 
Tod  &  Co.  of  Alexandria,  by  wlmm  they  were  sold,  sm-h 
watches  bearinpr  upon  tiieir  dials  the  word  "Tod"  in  Arabic 
characters:  "Tod"  as  an  Arabic  s\d)stantive  meaning  "A  high 
mountain."  The  Arabic  word  was  re^'istered  as  a  trademark, 
Vice-Chancellor  Racon  holding  an  order  of  the  commissioners 
I)rohibiting  registration  of  words  in  foreign  languages  invalid.* 

The  phrase  "Flor  Fina  Prairie  Superior  Tabac"  was  held 
to  be  a  valid  trademark  for  cigars,"'  as  have  been  the  words 
"Tamar  Indien"  for  lozenges,'"'  "Intimidad"  for  cigars.'  "El 
Destino,'*  also  for  cigars,**  "El  Cabio"  for  tobacco,"  and 
"La  Favorita"  for  flour.'"  "Mazawattee,"  a  compound  of 
the  Hindustani  words  "Maza,"  meaJiing  taste  or  relish,  and 
the  Singalese  "Wattee,"  meaning  garden  or  estate,  is  a  valid 
trademark  because  it  conveys  no  meaning  to  any  class  of 
persons.  English.  Hindoo  or  Singalese.  and  has  no  reference 
to  the  (pndity  of  the  goods." 

AVith  reference  to  "Pepto-^Iangan."  used  as  a  mark  for 
a  mediciinil   preparation.  Judge  Holt  has  said,  "It  seems,  if 

3_l)aviH    V.    Stribolt,     "•!>    L.    T.  7— Cnnuicho    v.     Stophonson.    2.") 

854;  Cartm.-n.  10.').  S<.1.  .T.  0'2n. 

4 /„    rr    Uoth.rliam,    20    W.    R.  R— Pinto   v.    IJudman.  8   R.    P.   C. 

r,03;   S«.|..  fl47.  1«1;  ('artm.'ll,  270. 

.r,_('opc'  V.   EvanH,   L.   R.    18   K(|.  9— SoHh    Cipar    Co.    v.    Tozo,    10 

138;   30  L.  T.   N'.  S.  202;   22  \V.   R.  Colo.  388;  20  Pac.  Rep.  556. 

4.*)3i   S«'l..  433.  10— M.nondcz  v.    Holt,   128  U.   S. 

ft— (Jrillon     V.     f;u(i.iii.      W.     X.  .M4;   32  L.   Kd.   .V2n 

1H77,  p.  14;  Sell.  r»32.  H — /"  »'''  l>«'nKliiini.  T..  IL    (ISO.T* 

2  fli     T)     170. 


145  WHAT    CONSTITUTES    A    V\MI>    'l'KAI)i;.\I  AKK .  I  §  •'>!) 

analy/rtl  by  u  jx-r'soii  laiiiiliar  with  I  lie  (iiM-ck  and  (icriiiaii 
languages,  somewhat  descrii)tive,  but  I  tiiink  if  would  seem 
to  the  general  jtublic  to  be  an  arlificial  and  manuraflnrcd 
word. '"2 

The  rules  tlius  far  discussed  in  this  sfclinn  do  not  seem  tr) 
api)ly  to  aboriginal  words  or  sounds,  'rhe  M'ord  (or  sound) 
"Oomoo, "  taken  from  the  language  of  tlie  Australian  ab- 
origines, was  admitted  to  English  registration  by  ( 'bitty,  J., 
after  a  careful  consideration;'-'  on  the  other  band,  the  word 
"Kokoko, "  meaning  "owl"  in  the  language  of  the  Chippeway 
Indians,  was  refused  registration  as  a  trademark  for  cotton 
goods,*-* 

It  was  held  in  a  dictum  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Canada, 
in  the  very  thoroughly  considered  case  of  Partlo  v.  Todd,  that 
a  descriptive  foreign  word,  or  a  word  in  a  dead  language  not 
knoAvn  to  people  in  general,  because  it  is  not  understood,  may 
become  the  trademark  of  the  person  who  first  uses  it  upon  a 
particular  article  sold  by  him.'"''*  This  theory  has  been  affirmed 
by  a  New  York  state  court  and  denied  by  Judge  Showalter 
in  the  federal  circuit  court  for  the  Northern  District  of  Illinois, 
in  two  suits  of  the  same  complainant,  involving  the  right  to 
the  word  "Matzoon"  as  a  trademark  for  a  food  product  made 
of  fermented  milk.  "Matzoon"  or  "IMaadzoon"  appears  to 
be  the  sound  of  the  name  which  Armenians  give  to  a  similar 
article  made  of  fermented  milk  in  Turkey.  The  New  York 
court  says:  "I  do  not  think  that  such  a  term  can  properly 
be  regarded  as  descriptive  in  this  country.  It  would  be 
absolutely  meaningless  to  all  but  a  little  group  of  Armenians 
in  the  millions  of  inhabitants  of  the  United  States.  It  would 
be  equally  meaningless  in  most  of  Europe.  A  Choctaw  word 
would  signify  just  as  much.  To  the  medical  profession,  among 
whom  the  plaintiff  sought  approval  for  his  product,  and  to 
the  drug  trade,  the  name  'Matzoon'  was  practically  an 
arbitrary  or  fanciful  designation.  It  was  not  incorporated 
into  t^  .*3nglish  language.     It  was  derived  from  a  language 

12 — M.     J.     Brietenbach     Co.     v.  14 — In     rr     Jackson     Company  s 

Spanppnborp.  131  Fod.  Rep.  160.  Trademark,    fi    R.    P.    C.    80;    Cart- 

13— /n   rr   Burgoync,   6    R.    P.    C.       mell.   177. 
227;   61  L.  T.  39 ;  Cartmell,  85.  l.i— Partlo  v.  Todd,  17  Can.  S.  C. 

R.  196-213. 


§  59J  HOI-KINS    UN    TKAHK.M  AKKS.  HC) 

hartlly  known  here,  and  lo  tlic  vest  majority  of  our  people 
it  nu'aiit  nothing.     Ilenoe  the  rule  upon  which  the  defciulant 
relics  has  no  applii-ation  here."     It  was  arcordinply  held  to 
he  a  valid  trademark. '"     Tliat  this  rule  is  daii<rerous  to  the  law 
of  trademarks  is  apimrent.     If  it  is  left  to  the  courts  to  say 
when  a  descriptive  word  taken  from  a  modern  forci;jrn  laiifruage 
may  or  may  not  he  used  as  a  trademark,  practically  endless 
litigation  is  opened  to  future  freneratious.     The  court  forpot 
the  rule  that   a  tradcnuirk  must  he  cajjahle  of  universal  use, 
and  knows  no  territorial  restriction.'"    As  Chitty.  J.,  remarked 
ill    Davis  v.  Stribolt :  "If  the   ar<rument  were   well   founded, 
the    imjiorter   into    this   eountry    of   any    foreifrn   artielc   not 
jjreviously  known  in  this  eountry  could  restrain  any  one  else 
from  using  the  name  hy  which  it  was  called  in  the  country 
in  which  it  was  produced."  '**    Upon  the  ai)i)lication  to  Judge 
Showalter  for  a  preliminary  injunction  to  restrain  the  use  of 
the   same  word   "Matzoon,"  that  learned  court   said:  "The 
strong  contention  is  that  Dr.  Dadirrian  introduced  into  this 
comitry  a  product  which  was  unknown  here,  and  hy  a  name 
which   was  equally  unknown,   and   that,  sinee  the  name  has 
become  identified  here  with  the  article  as  made  by  him  his 
property  in  the  name  should  be  recognized.     But,  as  already 
said,  the  product  was  in  fact  old,  as  was  also  the  name.    The 
ignorance  of  people  in  this  country  touching  it.  its  uses  and 
its  name,  can  not  be  treated  as  i)roperty,  and  be,  in  a  manner, 
capitalized  as  an  element  in  the  goodwill  of  this  complainant. 
This  would  be  the  ease  if  no  other  dealer  was  permitted  to 
tell  what  Matzoon  is,  and  what  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
human  race  has  found  it  useful  for.  after  an  experience  with 
it  under  that  name  which,  according  to  the  record,  dates  back 
some  eight  centuries."    The  api)lication  was  accordingly  denied, 
and    the   ruling   of  the   trial    court    was  followed    in   the   first 
circuit  and  subsequently  upheld  hy  the  Fnited  States  Circuit 
Tourt  of  Appeals  for  that  circuit.'" 

]0_.na<lirriftM  v.  Yiicul.iim,  .'i7  \.  19— Dndirrinn     v.     Yftcuhinn.    72 

V.   Supp.  (ill.  I'^'-'J     n.-p.    10101014:    TT)   Off.    fiaz. 

17_Sul)j<Tt      to      the      .xcrptioiiH  IS.'iH;    followed   ii)    DadirriiiM    v.   Ya- 

iiot4-ii  antr,   <  11.  <n).inn    (2l.  !»0   Fed.    H.p.   H12.   Lut- 

IS DaviH    V.    Stril>olt,    .'»!•    I.,     li  1<t   <aK.'   aflirnuMl    on   appeal.    Oadir- 

X.  S.  8.')4,  rit«-(l  Kuprn.  riun   v    Yacul.iaii    (."('.  f>s    \-\i]     Ri-p. 


147  WHAT    CONSTl'n:TKS     \     \  \l.ll)    'lUADK.MAKK.  (§59 

The  German  word  "Ansat/, "  niranin^'  "  ConipoiiiKl,"  has 
been  refused  registration  as  a  Iradcinaik  foe  bitters,"-"'  as 
have  been  the  words  "Chili  ('()h)ro\v"  (meajiiii^'  red  pepper  in 
provineial  iSpaiiisln,  as  a  ti-adcniark  for  codiniciits.'' 

Vice-Chaneellor  Sluidwcli  lirld  ;i  coiiiplainaiil  wlio  marked 
Avatches  maiiut'actun'd  by  him  for  tiie  Turkish  trade  witli  \ho 
Turkish  word  "Pessendede"  (meaninp;  warranted)  in  Turkisli 
eharacters,  entitled  to  the  exclusive  ri<rht  to  so  mark  his 
watches.  Tliis  was,  however,  not  necessary  to  the  decision  of 
the  case,  and  was  a  mere  dictum. 22 

The  case  of  Broadhurst  v.  Barlmv  was  that  of  j)laintiffs  who 
used,  beside  a  symbol  of  a  lion  in  a  scroll,  the  words  "Exactly 
12  Yards,"  in  Turkish,  Armenian  and  Greek,  upon  the  rolls 
of  cloth  made  by  them  for  exportation  to  Greece  and  Turkey. 
With  other  relief,  the  defendant  was  enjoined  from  usinrr  the 
words  "Exactly  12  Yards"  in  the  languapres  used  by  plaintiffs. 
This  relief  would  seem  to  be  incidental  to  the  portion  of  the  in- 
junction which  related  to  fanciful  scrollwork  used  by  both 
parties.^-*^ 

The  use  of  the  word  "Grenadine"  as  a  trademark  for  a  syrup 
made  of  pomegranite  juice  was  protected  by  injunction  against 
a  defendant  who  bejran  the  sale  of  another  syrup  under  the 
name  of  "Grenade  Syrup,"  notwithstanding  the  word  "Gren- 
ade" in  French  signifies  "Pomegranite. "  This  was  purely 
a  case  of  unfair  competition.-^  The  patent  office  has  refused 
registration    for   the   words    "Pur   Familien-Gebrauch"   (For 

872;   30  C.  C.A.  321.     Followed  in  Sob.  432;   Curtis  v.  Bryan,  2  Daly, 

Selchow  V.  ChafToc  &    S.-lchow  Mfg.  212;    Cox,    434;    Siepcrt    v.    Al.hott 

Co.,  132  Fed.  Hop.  OOO.  (2),    Cox,     Manual,     718;     Soci«-t.' 

20 — In  TV  Wfisman,  Newton,  Dig.  Anonyme  v.  Western  Distilling  Co.. 

110.  43  Fed.  Rep.  416;  Fischer  v.  Blank, 

21— /»    rr  Railton,   Newton,   Dig.  Cox,  Manual,   731;    138   N.   Y.  244. 

213.  24— Billet  v.  Carlier,  61  Barb.  S. 

22— Gout  V.  Aleploglu,  6  Beavan,  C.  435:   11  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  186;  Seb. 

60;  r>  Leg.  Obs.  405;   Sob.  ril.  334.      The  word   "Kthiopian"   print- 

23 — Broadhurst  v.  Barlow,  W.  N.  ed     in     Egyptian     characters     upon 

1872,  p.  212;   L.  J.  Notes  of  Cases,  stockings    was    protected    from    in- 

p.  183;  Seh.  411.     The  use  of  labels  fringement.  but  in  a  cate  of  unfair 

printed    in    several    languages    was  competition.     Hine  v.  Lart.  10  Jur. 

enjoined  in  Siegert  v.  Findlsfter,  L.  106:   7  L.  T.  41. 
R.  7  Ch.  D.  801;   Siegert  v.  Ehlcrs, 


§60] 


HOPKINS    1>N    TRAPK.M  AKKS. 


148 


Family  I'sc »  aiul  •  LawnMu-o  Fcmium-  V'ainilicii  Planner'  iLnw- 
renco  Kino  Family  Klaiiiicl  i.  but  u|>tm  tlic  t;rouiul  thai  tlicy 
\vero  nuTO  words  in  rommon  use  and  not  ilistiiiftivc,-'  iViid 
it  is  now  the  lixi'd  ruh'  of  tliat  oflico  tliat  no  d.'scriptivc  words 
reprodin-t«d  in  h-ttcrs  from  a  forcii^Mi  lanffimpc  will  lie  admitted 
to  re<ristration.  when  re<:istralinn  would  Ix-  rt^fuscd  to  their 
Enfrlish  cqnivalents.-'' 

The  Court  of  ("haneery  of  New  .lerscy  has  held  that  the 
Freneh  "brassiere"  (braee)  is  not  suseeptible  of  appropria- 
tion as  a  trademark  for  a  combined  corset  cover  and  bust  sup- 
porter,27  and  a  similar  ruliiifr  has  been  made  as  to  the  Italian 
"Conserv-a  Di  Tomate"  (]n-eserved  tomato). ="*  So  also  of 
"Tipo  Chianti"   (Chianti  Type)   for  wine.-" 

§60.  Words  become  generic  through  use. — A  word  origi- 
nally i'ancilul  and  indicative  of  ori^rin  or  ownership  may 
througrh  the  laches  of  the  owner  become  publici  juris.  Tims 
the  word  "Chlorodyne,"  while  orijjinally  a  ^'ood  trademark,  be- 
came generic  throufih  the  failure  of  the  mainifacturer  to  prose- 
cute a  suit  brought  by  him  to  restrain  its  use,""'  and  because  it 
had  become  the  name  of  the  article.^'  This,  of  eoui-se.  is  substan- 
tially a  holding  that  the  trademark  has  been  abandoned  by 
the  owner's  neglect.     The  American  courts  have  been  aver.se 


2.") — In  re  Lawroncr  «Sc  Co.,  10  OfT. 
<;az.  103;  Seb.  .')04. 

20 — Kx  parte  StuhmtT,  80  OlT. 
r.a/..  181.  In  this  case  the  appli- 
cant «>ut.'lit  rt-^ristration  for  tho 
words  "Cold  Lahil"  produced  in 
Hebrew  eharacterH. 

27 — Charles  K.  l)e  Kcvoise  ("o.  v. 
II.  4  W.  Co.,  00  Atl.  K<i..  407;  00 
X.  J.  Vai   114. 

28 — Roncoroiii  v.  Cross,  8(J  N.  V. 
Snpp.   1112. 

25» — Itulian  Swiss  Colony  v.  Ital- 
ian Vin.yard  Co.,  ir.8  Cal.  2.V2;  110 
I»ac.  Rep.  ni.3. 

.30 — Hrowne  v.  Freeman  (1),  12 
W.  H.  SO.'i;  4  N.  R.  470. 

31— Browne  v.  Freeman  (2),  W. 
N.     1873,    178;    to    same    effect,    Bce 


Amoskea^'  Mf;:.  Co.  v.  (iarnrr.  r.'t 
Barl).  ir.l;  (i  -M.l..  I'r.  N.  S.  20.'-); 
Cox,  .")41. 

In  this  case  the  controlling  fact 
was  that  the  comi)lainant"8  and 
defendant's  marks  were  tiscd  on 
difTerent  classes  of  floods.  Tl»e 
court,  however,  expressly  names 
tlie  laches  of  the  complainant  as  a 
•rrouiid  for  witlilioldiiij;  relief,  cit- 
inj:,  in  support  of  this  projtosition, 
inter  alia,  the  o]>inion  of  Chancel- 
lor Walworth  in  Smith  v.  Adams, 
0  Taip'.  43.">-443:  and  the  copy- 
ri;;ht  case  of  Lewis  v.  Chajiman,  3 
Heavnn.  133.  where  a  delay  of  six 
yiars  was  luld  to  ditwntitle  the 
plaiiitiir  from  n  lief. 


149  WHAT    C()NSTITUTES    A    V\I>I1>     IR  AIM.M  AKK.  (§61 

to  SO  holding'.  It  was  said  in  'I'<ii/I()r  r.  ('(trprnlrr  thai  the  cinwi 
was  "not  aware  that  a  iic^h'ct  to  jjrost'cutc,  becaiisc  <hi(!  be- 
lieved he  had  no  i"i<,dits,  oi-  i'l-oni  mere  j)ro('rastination,  is  any 
dei'ense  at  law,  whatevei'  it  may  hv:  in  e(iuity,  exeej)t  under 
the  statute  of  limitations  pleaded  and  i-elied  on,  or  under  some 
positive  statute,  like  tliat  as  to  jiatents,  whieh  avoids  the  ripht 
if  the  inventoi'  permits  tlie  ])ul)lie  to  use  the  patent  some  time 
before  takinj;  ont  letters."^-  Words  primarily  indicative  of 
orijrin  or  ownersliip  remain  valid  as  trademarks  notwithstand- 
ing: tlie  fact  that  the  articles  to  which  they  are  applied  may 
obtain  such  extensive  sales  that  the  marks  have  also  become 
indicative  of  quality.''^ 

Whether  or  not  a  word  has  become  i)ublic  property,  in  that 
it  has  acquired  a  generic  meaning,  descriptive  of  a  fjeneral 
kind,  (luality,  or  class  of  poods  is  a  pure  (piestion  of  fact  to 
be  determined  from  the  evidence  in  each  particular  case.^'* 

§  61.  The  use  of  generic  names  protected. — Possibly  the 
widest  deviation  from  tlie  narrow  ])atii  of  trademark  protec- 
tion which  has  been  accomplished  1)\-  tiie  law  of  unfair  com- 
]ietition  is  to  be  found  in  the  cases  involving  the  deceptive 
use  of  generic  terms.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  T'^nited  States 
has  held  in  regard  to  the  name  of  a  person  used  as  a  descrip- 
tive name  of  a  patented  article,  during  the  life  of  a  patent,  that 
while  that  name  becomes  puhlici  jiiris  upon  the  expiration  of 
the  patent,  it  must  be  so  used  by  manufacturers  other  than 
the  original  maker  as  not  to  deceive  the  public  into  the  belief 
that  the  goods  offered  for  sale  are  the  goods  of  such  original 
maker.35     The  same  rule  has  been  established  in  England.'"'* 

So  it  was  held  by  Mr.  Justice  McKenna,  when  circuit  judge, 
that  "Syrup  of  Figs''  was  entitled  to  injunctive  protection. 

32— Taylor  v.  Carpentor,  2  Wood.  20.5;     41    L.     Ed.     1.31.       Soe    also. 

&  M.   1;   0  L.  T.  r)14;   Cox.  .32.  to    the    samp    cflfoct,    Fairhanks    v. 

.33— Burton    v.    Stratton.    12   Fed.  .Tacolnis,      14     Blatchf.      337;      Fed. 

Rep.  (590-702;   Lawronco  Mf<r.  Co.  v.  Case  No.  4«in8;    Adi-i-  v.    Pock   Bros. 

Tennessee  Mffj.  Co.,   138  U.   S.   537-  &    Co.,    39    Fed.    Rep.    209;    Sinper 

.")47;  34  L.  Kd.  997.  :Mff,'.  Co.  v.  Brill,  Cox,  Manual,  672. 

34— Williams  Mfp.   Co.  v.  Xoera,  30— Sinper  Mf;r.   Co.  v.   Loop,   H. 

1.S8  Mass.   110:  .32  N.  E.  Rep.  1037.  L.  8  A.  C.  15;  .13  L.  J.  Ch.  481;   48 

3.''>— Sinper  Mfp.  Co.  v.  .lune  Mfp.  L.   T.   3;    31   W.   R.   325;   Cartmell, 

Co.,   163  l^.  S.   169;   41   L.   Ed.    118;  .306. 
Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Bent,   163  U.  S. 


§61] 


HOPKINS    ON    TICVDEMARKS. 


li^J 


Ho  saiil:  "lu'.six'iuK-iit  ur^res  that  tlie  words  'Svmp  of  Kips' 
are  descriptive,  and  that  iM»ini>lainaiit  deceives  \\h<Mi  it  uses 
them  to  desijrnate  its  coinpouiid.  Tlic  deceit  does  not  api)ear 
on  the  face  of  the  bill,  and  it  is  unimportant  if  they  are  de- 
scrijitive.  The  (piestion  is  now.  not  whether  complainant  has 
the  exclusive  ripht  to  use  the  words  'SSyrup  of  Fitrs'  or  'Fip 
Syrnp.'  bnt  it  is  whether  resi)ondent  has,  by  use  of  them  and 
other  words,  and  by  the  other  imitations  alleped  and  exhibited, 
so  far  imitated  the  form  of  comi)lainant 's  device  and  descrip- 
tion to  represent  its  poods  as  its  poods,  and  appropriate  its 
reputation  and  trade.  The  graramcn  of  the  action  is  the  simu- 
lation of  eomi)lainant's  devices  and  the  deception  of  purchasers. 
This  is  the  i)rincii)le  of  the  best  considered  cases,  unitinp  them, 
notwithstandinp   their  diverse   facts.*'"'' 

In  aflfirminp  the  decision  of  Judpe  McKenna.  however,  the 
Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  held  that  "Syrup  of  Fips"  was  not 
a  peneric  name.^'*  The  hiter  case  of  California  Fig  Syrup  Co. 
V.  Wordfu  •''•'  put  the  plaintiff's  ripht  to  relief  upon  the  proper 
prouud  of  unfair  competition,  aside  from  any  technical  trade- 
mark ripht  in  the  words. 


."JT — California  I'i;.'  Syrup  Co.  v. 
Improvi'd  Fi^'  Syrup  Co.,  ')!  Fed. 
Rep.  20r»-2!»7;  citiu;,'  Burton  v. 
Stratton,  12  Fed.  R.'p.  f>n(5;  Bakin;; 
Powder  Co.  V.  Fyfe,  4r>  Fed.  Rt-p. 
799;  Nerve  Food  Co.  v.  Baumljach, 
.32  Fed.  Rep.  2o.">;  Anonyme,  etc., 
.Societ*-  V.  Western  Dis.  Co.,  43  Fed. 
Rep.  417. 

.3S — Improved  Fi;,'  Syrup  Co.  v. 
California  Fi;:  Syriip  Co..  4  C.  C. 
A.  204;  r)4  Fed.  Rep.  17'>17«.  It  is 
very  didleult  to  undc-rntand  how  tlie 
e<»urt  eoulil  eonelude  that  "Syrup 
<»f  Fi;.'H"  w»H  not  a  jieneric  name. 
It  lackH  e\iry  n-<piiHite  of  a  valid 
tradi-niark.  and  Ih  undoubtedly 
either  deeeptive  or  merely  dencrip- 
tive  of  one  «.f  the  in^rredientH  of  the 
medieine  (a  li«|uid  laxative).  It 
lum   In-en    HO   ln-ld   in    California   Fi^ 


Syrup  (.  <>.  V.  Stearns.  tlT  Fed.  Kep. 
1008;  9.  c.  73  Fed.  Rep.  812-814; 
California  Fi},'  Syrup  Co.  v.  I'utnam, 
(■i(;  Fed.  Rep  7r)0.  Since  the  foro- 
},'oin}i  was  written,  the  United 
Stati'8  Supreme  Court  lia«  held  the 
mark  to  he  deceptive.  Clinton  E. 
Worden  &  Co.  v.  California  Fijj 
Syrup  Co..  187  U.  S.  r)l(5;  47  L.  Kd. 
282;  reversin;,'  Clinton  K.  Worden 
&  Co.  V.  California  Fi;;  Syrup  Co., 
42  C.  C.  A.  383;  102  Fed.  Rep.  .3.34; 
the  latter  allirmin;;  the  injunction 
^.'ranted  in  Uminr  in  California  Yxff 
Syrup  Co.  V.  Clinton  K.  Worden  & 
Co..  8«  Fed.  Rep.  212,  and  on  final 
hearin;:  in  California  Fi;;  Syrup  Co. 
V.    Worden.    it.'.    F.<l.    Rep.    132. 

.sn— (1(  8(]  Fed.  Rep.  212-2ir.; 
California  Fi^  Synip  Co.  v.  Worden 
(2),  95   Fed.    Rop.    132. 


l.")!  WHAT    CONSTITUTES    A    VAMD   TKADK.M  AKK.  [§G1 

From  llir  <l()cti-iii('  stated  l»y  \\\r  l<'.'<l.-ial  Siii.rniu'  Court  '" 
it  follows  thill  the  designs,  symbols  aiul  marks  used  Uy  u  pat- 
entee during'  tlic  life  of  the  patent  upon  packa<;('s  coiitaiiiiiif^ 
the  patented  artiele  may  not  hf  imitated  by  another  u])on  the 
expiration  of  the  patent,  and  such  imitation  will  he  enjoined." 

The  ride  of  unfair  eompetition,  that  no  num  has  a  right  to 
represent  his  goods  as  the  goods  of  another,  is  distinctly  applied 
in  several  of  the  more  reeent  English  decisions  to  terms  strictly 
generic  and  of  which  technical  trademark  rights  could  not  he 
predicated.  Thus  where  the  manufacturers  of  "Reddaway 
Camel  Hair  lielting"  songht  to  enjoin  a  rival  manufacturer 
from  styling  his  i)roduct  "The  Bentham  Camel  Hair  P.elting," 
Lord  Justice  Lindley,  in  the  Court  of  Appeal,  said  :  "The  catch- 
words are  'Camel  Hair  Belting.'  *  *  *  The  use  of  the 
catch-words  alone  may  establish  the  plaintiff's  right  to  relief. 
The  jdaintiffs  have  no  right  to  the  exclusive  use  of  these  words; 
but  they  have  a  right  to  restrain  any  one  from  so  using  them 
as  to  pass  his  goods  off  as  the  goods  of  the  plaintiffs."  ^-  So 
an  injunction  was  granted.  Very  similar  to  this  was  the  case  in 
which  the  plaintiffs  manufactured  a  soap  under  the  name  "The 
Self- Washer. ' '  The  defendants  thereafter  applied  the  term  " Self- 
washing"  to  their  soaps.  It  was  held  that  the  terms  "Self- 
washer"  or  "Self-Avashing"  were  used  in  a  descriptive  .sense 
and  therefore  neither  could  be  appropriated  as  a  valid  technical 
trademark :  but  because  of  the  paper  used  by  the  defendants 
in  wrapping  their  soap,  being  an  imitation  parchment  paper, 
and  the  type  used  by  them,  which  closely  resembled  that  used 
by  the  jdaintiffs  the  defendants  Avere  enjoined.  Lord  Justice 
Cotton,  in  the  Court  of  Api^eal,  observing:  "There  may  be  no 
monoi)oly  at  all  in  the  individual  things  separated.  l)ut  if  the 

40— Sin-ror  :\rff.'.  Co.  v.  June,  163  it    is    prohablo    tliat    the    name    by 

U.    S.    1(19;    41   L.    Ed.    118;    Singor  which     the     patented     article     was 

]Mffr.  Co.  V.  Bent,  10.3  U.  S.  205;  41  known   during   the   life  of   the   pat- 

L.   Ed.   131.  '"t    (if  otherwise  valid  as  a  trade- 

41 — Greene  v.  Woodliouse.  38  OfT.  mark)     may    l)e    continued    in    use. 

(laz.    1891:    Centaur   Co.    v.   Killen-  witli    tlie    prefix   "original."      Cocks 

berper.  87   Fed.  Rep.   725;    Same  v.  v.   Cliandlors.  L.   R.    U   Eq.  447. 

Robinson,  91   Fed.  Rep.   889;    Same  42— Reddaway         v.         Bentham 

V.    Xeatherv,    91     Fed.    Rep.     891 ;  Hemp    Spinning    Co..    9    R.    P.    C. 

Same  v.  Huphes  Bros.  Mfg.  Co..  91  503:   L.  R.    (1892)    2  Q.  B.  639;  fiT 

Fed.   Rep.   901.     In   this  connection  L.   T.   301:    Cartmell.   282. 


§G11  HOPKINS    ON    TRADKM  VKKS. 


l.Vi 


wholo  ai-f  so  joiiiotl  toffcther  as  to  attempt  to  i)ass  olT.  and  to 
have  tlu"  effect  of  iiassiiit;  off  tlie  defeiulaiits'  soap  as  the  jtlaiii- 
tiffs',  then.  nlthoujrl>  the  phiiiitiffs  have  no  monopoly  either  in 
•Self-wnshinn*  or  'Self-washer'  or  in  the  parrhnienl  paper  or 
in  the  spaced  printing,  yet.  if  those  thinjrs  in  whieh  they  have 
no  sole  ripht  are  so  eonibined  by  the  defendants  as  to  i)ass  off 
the  defendants'  poods  as  the  jdaintiffs'.  then  the  defendants 
have  brou{fht  themselves  within  the  old  eommon-law  doetrine 
in  resjieet  of  whieh  ecpiity  will  pive  to  the  apprieved  party  an 
injunction  in  order  to  restrain  the  defendant  from  passing  oflP 
his  poods  as  those  of  the  plaintiff."  '•' 

These  eases,  with  those  eited  in  tiie  foot-note,  will  sufiicicntly 
demonstrate  the  fact  that  the  rule  under  consideration  is 
not  only  imjiortant  but  well  established,  and  that  the  user  of 
a  strictly  peneric  term  will  be  i^roteeted  in  the  business  he 
has  established  under  that  term,  as  apainst  a  dishonest  use  of 
it  by  a  eompetitor.^^ 

The  doctrine  of  unfair  comi>etition,  by  wliich  the  use  of 
descriptive  words  has  sometimes  been  restrained,  has  enprafted 
\ipon  it  this  important  qualification— than  in  no  case  will  the 
use  of  a  merely  descriptive  word  be  restrained  as  deceptive, 
unless  in  circumstances  which  show  fraud  on  the  part  of  the 
user.-*'"'  The  Enplish  leadinp  cases  ujion  tliis  proposition  are  the 
"Camel   Hair  Beltinp"  case.-*"  to  wliieh  we  have  already  re- 

43_Li.ver    V.    r.oodwin,    4    R.    V.  884;   Mor}.'nii    Knvtlop.'  ('«..   v.  Wal- 

C\    402-50(5;    30   Ch.    D.    1;    n?    L.   T.  ton,   30  C.   C.   A.   383,   8fi    Fed.    Rep. 

r»83;  30  \V.    R.    177;    Cartmcll,  2n<t.  00.1 ;   Vanllorn  v.  C'oo},'an,  jVZ  N.  J. 

4i_Lt'v*T    V.    Bi-dinfrficld.    80    L.  Kq.    380;    28    Atl.    R<'P-    "88;    An- 

T.  N.  S.   100;   Barlow  v.  Johnson,  7  hcustT-Busch      Browinj;      Ass'n      v. 

R.    P.    C.    30.");    rartm<-ll,    73;    Cur-  Frrd    Miller    Bnwinfr   Co.,    87    Fed. 

t'lH  V.    Papc,    '>    \\.    V.   C.    14(5;    Cart-  K.i>.    SC.^ ;    Cillular   Clothing'  Co.   v. 

m.-ll,    10.-,;  '.lay    v.    I.adl  t,    (5    R.    IV  Maxt..,,.    L.    1!.     (18!)0)     A.    C.    320; 

v'.    130;    40    Ch.    I)     0411;    CO    L.     T.  C.MKlniaii  v.  Bolils,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

27:    37    W.    R.    r.O.-.;    Cartm.ll.    184;  1S3;   22   S.  W.    Rep.    11. 

Pow.'ll      V.      Binnin^'ham      Vin.pir  4.->— Cellular      Clotliin;:      Co.      v. 

Bn-w.-ry  C<...  L.  R.    (1804.   3  Ch.  D.  Maxton,    1..    R.    (1890)    A.    C.    320- 

449-402;    R.-ddaway   v.    Banham.    L.  'Itl.      Th.-    lan;,'uaj;..  of   the   text    \a 

R.    (IROOi    A.  C.   100;    Brown  Clum  «iu<.t.(l   and  approved  liy   Ray,  J.,  in 

ical    Co.     V.    Meyer.    31     Fed.     R<p.  IfuHl.niore   v.    Saxon.    l.'.S    F.d.    Rpp. 

4.')3;    .Iennin>.'H   v.    .TohnHon.   37    Fed.  tOO.    '.00. 

R«-p.    304;    Meyer    v.    Bull    M.dioinr  40— Riddaway    v     Banliam.    L.    R. 

(•„  .    7   (•     (•      \     .'..-.8.    .'iH    K<d.    Rep.  (IHOOl     A.    C.    100. 


15;]  WHAT    (ONSirn  TKS    A    VVI-II>    TKADK-MAKK.  [  §  ^Jl 

ferred,  and  llic  "( 'cllnlai"  (  lotliin^,'"  case.''  In  tin-  roniiiT  case 
the  defcndiuit  said  cxpi-cssly  tliat  l)y  iisiiij;  tlic  term  "Camel 
Ilalr  Bolting,'"  lie  would  be  enabled  lo  sell  his  ^'oods  as  thoso 
of  the  jtlainlifl'.  Each  ease  involved  the  use  of  a  deserij)tive 
word.  In  liie  beltint;  ease,  however,  the  word  liad  acquired 
an  additional  nieanin*;.  The  mere  use  of  the  words  "Camel's 
Hair"  iiad  eomc  to  be  understood  in  the  trade  as  indieating 
belting  of  the  i)laintiff's  manufacture.  It  was  proved  in  addi- 
tion to  this  that  the  defendant's  acts  were  done  in  consumma- 
tion of  a  fraudulent  dcsi<;n  to  sell  his  goods  as  those  of  the 
plaintifT.  For  these  recosons  the  use  of  the  words  by  the  defend- 
ant was  restrained. ^^  The  Cellular  Clothing  case  dilTcred  from 
this  on  the  facts.  As  in  the  belting  case,  the  words  "Cellular 
Clothing"  were  originally  purely  descriptive,  being  applied  to 
a  cloth  of  cellular  structure.  It  was  not  shown  that  the  term 
had  so  acquired  a  technical  and  secondary  meaning,  arising 
from  its  natural  meaning,  that  it  could  be  excluded  from  the 
use  of  every  one  else,^'*  and  it  was  not  shown  that  the  defendant 
had  intended  to  defraud  the  plaintiff,  or  that  any  one  had 
bought  of  the  defendant  in  the  belief  that  he  was  getting  plain- 
tiff's goods.'^"  The  Cellular  Clothing  case  demonstrates  very 
clearly  that  one  who  takes  upon  himself  to  prove  that  words 
which  are  merely  descriptive  or  expressive  of  the  quality  of 
the  goods  have  acquired  a  secondary  meaning  and  indicate 
that  the  goods  are  of  his  manufacture  has  assumed  a  burden 
which,  while  it  is  not  impossible,  is,  in  the  language  of  Lord 
Davey,  "at  the  same  time  extremely  difficult  to  discharge — a 
much  greater  burden  than  that  of  a  man  who  undertakes  to 
prove  the  same  thing  of  a  word,  not  significant  and  not  de- 
scriptive, but  what  has  been  compendiously  called  a  'fancy' 
word."  51 

47— Cclhilar      Clothing      Co.      v.  Clotliing     Co.     v.     Maxton,     L.     R. 

Maxton,   L.    R.    (ISnO)    A.    C.    32G.  (IS'tO)    A.   C.   32G-337. 

48 — See    opinion    of    Lord    Hals-  '>0 — Lord      Watson      in      Cellular 

Imry    in    Cellular    Clothing    Co.    v.  Clothing     Co.     v.     Maxton,     L.     R. 

Maxton,   L.    R.    (1899)    A.    C.    320-  (1899)    32G-337. 

335,  and   Reddaway  v.   Banham,  L.  ol — Lord      Davoy      in      Cellular 

R.    (1896)    A.   C.    199,  204, .20.1.  Clothing     Co.     v.     Maxton,     L.     R. 

4<>_Lord    Halslmrv     in     Cellular  (1899)     326-343. 


5  G2]  HOPKINS   OK    TR.VDEMARKS.  154 

§62.  "Distinctive  names,"  under  the  Food  and  Drugs  Act 
i.Iuiu'  :U).  liKH).  Chai).  :i!>l.">.  :?4  Stat,  at  L.  TOS).  -Wlu'ther  a 
name  used  in  a  tradiMuark  capacity  tm  an  article  of  food  or 
drink  can  he  hehl  to  bo  a  nii.s-hrandin}.;  under  the  Food  and 
Drufrs  Act  is  a  prohh^n  of  eonsidera])le  diflicidty  in  some  cases. 

The  expression  "distinctive  names"  as  used  in  the  act  it- 
self, sec,  8,  has  lieen  further  ilhnninated  by  rejrulation  20, 
adoi)tcd  October,   1{)(H).  and   pi-ovidiii<r  as  foHows : 

"(a)  A  'distinctive  name'  is  a  trade,  arbitrary,  or  fancy 
name  which  ch'arly  distiufruishes  a  food  ]iroduct.  mixture, 
or  com|)ouiid  fi-om  any  <ither  food  pro(bict.  mixture,  or 
comixiuud. 

"(b)  A  distinctive  name  shall  not  be  on»'  rei)resenting 
any  sinj;le  constituent  of  a  mixture  or  compound. 

"(c)  A  distinctive  name  .shall  not  misre])resent  any 
property  or  cpiality  of  a  mixture  or  compound. 

"(d)  A  distinctive  name  shall  pive  no  false  indication 
of  oripin,  character,  or  place  of  manufacture,  nor  lead  the 
purcha.ser  to  suppose  that  it  is  any  other  food  or  drug 
])roduct. " 

^Vt•  are.  of  course,  interested  only  in  those  eases  in  which 
the  trademark  or  tradename  itself  is  charged  to  be  misbrand- 
ing. The  charge  of  misl)raiiding  turns  neces.sarily  upon  the 
question  of  the  name  bavin--  true  trademark  (pu\lity.  It  is 
difficult  to  conceive  of  a  true  word  trachMuark  constituting  a 
misbranding  in  its  use. 

But  tradenames  having  no  trademark  quality,  for  example 
"London  Dry  Gin,"''-'  "Grenadine  Syrup,"'-'  and  the  like, 
may  not  constitute  the  basis  for  a  charge  of  misbraiuliug  wlien 
interpreted  by  the  evidence  to  relate  to  a  well-known  class  or 
kiiul  of  merchandis''. 

The  United  States  Supreme  Court  has  elaborated  the  sub- 
ject under  discussion  as  follows: 

"A  distinctive  name  is  a  name  that  distinguishes.  It  may 
be  a  name  in  common  use  as  a  generic  name,  c  (].,  cofTee.  flour, 
etc.     Where  there  is  a  trade  description  of  this  sort  by  which 

r>2— rriit.-.!    StHt.H    V.    Tliirty-Six  .'i.3— Uiiito.I      Stat.-H      v.      Thirty 

Botth-H,    2n.'.     F.<l.     It.p.     Ill;     l«ii«        <iit«<'H,    1!M>    K.-d.    Ucp.    n:{2. 
c«>mi*arc  210  r<-il.   Ki-p.  271. 


155  WHAT    CUNS'ITILTHS    A     V\I.II>     lit  MtK.M  \  KK.  f  M'*^ 

a  product  of  a  jrivni  kind  is  dist  iiict  i\<'|_\-  known  lo  tliL'  i/uhlic 
it  matters  not  tlial  the  iiaiiK-  liad  oii;,Miially  a  difTerent  sig- 
iiilkuiu".'.  Tlius,  soda  water  is  a  lainiliar  tiade  (lcscri|)ti()ii 
at"  an  ai'tiele  whieli  now.  as  is  well-known,  rarely  contains  soda 
in  any  form.  Siicli  a  name  is  not  to  he  deemed  either  'mislead- 
ing' or  'false,'  as  it  is  in  lact  distinctive.  Bnt  nnless  the  name 
is  trnly  distinctive,  the  immunity  can  not  he  enjoyed;  it  does 
not  extend  to  a  case  where  an  arti(de  is  offered  for  sale  'under 
the  distinctive  ;i;iine  of  anotlier  article.'  Thus,  that  which  is 
not  colTce,  or  is  an  imitation  of  cotfee,  can  not  l)e  sold  as  coffee; 
and  it  would  not  he  protected  hy  heinfr  ealled  'X's  Coffee.' 
Similarly,  that  which  is  not  a  lemon  extract  could  not  obtain 
immunity  hy  hciiifr  sold  under  the  name  of 'Y's  Lemon  Extract.' 
The  name  so  used  is  not  'distinctive.'  as  it  does  not  appro- 
priately  distin<ruish  the  ])roduct :  it  is  an  effort  to  trade  under 
the  name  of  an  artiide  of  a  different  sort.  So,  Avith  respect  to 
'mixtures  or  compounds,'  we  think  that  the  term  'another  ar- 
ticle' in  the  ])roviso  embraces  different  compounds  from  the 
compound  in  ([uestion.  The  aim  of  the  statute  is  to  i)revent  de- 
ception, and  that  which  appropriately  describes  a  different  com- 
pound can  not  secure  protection  as  a  'distinctive  name.* 

"A  'distinctive  name'  may  also,  of  course,  be  purely  arbitrary 
or  fanciful,  and  thus,  being  the  trade  description  of  the  par- 
ticular thinjr,  may  satisfy  the  statute,  provided  the  name  has 
not  already  been  appropriated  for  something  else  so  that  it's 
use  would  tend  to  deceive."-"'' 

§63.  Systems  of  licensing-  and  inspection  of  goods  made 
from  a  basic  ingredient  bearing  a  trademark. — The  manufac- 
turer of  a  basic  inprredicnt,  such  as  a  syrup,  which  is  known 
by  a  trademark  or  tradename,  and  which  is  to  be  treated  by  the 
trade  by  the  addition  of  a  diluent,  has  the  right  to  maintain 
the  integrity  of  his  product  by  controlling  the  use  of  his  basic 
'ingredient,  to  the  extent  of  granting  exclusive  licenses  and 
maintaining  a  system  of  inspection  of  the  final  product  as  sold 

.'■)4— United       States       v.       Forty  47   (C.  C.  A.  fi  i .     For  the  sam.- qucs- 

Barrcls,   241   T'.   S.   20.') ;    CO  L.   Ed.  lion    under   the   New   York   statute, 

— ;    reversinp  the   judfrment   in   101  see    Crescent    Mfjr.    Co.    v.    Wilson, 

Fed.  Rep.   4:51,  wliieli  was  afTirmed,  2:5:5  Fed.  Rep.  282. 
215    Fed.    Rep.    r).-55;    132    C.    C.    A. 


§  G3]  nuiKiNs  i).\  TK  Aur.M  AUKS.  K>G 

to  tlu-  i-DHsuiiifr.  A  systnii  of  coiitraits  ^A'  lliis  Uiiul  was 
attacked  as  l)»'in<:  in  violatinn  uf  tin-  Sli.'nnan  Act  i.Iulv  'J. 
1S90.  V.  ()47.  L'()  Stat,  at  1..  -Oil  and  aniriKliiifiits).  to  wliii'li  (!«'- 
fensc  tlic  ronrt  rt'spoiulcd  :  "The  tradt-iiiai-U  laws,  like  the  pat- 
ent laws,  pivc  tilt"  nwiicr  a  iiioiioptily  which  neither  the  Sher- 
man Act  nor  any  other  Act  of  Con^'ress  forbids.  It  would  be 
a  paradox  to  say  that  the  exercise  of  a  rijrht.  expressly  pranted 
by  law.  is  unlawful." ''•  lu  the  same  case  the  defendant  an 
infringer,  urped  the  contracts  in  (juestion  to  be  in  violation  of 
see.  'A  of  the  "Clayton  Act"  (October  1'),  1914.  c.  32*3,  38  Stat, 
at  L.  730).  reading — 

"That  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  i)ersou  enpaped  in 
eoninierce,  in  the  course  of  such  eommeree,  to  lease  or  make 
a  sale  or  contract  for  sale  of  poods,  wares,  merchandise, 
machinery,  supplies  or  othei-  coniin(»dities.  whether  }iat- 
ented  or  unpatented,  for  use.  consumption  or  resale  within 
the  I'nited  States  or  any  territory  thereof  or  the  District 
of  Columbia  or  any  insular  ])ossession  or  other  i)hu  e  uiulcr 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  or  fix  a  i)rice  charged 
therefor,  or  discount  from,  or  rebate  upon,  such  price,  on 
the  condition,  agreement  or  understanding  that  the  lessee 
or  purchaser  thereof  shall  not  use  or  deal  in  the  goods, 
wares,  merchaiulise.  nuichinery.  supplies  or  otlier  com- 
modities of  a  competitor  or  competitors  of  the  lessor  or 
seller,  where  the  (>(Tect  of  such  lease,  sale,  or  contract  for 
sale  or  such  condition.  apreenuMit  or  understanding  may 
be  to  substantially  lessen  competition  or  tcr.d  to  create  a 
monopoly  in  any  line  of  commerce." 

It  was  argued  that  the  jjlaintifT's  contracts  made  it  impos- 
sible for  the  defendant  to  secure  the  |)lainfilT"s  i)roduet.  and 
that  the  plaiiitilT  had  actually  I'cfused  to  sell  that  prodnct  to 
the  defetulant.  This  defense  was  disposed  of  by  the  court  say- 
ing "whether  that  act  is  to  be  construed  so  as  to  eomi)el  one 
to  sell  liis  wares  or  manufactures  to  any  one  a|)plying  therefor 
can  not  be  determined  in  this  case,  as  this  is  not  an  action  to 
obtain  relief  of  that  nature,  and  is  therefore  iu)t   involved."''''' 

'••'•>— Tr'u-tKT,  J.,   in   Coon-Cola   Co.  07    C.    C.    A.    r)7S:     Cr.at     At  lain  i.- 

V.    HutI«T.   220    F««l.    Hop.    224.  232.  A:     Pncifip    T.a    ('".     v      (nam    <if 

m—lhiil,    at    p.    2:j:J.    citinj;.    for  Wlicat     Co..     221      K-.l,     Kip.     r><m. 

th«'    int«Tpr«tatioii    of    tin-    Claj-ton  ulTimu'd    227    l'<il.    I!,  p.    'H\    (C    C 

Art.     rnion      I'arillf     Coal     Co.     v,  \     '_' > 
Unit«'d   SUt«-J«,    173    Fc-d.    lU-p.   737; 


157  WHAT  t;c)NSTiTrTKS  a  vm.id  'ru\i)i:.\i akk.  [§64 

§64.  The  test  of  "origin  or  ownership."  One  of  tlic  j»ri- 
iiiary  iiiftliods — if  indeed  i1  is  not  tlie  fundamental  test — in 
dctci'niiniii^  the  validity  of  a  Iradeniafk  lias  lieen  broadly  an- 
nouneed  hy  llie  Supreme  ('oiiff  of  the  I'nited  States  in  the.se 
woi'ds :  "Tlie  ol'lire  of  a  trademark  is  to  j)oint  out  distinct- 
ively the*  orij^in  or  owiiei'shii)  of  the  article  to  which  it  is  afTixed, 
or,  in  other  words,  to  ^nve  notice  who  was  the  jiroducer. " '^^ 
And  it  has  rccetdly  heen  said:  "That  such  mark  or  symbol 
(/.  ( .,  any  mark  or  synd)ol  claimed  as  trademark)  must  be  de- 
si<;ned,  us  its  pi'imary  object  and  purjiose,  to  distin<^uish  each 
of  the  articles  to  which  it  is  affixed  from  like  articles  produced 
by  others,  seems  to  l)e  the  clear  consensus  of  all  the  eases  which 
are  authoritative. "  •'■'* 

Substantially  this  foi-ni  of  expression  has  been  emi)loyed  liy 
the  American  courts  from  their  earliest  trademark  decisions. 
Our  i)rofoundly  learned  chancellor,  Walworth,  stated  the  rule 
as  well  as  any  court  that  has  followed  him,  when  he  .said  :  "The 
eou.rt  jiroceeds  upon  the  ground  that  the  complainant  lias  a 
valuable  interest  in  the  goodwill  of  his  trade  or  business.  And 
that  having  a]>propriated  to  himself  a  particular  label,  or  .sign 
or  trademark,  indicating  to  those  who  wish  to  give  him  their 
l)atronage  that  the  article  is  manufactured  or  sold  by  him,  or 
by  his  authority,  or  that  he  carries  on  business  at  a  particular 
place,  he  is  entitled  to  protection  again.st  a  defendant  who  at- 
tempts to  pirate  upon  the  goodwill  of  the  complainant's  friends 
or  customers,  or  the  jiatrons  of  his  trade  or  ])usiness,  by  sail- 
ing under  his  flag  without  his  authority  or  consent.'""'^  In 
the  light  of  this  statement,  the  words  of  the  sujireme  court 
assume  a  broader  meaning.  In  1S49,  the  year  following  that 
in  which  tlu>  opinion  last  quoted  from  was  rendered,  it  was 
said  in  an  opinion  of  the  Superior  Court  of  New  York  City, 

57 — Delaware    &     Iliulson     Canal  20   L.    Kd.   2H1;    Anioskea},'  Mff,'.  Co. 

Co.    V.   Clark,    1.3   Wall.   311:    20   L.  v.  Trainer,  101  U.  S.  ,')4;  2.')  L.  Ed. 

Ed.    581;    f)   Am.    I..     T.    l.tti :    1    OIV.  !m3 ;  Lawrence  Mfp.  Co.  v  Tennessee 

Caz.    279;    Sel).   327.  Mfj,'.   Co.,   138  U.  S.  .-)37 ;    34   L.   Ed. 

r)8 — Lurton,   .T..    in    Dccrin^f    liar-  !>!17 ;    C'oluniiiia    Mill    t'o.    v.   Alcorn, 

vaster  Co.  v.  Whitman-Barnes  Mfj:.  l.")0  V.  S.  4(10;   37   L.   Kd.   1144. 
Co.,  33  C.  C.   A.   558,  91   Fed.   Rep.  59— Partridpe  v.  Menek,  2  Sand. 

376-378;  citinp  Delaware  &  Hudson  Cli.   622;   2  Barb.  Ch.    101;    1   How. 

Canal   Co.   v.   Clark,    13    Wall.   311;  App.    Cas.    .558;    Cox,   72;    Seb.    91. 


§  ()4]  HOPKINS    l)N    TKAI>1:M  MJKS.  158 

tliat  "tlif  (iwiuT  (if  a  li  iidi'iiiai'lv  lias  im  ri^'lit  to  an  exclusive 
iisi*  of  any  words.  Ifltt-rs.  lijruiTs  or  sNiuhols  vvhicli  liavc  no 
relation  to  the  ori^'in  or  ownersliij)  of  the  ^joods.  "'"  And  tlie 
same  eoiirt.  by  the  same  jiid^'e  (Dneri,  repeated  th<'  statement 
in  very  nearly  the  same  woids  in  l^.")?.  saying'  tiiat  a  name 
eoidd  he  ri>:htfnlly  used  and  jiroteeted  as  a  ti'ademark  oidy 
"where  the  inune  is  used  nu'reiy  as  indieatin*,'  the  true  origin 
or  ownershi])  of  llic  article  ofl'ered  for  sale,  never  where  it  is 
used  to  desijiiuite  the  article  itself  and  has  IxM'ome,  by  adoption 
and  use,  its  proper  appellation."'''  And  in  ISJJS,  the  Sui)reme 
Court  of  California  stated  the  rule  to  he  that  trademarks  will 
be  protoeted  "only  so  far  as  such  mai'ks  serve  to  desijrnate 
tlie  true  orij.'in  or  ownei'shi])  of  the  jroods  to  wliieh  they  are 
attached."''-  So  that  when  the  doetriin^  as  first  stated  by  the 
federal  supreme  court  was  announced,  it  had  become  well 
settled  in  our  jnrisprndiuu'e  that  a  trademark  must  indicate 
origin  or  owiiersliip,  and  tlie  only  difficulty  presented  by  the 
maxim  to  bench  and  bar  is  that  of  its  apjdication  to  each  new 
state  of  facts  as  it  arises.  It  must  be  noted,  however,  that  "It  is. 
of  course,  no  fatal  objection  to  the  validity  of  a  trademark 
that  it  does  not  iiudiule  the  name  of  the  mamifacturer  or  pro- 
ducer. The  sifrn.  synd)ol  oi-  mark  may  be  jnirely  fajiciful,  aiul 
convey  no  information  as  to  the  name  of  the  j^roducer.  Uut 
the  essential  thing  is  tliat  it  shall  lie  designed  and  used  to  in- 
dicate the  origin  of  the  article  and  that  all  articles  having 
the  same  mark  conn'   from  a   common  source."''' 

It  is  self-evident  that  Mhile  a  mark  may  be  iiulicative  of 
origin  and  ownership,  it  nmy.  because*  geiuM-ic  or  deceptive, 
fall  short  of  being  a  valid  trademark.  Hut  every  valid  trade- 
mark must  be  indjcativ*'  of  orij.'-iii  or  ownership  in  the  sense 
in  which   those  words  arc  used   in  the  decisions. 

00 — AmoHkcn;.'  Mf;r.  Cu.  v.  Spi-nr.  (  Maine  i.    1    II(.lm<'8,    18.".;  0  Am.   L. 

2    Sund.    S.    ('.    r.lMI;    Cox,    HI;    Scl..  T.    20;    .'{    OlF.    Caz.    124;    Scl..    410. 

100.  <l''^ — Liirton,   .1.,   in    Di-iTin^    Har- 

61 — Fctriil;.'"-     V.     Wills.     I     Alili.  vi-ntcr    ('i».    v.    Whitman    A:     Hnrnrs 

I'r.    144;    i:{    II. .\\.    I'r.   :»h;.;    (  ..x,  Mfj;.  ('<».,  x\  ('.  ('.  A.  r»:.s.  m  F.<l. 

IRO;    K.I..    144.  K.-p.    :i70-.'iH().      To    tin-    Bftm.-    .iTi'ct 

62 — FalkJnhiirj,'    v.    Ltic-y,   -'t''   Cal.  we    Drnnimin    Mf>?.    Co.    v.    Tliomai* 

r.2:  an<l  V.miirx  v.  Ilink.  «.'»  Ciil.  Mf^'.  Co.,  04  TVd.  Rtp.  Or.l.«.'>n. 
44."i.       Sec     nlwi     f>Hf.'(HMl     V.     Alien 


159 


WHAT    CONSTITUTES   A    VALID   TKADKM  \UK. 


[§G5 


One  who  iiiiUMifact  iircs  i"(»i'  tlir  Icudr,  fiiiMiisliiii;;  liis  j/oods 
in  cartons  liavinj;  labels  which  icprcscnl  the  dealer  to  l)C  (h<! 
manufaetui'er,  can  not  enjoin  sueli  dealer  l"roiii  the  use  of  the 
same  caitons  when  they  cease  to  huy  the   iroods  from   him."'* 

§65.  Geographical  names.- The  rule  that  •reo^'rai)hical 
names  can  not  be  exclusively  appropriated  for  the  i)urpo.ses 
of  trademark  luis  l)een  recofjnized  from  the  infancy  of  trade- 
mark law.  It  Avas  said  by  the  United  States  Suj)reme  Court 
that  "No  one  can  ;ii)])ly  the  name  of  a  district  of  country  to 
a  well-known  article  of  commerce  and  obtain  thereby  such  an 
exclusive  rif;ht  to  the  apjilication  as  to  prevent  others  inhabit- 
ing the  district,  or  dealing  in  similar  articles  coming  from  the 
district,  from  truthfully  using  the  same  designation.  It  is  only 
when  the  adoption  or  imitation  of  what  is  claimed  to  be  a 
trademark  amounts  to  a  false  representation,  express  or  im- 
plied, designed  or  incidental,  that  there  is  any  title  to  relief 
against  it.  '  "^ 


04— ShelK'V  v.  Sprrry,  121  Mo. 
App.    429;    99   S.    W.    Rep.   488. 

6') — Delaware  &  Hudson  Canal 
Co.  V.  Clark,  13  Wall.  311;  20  L. 
Ed.  581;  -)  Am.  L.  T.  l:}.");  I  OfF. 
Gaz.  279;  Sel).  ;V27 ;  and  to  tlie  same 
effect,  see  Columbia  Mill  Co.  v.  Al- 
corn, l.")0  U.  S.  4G0;  37  L.  Kd. 
1144;  Candee,  Swan  &  Co.  v. 
Deere  Si  Co.,  r,i  111.  439;  5  Am. 
Rep.  125;  4  Am.  L.  T.  2(50;  10  Am. 
L.  Reg.  N.  S.  694:  Reb.  339:  In  re 
Telle.  2  Off.  C.az.  415;  Seb.  40.-i : 
Osgood  V.  Allen.  1  Holmes.  185;  6 
Am.  L.  T.  20;  3  Off.  Ciaz.  124;  Seb. 
410;  Glendon  Iron  Co.  v.  I'liler,  75 
Pa.  St.  467;  15  Am.  Rep.  .■)99-;  13 
Am.  L.  Reg.  X.  S.  .543;  6  Off.  Gaz. 
154;  Seb.  439;  Bulloch.  Lade  &.  Co. 
V.  Gray.  19  Journ.  of  Jurisp.  218; 
Seb.  452;  Wolfe  v.  CrOulard,  IS 
How.  Pr.  64;  Clinton  Met.  Paint 
Co.  V.  N.  Y.  :Met.  Paint  Co..  .50  X. 
Y.  Supp.  437:  Gabriel  v.  Sicilian 
Asphalt  Co..  52  X.  Y.  Supp.  722: 
Morfran  Envelope  Co.  v.  Walton.  30 


C.  C.  A.  383,  80  Fed.  Rep.  005; 
Wm.  Rogers  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Rogers  & 
S.  Mfg.  Co.,  11  Fed.  Rep.  495; 
Burgess  v.  Burgess,  17  Eng.  L.  & 
Va].  257;  Brooklyn  White  Lead  Co. 
V.  Masury,  25  Barb.  410;  Lea  v. 
Wolir,  13  Abb.  Pr.  X.  S.  389;  15 
J<l.  1;  40  How.  Pr.  157;  1  Am.  L. 
T.  X.  S.  400;  Seb.  407;  Carmichel 
V.  Latimer,  11  R.  I.  395;  Eggers 
V.  Hink,  63  Cal.  445;  Dunbar  v. 
Glenn.  42  Wis.  118:  Anheu^er- 
Buseli  Brewing  .Associiition  v.  Pis:i. 
23  Blatehf.  245:  Lea  v.  De.jkin. 
Fed.  Case  Xo.  81.54.  11  Biss.  23: 
Pratt's  Appeal.  117  ['a.  St.  401: 
Smith  V.  W.ilk.r,  37  Mifh.  4.50: 
Smith  V.  Inius.  32  Alb.  L.  .T.  455: 
Burton  v.  Stratton.  12  Fed.  Rep. 
090;  Evans  v.  Van  Laer.  32  Fed. 
Rep.  153:  Gal)riel  v.  Sicilian 
Asphalt  Co.  (2).  .50  X"".  V.  Supp. 
30:  Gebbie  v.  Stitt,  31  X.  V.  Supp. 
102;  Weyman  v.  Soderberg.  108 
Fed.  Rep.  63;  Telephone  Mfg.  Co. 
v.    Sumter   Mf<r.   Co..  03    S.   C.    313: 


§66]  HOPKINS    ON    TRADEMARKS.  IGO 

§  66.  As  employed  by  sole  owner  of  a  natural  product  and 
its  place  of  production.  TIumt  can  bo  no  doubt  tlial,  where 
the  owner  of  a  ^'co^m  aphieal  site  produetive  of  a  salabb'  artielo 
is  the  sole  owner,  he  may  have  an  exehisive  ri^'bt  in  the  name 
of  his  site.  This  rnh«  has  been  followed  in  several  eases  where 
the  proi>rietor  of  the  ronnnodity  was  tlie  owner  of  the  plaee 
of  its  produetion,  and  the  name  of  that  i)lace  was  a  in-ominent 
and  eontrollinp  jmrt  of  the  trademark.  Lord  Cranworth  so 
held  in  the  ease  of  a  wine-trrower  who  used  the  name  of  his 
vineyard  as  a  trademark  for  his  wines.""  And  the  use  of  the 
words  "Con^M-ess  Water"  as  desijinatinfr  the  ju-oduet  of  "Con- 
gress ISpring"  was  sustained  on  the  suit  of  the  sole  owner  of 
the  springs."" 

§  67.  When  geographical  names  will  be  protected  as  trade- 
marks.— In  many  eases  the  use  of  peojiraphieal  words  lias  been 
protected  on  tlie  pround  of  unfair  competition.  It  was  so  held 
where  the  complainants  api)lied  the  word  "Durham,"  the  name 
of  a  town  in  North  Carolina,  to  tobacco  manufactured  by  them 
at  tliat  locality.  The  defendant,  whose  business  was  conducted 
at  Riclimond.  was  enjoined  from  applying  the  word  to  tobacco 
produced  by  him.'"'  And  the  usual  rule  by  which  geographical 
names  have  been  ])roteeted  against  infringers  by  injunction 
was  thus  tersely  stated  by  tlie  Patent  Office:  "rndoubtedly 
courts  of  equity  have  granted  injunctions  to  restrain  the  fraud- 
ulent use  of  words  of  this  character;  but  the  grounds  of  such 
decisions  have  been  invariably.  T  tliink.  the  fraud  of  the  de- 
fendants,  and    not    any    exclusive   rijrht    of  tlie    jilaintiffs. " "® 

41  S.  E.  Rop.  322.  Even  thou^'h  ■>2fi;  4.'.  N.  Y.  201;  Cox.  nnO;  to  the 
the  word  "Hahi;:ti"  was  tliat  of  Hiimt"  ofTcct,  wv  La  Ropiihlique 
an  hixtoriPHl  p(TKona;:c«,  n'^'iatra-  Francaiso  v.  Schultz.  'u  Fod.  Rep. 
tion  was  nfiiwd  Ix-oauBc  it  was  also  :M ;  City  of  Carlsltad  v.  Kutnow,  08 
a  f:«'o;.'ra|iliical  name.  Kx  partr  Ffd.  Ivrj*.  704;  s.  v.,  71  V\•^\.  H«'p. 
Oliver,  IK  OIT.  C;a/.  02:J:  Prict-  &  H'w  ;  City  of  Carl>»lmd  v.  Sclmltz.  78 
St4"uart.    r)0;    KHwlHtyn    v.    Holm.'s.  Fed.    Rep.    4rtO;     Xothcutt    v.    Tur- 

42  Mont.    .'■.()7;    114    Par.    Rep.    118.       ikv.    KH    Ky     -.UA:     tl    S     \V.    Rop. 
00— Soixo  V.   Provozondf,  T-.    R.    1       21. 

Ch.  102;   12  -lur.  X.  S.  21.');   14  L.  T.  08— Rlackw.-U  A    Co.   v.  Dihroll  & 

V    S.  .114;   14  \V.   R.  SfJ ;   SH..  2r.O.  Co..   .1   Tfii;:liP8.    ir,l  ;    F.d.    Case   No. 

07 — ConjrTfHH    A     Empire     Spring'  l,47ri;    Price  A  Stetiart.   10. 

Co.    V.    Ilijrh    Rock   Con;.'reHH    Sf»riti<r  00— /-'j    pnrtr    Farmim    ft    Co.,    18 

Co.,  4  Am.  L.  T.  108;  10  .\).l..  Pr.  OfT.  Gaz.  412;' Price  A  Steiiart,  08 
X.  S.  .348;  0  .\m    Rep    82;   ni  Rarb. 


im  WHAT    CONSTITUTES   A    VALID   THADK.M  AKK.  [§68 

Probal)ly  a  more  acciii-alc  slalcinciif,  lif)\vover,  is  that  of  thtr 
United  States  Cireuit  Court  of  Apix-als  in  the  very  well  con- 
sidered ()j)inion  in  l'illshury-\\'asliht(rn  (Jo.  v.  Kngle:'"*  "The 
distinction,  both  in  the  En^Mish  and  American  cases,  is  between 
those  wiiere  a  ^e/j^n-aphical  name  has  l)ccn  adopted  and  claimed 
as  a  trademark  proper,  and  those  where  it  has  been  adopted 
first  as  merely  indicating  the  place  of  manufacture,  and  after- 
wards, in  the  course  of  time,  has  become  a  well-known  sign 
and  synonym  for  superior  excellence.  Tn  the  latter  class  of 
cases,  persons  residing  at  other  places  will  not  be  permitted 
to  use  the  geograiihical  name  so  adopted  as  a  brand  or  label 
for  similar  goods  for  the  mere  purpose,  by  fraud  and  false 
representation,  of  appropriating  the  goodwill  and  business 
which  long  continued  industry  and  skill  and  a  generous  use 
of  capital  has  rightfully  built  up.  It  will  be  of  no  avail  in  such 
cases,  where  the  facts  are  admitted  or  proven,  to  allege  a  want 
of  power  in  a  court  of  equity  to  find  a  remedy. ' '  In  other  words, 
geographical  names  can  never  be  appropriated  as  trademark ; 
but  with  the  development  of  the  law  of  unfair  competition 
has  come  the  incidental  protection  of  geogra])hical  names  ap- 
plied to  merchandise,  not  as  technical  trademark,  but  as  an 
indication  to  the  public  of  the  true  place  of  its  manufacture. 
And  no  manufacturer  can  defend,  any  more  than  he  could 
maintain,  a  suit  in  equity,  where  he  is  falsely  representing  the 
place  where  his  manufacture  is  conducted. 

§  68.     Geographical    names — The    underlying    principle.— 
Judge  Lacombe  has  recently  given  this  concise  expression  of 

70—80  Fed.  Rop.  fi08;  30  C.  C.  A.  the    field   may   put  later  comers   to 

38();   overnilinj,'  s.  c.,  82   Fed.  Rep.  tlie  trouble   of  taking   such   reason- 

810.     The  false  use  of  a  geopraphi-  able    precautions    as    are    commer- 

cal    name     will     not     he     tolerated  eially    practicable   to   prevent   their 

when   it    is   so  used   as   to   promote  lawful    names    and    advertisements 

unfair    competition    and    to    induce  from       deceitfully       diverting,'      the 

the  sale  of  spurious  poods.    Collins-  plaintiffs   custom."     This  was   said 

platt    V.    Finlayson,    88    Fed.    Rep.  of  the  word  "Waltliam"  as  applied 

603.  to  watches  by  Holmes,  J.,  in  Amer- 

"\^niatever   mipht   hnve   been    the  ican  Waltliam  Watch  Co.  v.  United 

doubts    some    y.ars    apo.    we    think  States    Watch    Co.,    173    'Mass.    85; 

that  now   it   is   pretty   well    settled  53    N.    E.    Rep.     141:     followed    in 

that    the    plaintifT,    merely    on    the  American    Waltliam    Watcli    Co.    v. 

strength    of    having    been    first    in  Sandman,  96  Fed.  Rep.  330. 


§  68]  HOPKINS    ON    TRAPEMARKS.  Iij2 

the  rule  applied  by  iDiuts  of  tMniity  to  peographiral   names 
falsoly  usoil   in  unfair  conipolilion :     "Whatevor  may   ho  the 
deeisions  in  tlie  state  rourts.  it  is  ahnndantly  settled  by  autlnu-- 
ity  in  tin*  ftnlfral  eowrts  that  tiu-y  will  m.t  tolerate  a  false  use 
of  a  peofrrapliii-al  name  when  it  is  so  nsed  as  to  jiromote  unfair 
eomjietition  and  to  induce  the  sale  of  spurious  froods."  "'     In 
a  later  ease,  the  rule  has  been   illustrated  and  ajiplit'd  as  fol- 
lows:    "The  resjtondents  concede   that   tlwy    juit    up   in   eans 
pears  prown  in  Maryland  and  adjoining  states,  and  keej)  the 
cans  without  labels  until  they  are  sold,  and  then,  at  the  desire 
of  their  customers,  they  label  them  as  Talifornia  j)ears.  canned 
by  some  pretended  packer  at  some  place  in  California,     This 
is  a  clear  case  of  fraudulent  competition  by  the  use  of  a  geo- 
praphieal  name  which  the  com])lainants  are  entitled  to  use,  but 
the  respondents  are  not.     It  is  true  that  no  one  single  packer 
can  acquire  an  exclusive  right  to  use  as  a  private  trademark, 
'California  Pears,'  or  'California.'  as  a  label  on  canned  pears; 
but  all  the  persons  who  put  up  California  grown  jiears  in  Cali- 
fornia have  a  right  to  use  it :  and  it  has  acquired,  the  bill  alleges, 
an  especial  trade  significance  of  value.    With  regard  to  articles 
of  food,  and  particularly  with  "regard  to  fruits,  the  place  where 
they   are  grown  creates   often  an   essential   distinction  as  to 
quality  and  flavor;  and  this  distinction,  when  it  has  become 
known  in  trade  by  the  geographical  name  of  the  place  where 
grown,  the  growers  of  the  fruit  are  entitled  to  the  benefit  of. 
and  the  consumers  should  not  be  deceived.    The  present  is  such 
a  case,  and  presents,  I  think,  indisputable  ground  for  applica- 
tion of  the  equitable  jurisdiction  which   prevents  unfair  and 
fraudulent   competition  by   simulated   trade   designations."  "^ 

71_CoUinHplatt   v.    Kinlayson,  88  App.   Cns.  217;   8   IJ.    V.   C.  30."..    Of 

Fed.   Ri'p.   (503.     To  tlic  Bamc  cfToct  tliis   (lt«i«ii>n    ii    vtrv    Kariu'd    Eng- 

KiM'    .I.-wiHli     C'oloni/ation     Aww'n     v.  liwh    law    writt-r    Iuih    said:     "TIuto 

Solomon    (2 1,    ir.4    PVd.    R«'p.    157;  an>  dicta  in  tlio  Stone  AI.h  Carta,  in 

InU-rnational  CliecH.'  Co.   v.   Phonix  the  House  of   Lords,  wliich   stijjRoat 

ChcfBP   Co.,    103    N.    Y.    Supp.    302.  tliat    a    i.ractiial     monopoly    mijjht 

72 Morrow,     .T.,     in     California  Ix-  a(«niir<(l  of  tiio  uso  of  the  name 

Fniit  Canncrs"   AHB'n   v.    Mycr,    H>1  of  a   place  when-  goods  are  manu 

Fed.  H.p.  K2,  citing'  IMllHluiry-WaHli-  factured;   hut  they  must,  it  la  suh 

hum  Co.  V.  Ka;;le.  30  C.  C.  A.  380;  mitt.-d,  ho  read  hy  reference  to  the 

Rfl   Fed.    Rep.   008-018.      The  hadin-  fartH    of    the    case,    which    watt    one 

Knglii^h  rase  is  the  Stone  AleH  Can...  ..f     deHherat.-     fraud."       Kerly     on 

Thompwm    v.     Mont^'omery     (IH'U..  TiademarkM    ( London,    1S!"4 ) ,  p.   44. 


\M  \V1I\I'    CONSTlTrTKS    A    V\Mli    'IK  \Iii:.M  AKK.  [  §  ^^ 

Tilt'  Siiprt'iiic  ('(iiii'l  of  the  riiiti-d  Stati-s  lias  clearly  cxfluded 
peojjjrapiiical  iiaiiM's  from  use  as  tcclinical  trademarks. 

It  was  said  by  Mr.  .Iiistiee  .Jackson  :  "Tlie  general  principles 
of  law  ajjpliealde  to  tiademarks,  and  the  conditions  under 
Avhich  a  party  may  establish  an  e.xclusive  right  to  the  use  of 
a  name  or  symbol,  are  well  settled  by  the  decisions  of  this  court, 

•  *  *  which  •  •  *  establish  the  following  general 
proj)ositi()ns :  •  •  •  (;])  That  the  e.xclusive  right  to  the 
use  of  the  nuii'k  or  device  claimed  as  a  trademark  is  founded 
on  priority  of  approj)riation  ;  that  is  to  say,  the  claimant  of 
the  trademark  must  liave  been  the  first  to  use  or  employ  the 
same  on  like  articles  of  production.  (4)  Such  trademarks 
can  not  consist  of  words  in  common  use  as  designating  locality, 
section,  or  region  of  country."'^ 

Tiie  reasons  for  this  rule  have  been  more  fully  expressed 
by  Mr.  Justice  Strong,  in  these  words:  "No  one  can  claim  ])ro- 
teetion  for  the  exclusive  use  of  a  trademark  or  tradename, 
which  would  ])ractically  give  him  a  monopoly  in  the  sale  of  any 
goods  other  than  those  ])roduced  or  made  by  himself.  If  lie 
could,  the  ]iublic  ■would  l)e  injured  rather  than  jirotected  ;  for 
competition  would  be  destroyed.  Nor  can  a  generic  name,  or 
a  name  merely  descriptive  of  an  article  of  trade,  of  its  qualities, 
ingredients,  or  characteristics,  be  employed  as  a  trademark, 
and  the  exclusive  nse  of  it  be  entitled  to  a  legal  protection. 

*  *  *  lie  has  no  right  to  appropriate  a  sign,  or  a  symbol, 
"which,  from  the  natuiT  of  the  fact  it  is  used  to  signify,  others 
may  employ  with  eijual  truth,  and  therefore  have  an  equal  right 
to  emi)loy  for  the  same  purpose.  And  it  is  obvious  that  the  same 
reasons  which  forbid  the  exclusive  ajipropriation  of  generic 
names,  or  of  those  merely  descriptive  of  the  article  manufac- 
tured, and  which  can  be  employed  with  truth  by  other  manu- 
facturers, apply  Avith  eqnal  force  to  the  appropriation  of  geo- 
grajihical  names  designating  districts  of  country.  Their  nature 
is  such  that  they  can  not  jioint  to  the  origin  (personal  origin "> 
of  the  articles  of  trade  to  which  they  may  be  applied.  *  *  * 
It  must  be  considered  as  sound  doctrine  than  no  one  can  apply 
the  name  of  a  district  of  country  to  a  well-known  article  of 
commerce,  and  obtain  thereby  such  an  exclusive  right  to  the 

73 — Columbia  Mill  Co.  v.  Alcorn,     i:>0   U.   S.  4G0;    37   L.   Ed.    1144 


§68]  IIOI'KINS    ON    Tl{  V1'I:M  AHKS.  164 

application  as  to  prevent  others  irilmliiiiii^r  tin'  district,  ur  deal- 
ing in  siniiljir  artirlcs  ('(tiniii^r  from  tin*  district,  from  truthfully 
nsin^  the  same  ilcsi^Muition."  ' ' 

Is  it  not  a  rcasonaltle  i-onrlusion  from  these  swid  tlu-  kiutlrcd 
ca.ses  whirh  wo  have  heretofore  examined,  that  there  can  he 
no  teelmieal  trach'mark  in  a  pcojjraphieal  luime?  To  the 
author's  mind  that  eonclusion  i.s  inevitable,  and  there  is  but 
one  ehiss  of  jreofrrai)liieal  names  which  are  to  be  excepted 
from  the  operation  of  the  rule,  namely,  those  ai)i)lied  to  a 
natural  j>roduet  and  its  sole  ]daee  of  production.  The  name 
so  used  may  very  jiroperly  be  a  trademark,  indicative  of  the 
origin  and  owner.shij>  of  the  natural  product,  and  at  the  same 
time  indicatinjr  the  locality  of  its  production.  Here  the  name 
undoubtedly  is  a  trademark  if  there  is  but  one  owner  of  the 
entire  locality,  and  the  courts  have  uniformly  so  held.'''  The 
same  scientific  objection  to  jrcojjraphical  names  as  trademarks 
obtains  as  in  the  case  of  proper  names.  They  are  {generic,  in 
that  every  manufacturer  who  sees  fit  to  locate  in  that  city  or 
vicinape  and  inaufruratc  a  com])ctinfr  business  has  an  equal 
riprht  with  all  those  who  have  preceded  him  in  the  locality, 
and  all  those  who  may  thereafter  so  locate,  in  usiii<r  the  name 
of  that  locality  in  advertising  his  wares  and  in  pre|)aring  them 
for  commerce.'" 

Beinpr  generic  they  can  not  be  used  as  trademarks,  with  the 
one  exception  we  have  noted,  that  of  the  title  to  the  entire 
locality  being  vested  in  one  owner.  Tii  that  case  no  one  else 
can  locate  there  and  institute  competition;  the  name  of  the 
locality  is  not  generic,  and  that  fact  exempts  it  from  the  opera- 
tion of  the  ride. 

In  the  course  of  a  well-considered  opinion  Judge  Showalter 
has  held   the  name  "Elgin"     as  apjilied   to   watcli-movcments 

74 — Dclnwiiro     &     Hudson     C'niial  TH — lUiukwill     v.     Dilin-ll,     Yvd. 

Co.    V.   Clark,    l.l    Wall.    ;{2:t ;    2(t    I..  Case  No.   147.'.,  :$  IIu;.'li.'«,  100;  Now- 

Kd.  ftSl.  man    v.    Alvonl.    4!)    Harl>.    nss ;    .3.'> 

7.'>— City   of   Cnrlwlmd   v.    Sihiiltz,  How.   Pr.    108;    Cox,  404;    Delaware 

7«    Fi'd.    R«-p.    4(l'i;    City    of    CnrlH-  &    Hudrton    Canal    Co.    v.    Clark,    13 

l.ad   V.   Kutnow,  71    F.-d.    U.-p.    107;  Wall.  .'U  1  :  20  L.  Kd.  r.Sl  ;  N.-w  York 

nffirmin;.'  07   Fed.   Ri'|).  704;    Hill  v.  Ccmmt    Co.    v.   Copluy    (.Vmont   Co., 

L<Kkwo<M!.      .12      Fed.      R.'p.      .189;  4.")  Fid.  Tup.  212. 
Northnitt  v.  Tiirn<-y.   lol    Ky.  .MM; 
41    S.  W.   Rop.  21. 


165  WHAT    CONSTITLTtlS    A    VALID   TUADEMAKK.  f  ^  CD 

to  1)0  a  strk'tly  tci'lmical  tiadt'inarU,  even  tliouf,'h  the  nam.-  is 
that  of  llic  town  where  the  factory  is  situated,  because,  in  tlic 
■words  of  the  court:  "This  mark  has  this  si;,Miihcaiice  (desij,'- 
iiatin^'  coniphiinaut's  luanuriicturej  wlicre  tiie  town  of  Elf^iu 
is  entirely  unknown."  Hut  this  is  i)urely  a  dictum,  aiul  jire- 
sented  in  a  ease  of  fraudulent  competition,  where  the  defend- 
ants had  moved  their  factory  from  f'hica^'o  to  El^'iii  "witli 
the  i)uri)ose  *  *  *  of  j;ivinp  some  color  of  ri^'ht  to  a  de- 
signed trespass  on  eomplainant's  goodwill. """ 

In  a])plying  the  doctrine  of  geographical  names  to  trade- 
marks, there  is  frequently  occasion  to  exercise  common  sense. 
"A  word  does  not  become  a  geographical  name  simply  because 
some  |ilace  upon  the  earth's  surface  has  been  called  by  it.  For 
example,  we  agree  Avith  Mr.  Justice  Kekewich  that  the  word 
'Monkey'  is  not  proved  to  be  a  geographical  name,  by  show- 
ing merely  that  a  small  and  by  no  means  generally-known 
island  has  been  called  by  that  name.  If,  indeed,  in  its  pri- 
mary and  obvious  meaning,  the  word  has  reference  to  a  lo- 
cality, as  the  word  'Melrose'  in  Van  Duzcr's  case,  or  the  word 
'Eboli'  in  Sir  Titus  Salt  and  C&mpany's  case  (from  which  Mr. 
Justice  Chitty  declined  to  distinguish  the  derivative  'Eboline') 
it  may  well  be  a  geographical  name."  "* 

§  69.     A  false  geographical  name  vitiates  trademark. — To 

all  that  has  been  said  in  the  last  preceding  section  must  be 
noted  one  broad  (pialification.  Tie  who  seeks  to  uphold  a 
trademark  in  a  court  of  equity  must  do  so  with  clean  hands, 
so  that  a  trademark  otherwise  good  will  be  vitiated  and  the 
right  to  it  destroyed  by  the  use  of  a  false  geographical  name 
in  connection  with  it."''  And  this  is  true,  as  expressed  by  Judge 
Showalter.  even  though  "No  actual  or  substantial  wrong  may 
have  resulted  to  any  one  from  this  misrepresentation."^'^ 

77— Elgin  Nat.  Watch  Co.  v.  Illi-  TS— Ri^'hy,    L.    J.,    In    re    Mag- 

nois  Watch   Co.    (1),  89   Fi'd.   "Rop.  nolia  Metal  Company's  Trademarks, 

487;      reviTScd      on      jurisdictional  14   R.   P.  C.   G21,   G27. 

grounds,  Illinois  Watch   Co.  v.   El-  79 — Manhattan  Med.  Co.  v.  Wood, 

gin  Nat.  Watch.   Co.,  94   Fed.   Rep.  108  U.  S.  218;   27  L.  Ed.  70G;  and 

667;  35  C.  C    A.  237;  the  latter  do-  cases    cited    ante,    §40. 

oision  affirmed  in  Elgin  Xat.  Watch  80 — Royal   Boking  Powder  Co.  v. 

Co.   V.   Illinois  Watch   Co.    (2),   179  Raymond,  70  Fed.  Rep.  370-382.  To 

U.   S.  665;   45  L.  Ed.  365.  same    effect,    see    American    Cereal 


^  7ClJ  llol'KlNS    ON    TKADKMARKS.  106 

This  nilo.  liowrvt-r.  has  lis  |irai'tiral  limitations.  Like  other 
forms  of  misrcpresi'Mtatioii,  it  may  i>e  that  tlie  use  of  a  geo- 
graphieal  nauic.  by  one  not  residing  or  manufaeturiiig  within 
the  loeality  named,  amounts  t(»  a  mere  i-oUateral  misrepresen- 
tation. Thus.  tlu>  fact  that  oiu«  of  the  mills  of  maiuifacturers 
who  are  joined  in  an  action  to  rcsfi-ain  the  fraudulent  use 
of  the  luime  of  the  city  in  which  they  are  situated,  is  situated 
outside  tlie  limits  of  the  city,  is  not  a  har  to  e(piita])le  relief, 
when  the  mill  is  ])raclically  a  portion  of  a  plaid,  the  remainder 
of  which  is  within  the  city.''' 

There  is  a  class  of  words  usually  treated  as  "geographical 
names  faneifully  used"  that  have  been  treated  as  trademarks. 
So  of  "Alderney"  oleomargarine.''-  "Vienna"  bread. **•'  "fier- 
man"  sweet  chocolate  ("Cierman"  being  the  name  of  an  in- 
dividuaH.''^  l>ut  in  their  last  analysis.  Iho  "fanciful  u.se" 
aseribed  to  those  words  by  the  courts  is  simply  a  convenient 
excuse  for  avoiding  the  harsh  doctrine  of  Mtnilidttdii  Medicine 
Co.  V.  Wood.  The  misrepresentation  may  be  implied  from  the 
language  employed  though  not  in  ex|)ress  words.^^ 

§  70.  The  right  to  complain  of  unfair  use  of  geographical 
name. — The  right  to  use  the  name  of  a  locality  in  the  maiuifac- 
ture  and  .sale  of  goods  is  a  general  right  of  all  who  manufae- 
ture  in  that  locality."^"  It  therefore  follows  that  where  any- 
one not  living  in  that  locality  uses  its  name  to  indicate  his 
merchandise,  he  is  resorting  to  a  triek  to  divert  business  from 
the  dealers  in  the  same  kind  of  merchandise  who  in  fact  live 
in  the  loeality  and  honestly  use  its  name  as  a  mark  upon  their 
goods.**" 

Co.  V.  Kli  P.ttijolm  (Vrcal  Co.   (li,  8.">— Prinfc    Mf^'.    Co.    v.    Prince's 

72    F«'d.    Hep.    !t<l.'{,  !tOS.  Mctnllic    raint    Co..    l.S.')    \.    Y.    24; 

81_PiUHl.ury-\V.i8lil.urn         Flour  :U   X.   K.   \U-\>.  !>!>().  17  L.  U.  A.   129. 

Mills    Co.    V.     Kuk'"".    ""    •''•'••    '^*P  s(l— I'illsl.ury-Washliurn      Co.     v. 

flnS.  .30  C.  C.  A.  :m\,  r,H  v.  S.  App.  Ka^M.-.   SC    K..1.    K.p.   (lOS.   30   C.   C. 

400. -41   L.   R.  A.  10-2.  A.  .380. 

82— Laufc-rty      v.      Wlir.lrr,      f,.?  Kt—lhiil.     "A    jialpal.!.-   tri.k."    it 

Tlow.    I'r.    488.  «aH     ti-rmi-d     l.y     CrcHliaiii.     .1..     in 

H:{_pi,.iH<.|inianii         \          Scliiick-  Soiitlurn   Wliite    Lead    (•>     v.    Cary, 

mann.  02   How.    I'r.  Jt2.  2:.    F.d.    H.p.     12.-|127.      California 

K4_Walt.r  Raki-r  4  Co.  v.  Hak«T,  Fruit    CannerH*   A»8*n    v.    Mycr,    104 

77    F.(l.    F{.-p     ISI.  F.d.    Hep.   82. 


Ifj7  WHAT    COXSTlTUTliS   A    VAhlD   'I'KADK.M  AKK.  [§71 

The  action  to  restrain  such  un  uiii'uir  competition  may  be 
hroij^'ht  cither  by  one*^**  or  all  ^'*  of  the  mercliaMts  who  are  en- 
titled to  the  use  of  llic  iiaiiic  of  tiie  locality  and  arc  usin{^  it 
npon  the  same  class  (if  iiici-cliandisc. 

§  71.  When  relief  will  be  granted  against  fraudulent  use  of 
geographical  names.  It  would  he  a  vain  task  to  cnuinciate 
the  \arious  forms  of  misuse  of  geo{J:rai)hical  names  which  liave 
been  enjoined.  An  examination  of  the  cases  will  show  the 
versatility  of  the  fi-audulent  dealer  in  devising  scliemes  to 
deceive  the  public  and  deprive  the  b^pritimate  dealer  of  his 
trade.  The  ])rintiii}r  of  an  American  label  in  tlie  Frencli  lan- 
frnajre  lias  been  treated  as  evidence  of  nnfairnesf?  in  compe- 
tition against  Frencli  exporters  to  the  T"^nitcd  States;""  and 
so  of  the  manufacture  of  'Tanadian  Type"  whiskey  in  the 
United  States,  to  be  sold  as  a  substitute  for  "Canadian 
Clnl);""'  and  the  statement  upon  a  jiackage  that  its  contents 
were  "(Miicorien  Kaffee  aus  der  fabrik  von  E.  B.  IMuller  & 
(\).,  in  Roulers  (Belgien),"  Avas  held  to  be  misleading  and 
unfair  where  the  facts  showed  that  the  only  part  of  the  manu- 
facture done  in  Belgium  was  to  "harvest"  the  chicory  root, 
the  other  processes  being  done  in  the  United  States.''^  In 
brief,  it  is  particularly  true  of  the  subject  under  discussion 
that  "a  court  of  equity  keeps  pace  with  the  rapid  strides  of 
the  sharp  competitors  for  the  prize  of  public  favor  and  insists 
that  it  shall  be  Avon  oidy  by  fair  trade."  ^^  Some  of  the  cases 
are  cited  in  the  footnote.^"* 

88— Newman  v.  Alvord,  49  Barb.  00— Klotz  v.  Ilecht,  73  Fed.  Rep. 

588;    35    How.    Vr.    108;    Cox,   404;  822. 

51    N.   Y.    180;    10    Am.    Rep.    588;  01— Hiram    Walker    &     Rons    v. 

Klotz  V.   Heclit,   73   Fed.   Rep.   822;  Crulman,      224      Fed.      Rep.      725; 

Scheuer  v.  Muller,  20  C.  C.  A.  161;  Hiram    Walker    &     Son      v.    Grub- 

74  Fed.   Rep.   225;    Gage-Downs  Co.  man,    222    Fed.    Rep.    478 

V.    Featlierl>one  Corset   Co.,  83    Fed.  02 — Scheuer    v.    Muller     74    Fed. 

Rep.    213;     Southern    Wliiti-    Lead  Rep.  225-228;   20  C.  C.  A.   IGl. 

Co.   V.   Coit,   30    Fed.   Rep.   402;    A.  03— R.     H.inisch's     Sons    Co.    v. 

F.'  Pike  MifT.  Co.  v.  Cleveland  Stone  Boker,    86   Fed.    Rep.    765-768. 

Co.,   35   Fed.   Rep.   806.  04 — Anheuser-Busch           Brewing 

80— Pillslmry-Washhum      Co.     v.  Ass'n    v.    Piza.    24    Fed.    Rep.    140; 

Eagle,  86  Fed.  Rep.  608;   Key  West  A.    F.    Pike   Mfg.    Co.    v.   Cleveland 

Cigar    Mfrs.    Ass'n    v.    Rosenldoom,  Stone  Co.,  35  Fed.  Rep.  806;  South- 

171   Fed.    Rep.   206.  crn    White    Lead    Co.    v.    Cary,    25 


§  72]  IIOI'KINS    UN      rUAl>KM.\KK>.  1G8 

§72.  Proper  names  as  trademark. —  It  is  a  bcli'-oN  idciit 
l)roi)«»sition  that  every  oiu'  luis  tlie  rijjlit  to  use  his  own  munc 
for  purposes  of  tnule.  It  was  held  by  N'iee-Chaneellor  Wood 
that  a  man's  own  name  niijrht  be  his  trademark  even  when 
nniteil  with  other  words,  themselves  generic  and  hence  in- 
eapable  of  exelusive  appropriation.  In  sustainiii};  the  words 
"Ainsworth's  Thread"  as  a  trademark  lie  said:  "Is  not  a 
man's  name  as  stronp:  an  instanee  of  trademark  as  can  be  sng- 
pested? — subject  only  to  this  inconvenience,  that  if  a  Mr.  Jones 
or  a  Mr.  Brown  relies  on  his  luime,  he  may  find  it  a  very  in- 
adequate security,  becau.se  there  may  be  several  other  manu- 
facturers of  the  same  name.""''  But  any  name  may  be  used 
by  any  one  who  cares  to  designate  himself  by  it,  and  in  this 
sense  a  proper  name  can  never  be  an  essential  ])art  of  a  trade- 
mark,"'" because,  as  we  have  seen,  a  valid  trademark  must  be 
exclusive,  as  apainst  all  tlie  world.  The  decisions  as  to  this  arc 
conflicting,  very  confusing,  and  in  many  instances  the  result 
of  careless  use  of  lanpuape.  Thus  riiancellor  Westbury  said : 
"It  is  true  that  a  name  or  the  style  of  a  firm  may  by  lonp 
usape  become  a  mere  trademark."-'"  In  another  case  the 
same  learned  chancellor  said:  "A  name,  thouph  oripinally 
the  name  of  the  first  maker,  may  in  time  become  a  mere  trade- 
mark or  sipn  of  (puility,  and  cease  to  denote  or  to  be  current 
as  indicatinp  that  any  ])articu]ar  ])crson  is  the  maker.  In  many 
cases  a  name  once  alTixed  to  a  niatiufactiircd  article  continues 

Fed.    Rep.     12.-);     .^amc    v.    Coit,    :{!»  'in-.    \.  S.  20");    14  L.  T.  N.  .S.  220; 

Fed.   R«'p.  402;   City  of  Carlsbad  v.  14  ^^■.   U.  303;   Seb.  2.-)7. 

Thackeray,   Cu    Fed.   Rep.    18;    Calm  '.Mi — "In    u   tedinicnl    sens  •.    there 

V.    fJottsrhalk,   2    X.    Y.    Supp.    13;  cim   be   no   trademark    in    the   name 

Hiram   Walker   &    Sons   v.    Mikolaa,  of     a      person,     becatise     all      such 

70    Fed.    Rep.    0.->.->;    Von    Miimm    v.  names     are     generic,     and     because 

Frash,    .'iO    Fed.    Ri-p.    R.'JO;    Leu    v.  spcakin;,'    in   a  general   sense,   every 

Wolff,  1.-)  Abli.  I'r.  N.  S.  1  ;  40  IIow.  ju-rson    has    the    riglit    to    use    his 

Pr.    147;    Sel).   4(»7 ;    Anhruser-Biisch  own     name     for     tlie     purposes     of 

Brewing  Co.    v.    Fred    Milh-r   Brew-  trade."     Davis,  .1.,   in    Drake   Aledi- 

ing  Co.,  87   Fi'd.   Rep.  804;    Manito-  eine    Co.    v.    Clessner,    08    Ohio    St. 

woe    Pea-Packing    Co.    v.    William  337;    07    N.    E.    Rep.   722. 

Numwn  &   Sons,  93  Fed.   Rep.   100;  07— Leather    Cloth    Co.    v.    Amer- 

3.'.   C.   C.    A.   207.  lean  Leather  Cloth  Co..  4  DeO.  J.  & 

O.V-Ainsworth    v.     Walmsley.     L.  S.    l.tTU'i;    Seb.    223. 
R.   1   Vai  518;  3.-I  L.  .1.  Ch.  3.V2;    12 


169  WHAT    CONSTITUTKS    A    VAMD    lU  A  l»l  .M  AKK.  [§73 

to  be  used  i'(»r  j^'ciicrat  ioi  i  al'tcr  llic  death  of  llic  individual 
will)  lirsl  allixed  it."  '•'''  In  the  first  named  case,  any  one  named 
"Ainsworlh "  nii^dit  la\vfully  use  the  word  as  a  trademark. 
He  wouhl  l)t'  restrained  only  where  he  resorted  to  unfair 
conijjetition  by  so  preparing'  or  advertislnj,'  liis  thread  as  to 
deeeive  custoniei-s  into  the  belief  that  they  were  buying'  the 
thread  made  by  another  Ainsworth.  As  to  the  dieta  of  Lord 
Westbury,  they  are  meaninp:less,  for  tlie  same  reason.  If  a 
man's  name  is  not  a  valid  trademark  for  liis  floods  in  his  life- 
time, because  any  one  of  the  same  name  may  use  it  for  the 
same  purpose,  how  ean  it  i»ossi])ly  become  a  trademark  in  the 
use  of  his  successors  after  liis  death? 

§73.  "Secondary  Meaning"  doctrine  applied  to  proper 
names. — The  theory  upon  wliieh  jjrojjcr  names  are  ])rotected 
in  equity  has  been  thus  admirably  stated:  "A  surname  is  not 
the  subject-matter  of  a  technical  trademark.  Tliis  is  due  to 
the  fact  that  it  can  not  be  a  clearly  distinfruishinj^r  mark  on 
goods,  inasmuch  as  any  one  bearing  the  imme  has  a  right  to 
use  it  in  connection  with  property  of  his  manufacture.  It  may, 
how^ever,  by  approju-iation  aiid  actual  exclusive  use,  in  course 
of  time  come  to  denote  in  the  minds  of  the  i)ublic,  the  i)roduct 
of  some  particular  person  or  factory  or  l)usiness,  and  thus  ac- 
quire a  secondary  signification.  Such  a  secondary  signification, 
when  established,  is  the  subject-matter  of  exclusive  right."  »" 
To  this  may  be  added  the  very  apt  dictum  of  Judge  Baker: 
"If  his  trade  creates  a  new  meaning  for  the  name,  then  he 
is  entitled  to  just  as  full  i)rotection  in  the  use  of  that  mean- 
ing as  if  that  were  the  only  one.  Others  may  use  the  common 
word  in  its  common  meaning,  but  they  can  not  use  it  in  the 
]>articular  meaning  created  by  the  complainant."  ^ 

As  to  this  doctrine,  as  recognized  in  the  English  cases,  we 
find  this  admirable  summing  up  by  Lord  Parker:  "Independ- 
ent of  any  trademark  legislation,  whenever  a  jierson  uses  upon 
or  in  connection  with  his  goods  some  mark  which  has  become 

08_HalI  V.  Barrows,  4  DoO.  J.  &  Chickcrin;:    A    Sons.    U\    C.    C.    A. 

S.  ir.O;  3.3  L.  J.  Ch.  204;  10  Jur.  :.3S.  .->42;  21.-.  Yvd.  R<-p.  490.  494. 
N.  S.  f).-);   9  L.  T.  X.  S.  .-)01;    12  W.  1 — Hanover    Star    Millin.s    Co.    v. 

R.  .322;   3  X.  R.  259;    Sol).  21.'i.  Allen   &   Wheeler   Co.,    12.)  C.   C.    A. 

9n_Mack,    .T.,    in    Chickerin-'    v.  .".l"':   20S  Fed.  Rep.  .-.13. 


§74] 


IIOI'KINS    «»N    TUAI>K.M  AKKS 


170 


genernlly  kiu»\vn  to  tlu'  tnulo  or  to  tlu'  publif  as  his  nuirk. 
and  thus  operates  to  distiiiKuisli  l»is  ^joods  from  tlio  goods  of 
other  persons,  he  is  entitled  in  ecjnity  to  an  injiinetion  against 
the  user  of  tlie  same  or  any  eolorahle  imitation  of  the  same 
whieh  is  in  any  manner  caleuhited  to  deceive  the  trade  or  the 
pnblie.  E(juity  has  never  imposed  any  limitation  on  the  kind 
of  ^vord  entitled  to  this  protect i(»n,  hnt  in  every  ease  it  has 
to  he  i)roved  that  the  mark  has  by  nser  beeonie  in  fact  dis- 
tiin'tive  of  the  plaintilT's  goods." - 

§74.  Names  of  celebrities.  -Far  different  is  the  rule  as  to 
names  whii-li  are  those  of  celebrities,  their  use  as  trademarks 
being  universally  recognized.''  Yet  here  the  scientific  objec- 
tion remains  that  any  one  bearing  the  name  of  the  ill-fated 
Corsiean  vould  liave  the  undoubted  right  to  manufacture 
"Xapoleon"  cigarettes,  not^vithstanding  the  prior  a]ipropria- 
tion  of  that  word  as  a  trademark  by  another  mainifaeturer. 
If  the  words  "Emi)eror  Napoleon"  were  so  appropriated,  they 
would  undoubtedly  be  good  as  against  the  world. < 


2 — Rejjistrar  v.  I)u  Cros.  Ltd..  s:{ 
L.  J.  Ch.   1. 

3 — "  'RopT  Williiimrt,'  thou^'h 
the  iiamr  of  a  fumous  pt-raon,  lon^' 
since  dea-J.  is.  aa  applii-d  to  cott<iii 
cloth,  a  fancy  name,  as  would  l>i' 
so  applied  the  namt-s  of  Wasliin;:- 
ton,  Greene,  Perry,  or  of  any  oilier 
her<M'8.  livin;^  or  dead."  Ames.  C. 
J.,  in  Barrows  v.  Kni^iht,  (1  R.  1. 
4M.  Vox,  238;  Seh.  1S4.  It  has 
I)e«-n  BO  held  of  the  word  "Bis- 
marrk"  (us«'d  as  a  trademark  for 
pujjer  collars)  dnrinj,'  tlie  life-timi' 
of  Bismarck.  Mtssinile  v.  Tyn- 
berjr.  3«  How.  TV.  It.  J  .\\>\>.  Vr. 
N.  S.  410. 

4 — The  learned  F.n^'Iish  harris- 
t<-r  S<"haHtian,  in  his  work  on 
trnd<miirks,  tliiis  staU-s  tlie  nile: 
"There  is  lietwtM-n  a  name  of  an  in- 
dividnul  or  firm  used  as  a  trade- 
mark,   and    a    fancy    name    or    arl>i- 


trary  .><ymlM)l  tised  for  the  same 
purpose,  a  hroad  distinction  which 
was  early  perceived  and  which 
caused  Bome  difliculty  in  the  uni- 
versal acceptance  of  a  name  as  an 
(flieacious  trad«  mark.  The  difTer- 
ence  is,  that  a  name  is  in  its  very 
nature  }:eneric,  and  is  properly  ap- 
plied to  desi;.'nate,  not  one  individ- 
ual in  the  world,  hut,  it  may  he, 
many  thousands,  to  all  of  whom  it 
is  »(|ually  appropriate.  The  addi- 
tion of  the  cliristian  to  the  surname 
does,  indeed,  diminisli  the  numl'iT 
of  jiersons  to  wlmni  the  appella- 
tion lMdon;.'s;  hnt  the  cliristian 
name  is  commonly  ahhreviated  to 
an  initial  letter,  and  in  any  case, 
tlie  Hiirnam<>  is  tin-  important  part 
of  the  name,  heyond  wliich  many 
pcrs<ins  do  not  care  to  inve«ti;;ate." 
Scliastian.  Trademarks  (4th  cd.), 
24. 


171 


WHAT   CONSTITUTES  A   VAUD  TRADEMARK. 


[§7o 


§75.  In  general,  of  one's  own  name. -Altliou^Mi  tli<,'  cus- 
tom is  iiiiivci-sal  I'of  male  persons  to  hear  tlie  name  of  tlicir 
parents,  there  is  notliinj;  in  the  common  law  j)roliibitin{^  a 
man  from  taking?  any  otlier  name  lie  may  ehoose.''  This  doc- 
trine has  lon{^  been  settled  beyond  peradventure.  It  is,  of 
course,  equally  certain  that  one  must  not  use  his  name  so  as 
to   work   a    fraud   ujjon   others   of  the   same   name."     Subject 


.') — Kn<,'luii(l  V.  N»\v  York.  ]'ult. 
Co.,  8  Daly,  'MTi:  Price  &  Steuart, 
14;  In  re  Snook,  2  Hilt.  fjOO.  Lin- 
ton V.  First  National  Bank  of  Kit- 
tanninj:.    10   Fed.   Rep.    8!)4-8!»7. 

Tlir  rifflit  to  assume  a  name. — 
Lord  Clu'lmsford  ol)scrv('s:  "In 
this  country  we  do  not  ri'cofjnizf 
the  aI)Solute  right  of  a  person  to 
a  particular  name  to  the  extent  of 
entitling  him  to  prevent  the  as- 
sumption of  that  name  by  a 
stranger.  The  right  to  the  exclu- 
sive use  of  a  name  in  connection 
with  a  trade  or  business  is  fami- 
liar to  our  law;  and  any  person 
using  that  name,  after  a  relative 
right  of  this  description  has  been 
acquired  by  another,  is  considered 
to  have  been  giiilty  of  a  fraud,  or 
at  least  of  an  invasion  of  another's 
right,  and  renders  himself  liable 
to  an  action,  or  he  may  be  re- 
strained from  the  use  of  the  name 
by  an  injunction.  B\it  the  mere 
assumption  of  a  name  which  is 
the  patron vinic  of  a  family  by  a 
stranger  who  had  never  before 
been  called  by  that  name,  what- 
ever cause  of  annoyance  it  may  be 
to  the  family,  is  a  grievance  for 
wliich  our  law  affords  no  redress." 
Du  Boulay  v.  Du  Boulay,  L.  R.  2 
P.  C.  430-441 ;  and  see  Olin  v.  Bate. 
98  111.  .')3;  38  Am.  Rep.  98,  where 
injunction  to  restrain  the  use  of 
an  assumed  name  was  denied  under 
peculiar   circumstances. 


0 — The  doctrine  is  well  settled 
that  "every  one  has  the  alisolute 
right  to  use  his  own  name  honest- 
ly in  liis  own  Imsiness,  even 
tliougli  he  may  thereliy  incidental- 
ly interfere  with  and  injure  the 
business  of  another  having  the 
same  name;  in  sucii  case  the 
inconvenience  or  loss  to  Mhicli 
those  having  a  common  right  are 
subjected  is  dam,num  absque  inju- 
ria. But  although  he  may  thus 
use  his  name,  he  can  not  resort  to 
any  artifice  or  do  any  act  calcu- 
lated to  mislead  the  pul)lic  as  to 
tlie  identity  of  the  business  firm 
or  establishment,  or  of  the  article 
produced  by  them,  and  thus  pro- 
duce injury  to  the  other  beyond 
tliat  which  results  from  the  simi- 
larity of  name."  Devens,  J.,  in 
Russia  Ci-meiit  Co.  v.  Le  Page,  147 
Mass.  20(5-208;  17  N.  K.  Rep.  304; 
quoted  and  followed  in  Singer  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  June  Mfg.  Co.,  Iti3  U.  S.  1(59- 
187;  41  L.  Ed.  118.  Tliis  is  the  rule 
announced  in  Burgess  v.  Burgess,  3 
DeG.  M.  &  G.  890;  22  L.  .J.  Ch. 
fw");  17  Jur.  292;  21  L.  T.  .")3.  And 
see  Linoleum  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Nairn,  7 
Ch.  Div.  834-837;  47  L.  J.  Ch.  430: 
38  L.  T.  X.  S.  448;  2G  W.  R.  463; 
Dig.  ;i36;  Croft  v.  Day.  7  Bt-avan, 
84;  Dig.  7fi;  HoUoway  v.  Ilolloway. 
13  Beavan,  209;  Dig.  100;  Wother- 
spoon  v.  Currie,  L.  R.  o  H.  L.  .'>08; 
Montgomery  v.  Tliompson,  (1891) 
App.  Cas.  217;  Rogers  v.  Rogers,  h?y 


§76]  nOPKlN'S   ON    TKA1»K.MA1U-:S.  172 

to  this  restriction  a  man  will  ni'vrr  hv  ri'slrainccl  from  the  full 
enjoyment  of  iiis  name,  whether  that  name  be  that  of  his  par- 
ents or  adopted  li.v  himself.  As  stated  by  Turner,  L.  J.: 
"Where  the  defendant  sells  goods  under  ills  own  immc,  and 
it  happens  that  tlu-  iilaintilT  lias  the  same  iiauu\  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  lU'fenilant  is  st'llin-;  his  goods  as  the  goods 
of  the  plaintill".  It  is  a  (luestion  of  evidence  in  each  ease 
whether  there  is  false  representation  or  not."  •  Hence  we  see 
that  the  subjeet  of  tliis  scc-tion  is  more  proi)erly  treated  iinder 
the  head  of  unfair  eomi)etition,  and  it  is  therefore  considered 
in   that  connection  in  the  next  section. 

^76.  The  use  of  proper  names  in  trade.— We  have  in  the 
preceding  sections  given  some  consideration  to  tiie  subject 
of  proper  names,  considered  with  reference  to  their  exclusive 
approi)riation  for  mercantile  purjjoses.  The  conclusion  reached 
was  that  in  a  scientific  sense  there  can  be  no  trademark  in 
a  pr()i)er  name,  because  all  i)roper  names  are  generic.  The 
author  believes  that  this  rule  is  well  sustained  by  the  reasons 
heietofore  given  at  length.  In  their  any-ety  to  effect  per- 
fect justice  the  courts  havt  fretjuently  said  that  such  words 
were  valid  trademarks,^  but  the  reasoning  of  the  opinions 
indicates  that  the  use  of  the  language  adopted  was  careless 
and  erroneous.     The   pi-ojier   method   of   reading   the   class  of 

Conn.  121;  .'">",  Am.  Kep.  78;  33  Alb.  Sin;.'.r  Mf^-.    (  ...    v.    15.  iit.    ir.3   U.   S. 

L.    J.    70;     Oilman    v.     Ilunm>\vi-ll,  20.");   41    1..    \'A.   KU. 
122    Mass.    139;    Cox,    r)41;    Mem-i--  7— Burgess  v.  BiirKoss,  3  DeG.  M. 

ly  V.  Mi-ni-oly,  02  N.  Y.  427 ;    1  Hum.  :     (5.    85)(5;    22    L.    .1.    Ch.    «7.'>;     17 

073;   2  Thomp.  &  C.  540;   02  N.   V.  .lur.   2!»2;   21    L.    I".   O.   S.    .'.3;    Cox, 

(17     Sickt'ls),    427;     2U    Am.     Rt-p.  117.      A   man   can  not   si-U   liis  own 

489;    2  Am.  L.  T.   N.    S.    482;    Di^.  nam.-    to    aiiotlu-r    for    tlu'    purpose 

472;    PillHl)ury    v.    rillsbury.   21    V.  <>f  carryiii;,'  on  a  rival  trad.-  against 

S.  App.  3H.">-404;  Lawrence  Mfg.  Co.  another    bearing    tlie    name    so    at- 

V.    TennesstH-    Mfg.    Co.,    138    U.    S.  tempted  to  be  uwil.      Melaclirino  v. 

.137;    34    L.    K<1.    JMI7;    31    Fed.    Rep.  Milaibrino    Cigarette    Co.,    4    R.    P. 

770;  Brown  Cb.-m.  Co.  v.  Meyer.  139  C.  21.'.;   Cartm.dl,  223. 
V.  f<.   540 ;    3.')  L.   Kd.   247:    31    Fed.  8— Standinger    v.    Standinger,    1ft 

R<-p.   4.'i3;   Coats  v.    Merrick   Tiinad  Leg.    Tnt.    S.!;    Fulton    v.    S.ll.rs,    4 

Co..  140  V.  S.   .'".02;  .17  L.  Ed.   847;  Br.'WB.  42;   Cand.e  v.   D.ere.  ,-)4   111. 

4.-.  Off.  r.az.  347;  Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  439;    TTowe    v.    ITowe    Sewing    Ma- 

Larw-n.  F.-d.  Caw  No.   12902;  8  Bin-  ebine    Co.,  .-iO   Barb.    230;    C.illis   v 

h-ll,   l.'.l-l.'i3;    Price  4   SU-uart,   72;  ITall.  3  Br.ws.  r.n9. 


178  WIIAl'    CONSTITUTES    \    VAI-Ih   T|{  \I>|;M  AltK.  [  §  7<J 

cases  just  i-cl'crrcd  to  is  to  hear  in  mind  that,  wliilc  tlie  courts 
rc'fognizi'd  tlic  law  of  unfair  conipetitioM,  they  did  not  know 
or  recognize  it  by  that  name.  The  tendency  was  to  rextrain 
fraudulent  e()m])etition,  hut  to  restrain  it  by  invoking  trade- 
niai-k  law.  In  the  inaccurate  reasoning  of  the  courts,  the  fact 
that  a  inaii  whose  name  was  "R.  P.  Hall"  came  into  ecjuity 
seeking  an  injunction  against  a  defendant  bearing  a  different 
name,  but  printiiig  "K.  P.  Hall"  upon  his  merchandise,  sug- 
gested tlijit  the  easiest  mannci-  of  disj)osing  of  the  issues  was 
to  say  tliat  Hall  had  a  trademark  right  in  his  own  name,  Avhich 
right  the  defendant  was  infi-inging.''  So  the  defendant  was 
very  properly  enjoined,  justice  was  done,  aiul  the  technical 
error  of  the  decision  was  overlooked.  For  error  it  was,  be- 
cause tlie  jirojier  name  Hall,  even  prefixed  by  the  initials  R, 
P..  is  a  generic  name  which  any  one  may  use,  provided  that 
he  does  not  use  it  as  to  ])ass  off  his  goods  ui)on  the  purchasing 
l)ublic  as  the  goods  of  another. 

If  any  further  proof  were  needed  to  show  the  rule  to  be  ac- 
curate, we  could  examine  the  cases  in  which  the  use  of  a 
j)roper  name  could  not  possibly  give  a  right  of  trademark, 
because  the  name  was  not  used  in  application  to  merchandise. 
One  of  the  most  .vtriking  instances  of  this  kind  is  afforded  by 
the  case  in  which  a  theatrical  combination  was  protected  in 
the  use  of  the  name  "Christy's  Minstrels."  ^^ 

The  doctrine  under  consideration  has  been  condensed  in 
these  words:  "No  person  can  acquire  a  right  to  use  his  surname 
as  a  trademark  or  tradename,  to  the  exclusion  of  others  bear- 

n — Ciillis  V.  Hall.  ;?  Hrcnvs.  ."iOO.  in  his  sense  of  equity,  saw  that 
10 — Christy  v.  Murphy,  12  How.  a  wron<j  was  heinp  committed  and 
Pr.  77.  In  his  opinion,  .T\ulp^  that  it  oufiht  to  ho  enjoined,  and 
Clarke  makes  these  prefatory  re-  he  enjoined  it.  The  remedy  was 
marks:  "It  is  now  well  estab-  just  as  eflective  and  proper  as  if 
lished  that  the  court  will  grant  an  he  had  comprehended  the  law  of 
injunction  apainst  tlie  use  liy  one  unfair  competition  as  treated  in 
tradesman  of  the  trademarks  of  the  later  decisions.  But  if  he  had 
another.  Will  this  protection  he  understood  the  principles  he  ad- 
extended  to  enterprises  undertak-  ministered  he  would  not  have  re- 
en  for  the  purpose  of  afTordiuLr  ferred  to  the  law  of  trademarks  to 
amusement  or  recreation  to  the  justify  his  conclusion, 
public?"      The    court    instinctively, 


§77] 


IlorKlNS    ON     IKADKM  VRKS. 


171 


iii^  tlu'  saiiu'  siii'iuuiic. '"  ' '  Wliilc  the  mere  riglit  to  use  a 
name  is  nut  assijjiiahlc.'-  IIutc  aic  iin  dt'cisidiis  asserting 
"that  it  may  not  Ix*  assijjncd  to  an  ontj;oin«;  partner  or  to 
a  succossor  in  business  as  an  incident  to  its  j:ood  will."'-' 

§  77.  The  proper  name  cases  classified.  From  this  prelimin- 
ary disi'iission  of  the  jifiiici|>les  of  unfair  competition  we  can 
now  undcrtiiUe  to  classify  what  we  may  term,  for  want  of 
a  better  j)hraseolojry,  the  i)roper  name  cases. 

(a)  AVhere  tiu>  defendant  is  usin|^  his  own  name  in  ^n  d 
faith.  In  these  eases  there  is  no  unfairness  in  the  competi- 
tion between  the  jiarties,  and  the  defendant  will  not  be  re- 
strained.'^ 


11 — Mattcson.  J.,  in  Harson  v. 
llalkyanl.  22  H.  I.  102;  40  Atl.  Ri-p. 
271. 

12— Chadwick  v.  Cov.'ll,  l.')! 
Mass.  1!)0;  23  X.  K.  Rvp.  1008; 
I!  L.  R.  A.  839;  21  Am.  St.  Rep. 
442. 

1.3— A.-tna  Mill  i  EKt.  ("o.  v. 
Kramer  Milling  Co.,  82  Kan.  070; 
109   Vav.   Rep.   692. 

14 — Burp'Srt  V.  Bur;res8,  3  Ded. 
M.  &  G.  80(5;  17  .Tur.  2!'2;  Sell.  117; 
Coats  V.  Piatt,  17  Lep.  Int.  213; 
Falier  v.  Faher,  49  Barb.  3r.7 ;  3 
Ahh.  I'r.  X.  S.  lir.;  Cox,  401;  Sell. 
278;  Wolfe  V.  Burke,  JG  X.  Y.  11.'); 
Mene«ly  v.  Meneely,  1  Ilun,  3(57 ;  02 
X.  Y.  427;  Seli.  472;  Decker  v. 
Decker,  .')2  How.  Pr.  218;  Seh.  .')2."); 
Prince  Metallic  Paint  Co.  v.  Car- 
iM.n  Metallic  Paint  Co.,  Sel..  .')73; 
RodgerH  v.  Xowill,  0  Hare,  32.'); 
Sob,  82;  Clark  v.  Clark,  2.')  Barb. 
70;  Cox.  200;  Seb.  148;  ComHtock 
V.  Wbite.  18  TIow.  Pr.  421;  Cox, 
232:  Binninpr  v.  Wattlew.  28  How. 
Pr.  200;  Cox,  318;  S.b.  240;  Hiirfly 
V.  Cutter,  3  (XT.  Ca/..  408;  Seb.  427; 
Carmicbel  v.  Lalmier.  11  R.  I.  .39.'i ; 
23  Am.  Rep.  481;  10  Alli.  T..  .T. 
73;     S<'li.     rt2\  :    Cilmiiii     \      Tfniine- 


well,  122  Ma.sfl.  1.39;  Seb.  041;  Mc- 
Lean V.  Fbniinf,',  90  U.  S.  24");  24 
L.  Ed.  828;  13  Off.  Gaz.  913; 
Brown  Chemical  Co.  v.  Me\er,  13'> 
U.  S.  .')40 ;  3.-)  L.  Ed.  247 ;  Cox,  Man- 
ual, 720;  Wm.  Rogers  Mfp.  Co.  v. 
Rofiera  &  S.  Mfjj.  Co.,  11  Fed.  Rop. 
49.-.;  Lundreth  v.  Landn-th,  22  Fed. 
Rep.  41;  \\  m.  Ro;,'er.s  Mfj:.  Co.  v. 
R.  \V.  Ro{;r9  Co.,  00  Fed.  Rep.  .')6; 
ariirmed,  17  C.  C.  A.  07;  70  Fed. 
Rep.  1019;  Wm.  R(.;,'.rs  Mf^'.  Co. 
V.  Rofrers,  84  Fi'd.  Rep.  039 ;  Rogers 
V.  Taintor,  97  Mass.  291;  White  v. 
Tro\vl)ridjrc,  210  Pa.  11;  00  Atl. 
Rep.  802;  Gordon  Hollow  Bbirtt 
Grate  Co.  v.  Gordon.  142  Mich.  488; 
10.-)  X.  W.  Rep.  11  IS;  Donnell  v. 
IIerrin;:-Hall-Marvin  Safi-  Co.,  208 
V.  S.  2(i7;  r,2  L.  Ed.  481;  Tliynne 
V.  Shove,  L.  R.  (1890)  4.')  Cii.  D. 
r)77-.'')82;  Inventor  Pul).  Co.  v.  D()i)in- 
8on,  82  Fed.  Rep.  M;  Marcus  Ward 
Si  Co.  V.  Ward.  If)  X.  Y.  Supp.  913; 
01  llun.  (52.-);  Druniniond  Tobacco 
Co.  V.  Randle.  114  111.  "2;  2  X.  E. 
Rep.  .130;  X'-..ark  Coa^  Co.  V. 
S|)an«:.r.  .'54  X.  .1.  V.i\.  3-)4 ;  34  Atl. 
Rep.  932;  American  Cereal  Co.  v. 
Eli  Pettijohn  Cereal  Co.  (2),  76 
Fed.    Rep.    372;    22   C.    C.    A.    336; 


r 


\VII\'l'    CONSTITUTES    A    VALID   TU  \l)i;.\l  \,1CK. 


f§77 


As  slated  hy  Jiidtrc  Scaiiiaii,  of  the  use  of  a  |iroj)or  nain<! 
I)y  |t('i-s()iis  hearing'  llial  iiaiiic.  it  is  "within  llicir  ri;,'lit,  iiii- 
Ifss  l)ai'i-('(l  by  contract  or  cstojtpcl,  or  the  usc^  is  deceptive 
or  fraudulent."  '■'  Tlie  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
lias  extcn(h'd  tliis  imHc  to  c()i-|)()i'atc  names  cMd)odying  i)roper 
iianu's.  thus:  "We  hohl  tluit,  in  the  al)sence  of  coidract,  fraud, 
or  estoppel,  any  man  may  use  his  own  name  in  all  Icfritimatc 
ways,  and  as  the  whole  or  a  part  of  u  cori)orate  name."''* 
Of  course  the  rule  does  not  avail  a  corjxjrution  whose  "name 
is  selected  with  an  iidention  to  mislead."'" 

An  Indiana  coui't  has  thus  stated  the  rule  under  considera- 
tion :     . 

"It  may  be  stated  as  a  general  proposition  that  a  man's 
name  in  his  own  property,  and  he  has  the  right  to  its  use 
and  enjoyment  the  same  as  any  other  ])i-operty  right,  and 
so  long  as  such  use  be  a  fair  and  reasoiud)le  exercise  of 
such  right  he  can  not  be  held  liable  for  incidental  damages 
to  a  rival  in  business  using  the  same  name,  but  lie  must 
make  an  honest  use  of  his  name,  and  not  injure  the  good- 
will and  reputation  of  a  rival  by  palming  off  his  goods  or 
business  as  that  of  such  rival.  Nor  M'ill  he  be  permitted 
to  use  his  name  fraudtdently  so  as  to  approi)riate  the  good- 
will of  an  established  business  of  his  competitor."  '^ 


affirminfj  s.  c,  72  Fed.  Rep.  003; 
Duryea  v.  National  Starch  Mfg.  Co., 
25  C.  C.  A.  139;  45  U.  S.  App.  G4f1 ; 
79  Fed.  Rep.  G51 ;  affirmed,  Nation- 
al Starch  Mffj;.  Co.  v.  Duryea,  41 
C.  C.  A.  244;  101  Fed.  Rep.  117; 
Wm.  Rogers  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Simpson, 
54  Conn.  527;  Foster  v.  Webster 
Piano  Co.,  13  N.  Y.  Supp.  338;  59 
Hun,  624;  Tussaud  v.  Tussaud,  38 
W.  R.  440;  Towa  Seed  Co.  v.  Dorr, 
70  la.  481;  Turton  &  Sons  (Ltd.) 
V.  Turton,  42  Ch.  D.  128;  Bingham 
School  V.  Gray,  122  N.  Car.  699; 
30  S.  E.  Rep.  304;  41  L.  R.  A.  243; 
Harson  v.  Halkyard,  22  R.  1.  102., 
46  Atl.  Rep.  271;  Von  Faber  v. 
Faber,  124  Fed.  Rep.  603.  fill;  re- 
versed in  Von  Faber-Castell  v. 
Faber,  71  C.  C.  A.  383;  139  Fed. 
Rep.  257. 


15— Hall  Safe  &  Lock  Co.  v.  Herr- 
ing-Hall-Marvin Safe  Co.,  74  C.  C. 
A.  361;    143   Fed.  Rep.  231,  237. 

1(1 — Howe  Scale  Co.  v.  WyckofT, 
S.-amans  &  Benedict,  108  U.  S.  118, 
140;  49  L.  Ed.  972.  To  the  same 
effect  see  Schinasi  v.  Schinasi,  155 
N.  Y.  S.  867. 

17 — Lacombe,  J.,  in  Wm.  Rogers 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  R.  W.  Rogers  Co.,  66 
F»'d.    Rep.   56,   57. 

18 — Deister  Concentrator  Co.  v. 
Deister  ifach.  Co.  ( Ind.  App. ) , 
112  N.  E.  Rep.  009,  citing  Penber- 
tlij'  Injector  Co.  v.  Lee,  120  Mich. 
174;  78  N.  W.  Rep.  1074;  Rogers  v. 
Rogers,  53  Conn.  121;  1  Atl.  Rep. 
807;  5  Atl.  Rep.  675;  55  Am.  Rep. 
78;  38  Cyc.  800;  Brown  Chemical 
Co.  V.  Meyer,  139  U.  S.  540;  11 
Sup.  Ct.  625;  35  L.  Ed.  247;  Howe 


§77] 


llltl'KlNS    ON    TK Altl^MAliKS. 


170 


Actual  frnutbilont  intent  tf)  inviulr  tlw  ^'ocdwill  of  aiiotluM- 
bv  the  use  of  the  i)r()|)('r  iiainc  in  ([iicstion  is  never  niaterial 
in  this  ehiss  of  cuses,'" 

Hut  in  this  conneetion  it  should  he  ohserved  tlial  niic  who 
enters  into  eompetition  with  another  person  of  the  sanie  name. 
Avho  has  an  old  aiid  estahlished  husiness.  is  under  an  ohlitra- 
tion  to  more  ^videly  ditTerentiate  his  (roods  fitun  those  of  the 
latter  than  is  rtMiuired  nf  third  persons  haviii}.'  different 
names.="  A  court  of  e(piity  may  direct  a  defendatit.  in  sueh 
a  ease,  how  to  use  his  name  so  as  not  to  injure  the  eomidainant 
who  hears  the  same  name.-'  This  direction  has  at  times  taken 
the  form  of  an  injunction  restrainin*;  the  jiarty  at  fault  from 
usinpr  his  name  in  eonnectimi  with  his  product,  except  in  eon- 
junction    with    the    w(»rds    "Xo    connection    with    tlie    original 

"   (^'ivinfr  the  name  and  location  of  tlie  oilier  jiarty),  or 

words  of  like  import. -- 


Scale  Co.  V.  WycofT.  Scntnaiis  &  Bcno- 
dict.  inH  U.  S.  118;  2'!  Sup.  Ct.  (UM); 
40  L.  Ed.  072;  Tntornational  Silver 
Co.  V.  Rojrers.  72  N.  J.  Kij.  0:J3;  (i7 
Atl.  K.'p.  10.-);  120  Am.  St.  Rep.  722; 
L.  E.  Waterman  Co.  v.  Modern  Pen 
Co.,  23r.  U.  S.  88;  3.")  Sup.  Ct.  01; 
5ft  L.   Ed.   142. 

10 — Dodfre  Stationery  Co.  v. 
Dodpe,  14')  Cal.  380;  LePagc  Co.  v. 
KusHia  Cement  Co.,  51  Fed.  Rep. 
041;  2  C.  C.  A.  555;  Jameson  v. 
Dublin  Distillers'  Co.  (1000).  Ir. 
Ch.  43. 

20 — Baker  &  Co.  v.  IJak.r.  77 
Fed.  Rep.  181;  78  OfT.  C.az.  1427; 
WalUr  Baker  &  Co.  v.  Sanders,  20 
C.  C.  A.  220;   80  Fed.  Rep.  880-80.'). 

21— Baker  &.  Co.  v.  Baker,  77 
Fed.  Rep.  181;  78  0(T.  C.az.  1427; 
Tarrant  A  Co.  v.  ITofT,  22  C.  C.  A. 
044;  70  Fed.  Rep.  O.'iO ;  afTirminp  b. 
e..  71  Fed.  R<-p.  103;  \Valt<r  Baker 
&  Co.  V.  Sanders.  80  Fed.  Rep.  «S0- 
8ft4;  City  of  CarlHt>ad  v.  Seliultz.  78 
Fed.  Rep.  400.  In  the  last  named 
case    .Tud^'e    Coxe    dcHifjned    a    label 


for   tlie   (lefendatifs   use.   a   ropy   of 
wliieli   is  eml)odied  in  his  opinion. 

In  another  case  .Tud<,'e  .MePherson 
^.'ranted  an  injunctive  order  direct- 
ing the  defendant's  initials  and  lo- 
cation to  he  printed  or  written  in 
type  of  specified  relative  size.  Baker 
V.  Sanders,  07  Fed.  Rep.  048.  A 
similar  direetioii  is  contained  in 
International  Silver  Co.  v.  Wm.  II. 
Rofjers  Cor])or:ition,  00  X.  J.  Va\. 
110;  57  Atl.  Rep.  1037;  reversed 
in  International  Silver  Co.  v.  Wm. 
H.  Roj;ers  Corp..  07  X.  J.  F<l-  0-16; 
(Id   Atl.   Rep.    187. 

22— Alh';.'retti  Chocolate  Cream 
Co.  v.  Keller,  8.-)  Fed.  Rep.  643. 
This  para^'raph  <iuote<i  and  approved 
hy  Ray,  .1.,  in  Rushmore  v.  Saxon, 
158  Fed.  Rep.  400,  .500.  See  also 
International  Silver  Co.  v.  Ropora, 
72  X.  .1.  K<1.  033;  07  Atl.  Rep.  105; 
revcrsin;:  International  Silver  Co.  v. 
Ropers.  71  X.  .1.  E.].  .'■.00;  03  Atl. 
Rej).  077;  Knahe  Bros.  Co.  v.  Ainer- 
irnn  Piano  Co.  220  Fed.  Rep.  23; 
and  232  Fed.  R.p.  H"  (C.  C.  A.  0). 


177 


\\II\T    CONSTITl'TKS    A    NAI.IH    TK ADI.M  \UK. 


l§77 


(6)  Wlicrr  llir  (Irlciidaiil  is  iisiii^^  his  (»\vii  liaiiic  or  tliat, 
of  anollHT  in  a  inaiiiHT  wilfully  cali-ulatcd  1o  deceive  the  public 
into  a  Ix'lief  that  liis  j^oods;,  or  business  are  tlie  ^'oods,  or  busi- 
ness of  tlie  plaintiff  ^vho  In-ars  the  same  name.  This  presents 
a  state  of  facts  that  wariaids  the  invocation  of  tlie  injunc- 
tive power  of  e(|uity;  the  decisions  beinj;  practically  unan- 
imous.--' 


23— Hollow  ay  v.  Holluwiiy,  13 
Beav.  200;  Scl).  Idfl;  Burgess  v. 
Bur{rc>9S,  3  DcC.  M.  A  (!.  H!m;  ;  22  L. 
J.  Ch.  (uf);  17  .liir.  2U-2-  21  L.  T. 
.'>3;  Sol).  117;  Taylor  v.  Taylor,  2 
Eq.  R.  200;  23  L.  J.  Ch.  2.-)-);  22  L. 
T.  271;  Sd).  124;  Clark  v.  Clark, 
2r»  Bar!..  7(5;  Cox,  200;  Seh.  148; 
Stoncbrakcr  v.  Stonchrakcr,  33  Md. 
252;  Sfl).  333;  Holmes,  Booth  & 
Haydt'iis  v.  Holmes,  Booth  &  At- 
•vvood  Mf<r.  Co.,  37  Conn.  278;  9  Am. 
Rep.  324;  Sd).  340;  James  v. 
James,  L.  R.  13  Eq.  421;  41  L.  J. 
Ch.  3r)3;  20  L.  T.  N.  S.  508;  20  \V. 
R.  434;  Sel).  388;  McLean  v.  Flem- 
ing, 90  U.  S.  245;  24  L.  Ed.  828; 
13  Ofr.  (la/..  913;  Thorley'a  Cattle 
Food  Co.  V.  Massam,  42  L.  T.  X.  S. 
851;  Cox,  Manual,  008;  Russia  Ce- 
ment Co.  V.  LePage,  147  :\Iass.  200; 
17  X.  E.  Rep.  304;  44  Oil.  Gaz. 
823;  Cox,  Manual,  700;  Brown 
Chemical  Co.  v.  :Meyer,  r^n  OlT.  Gaz. 
287;  139  U.  S.  540;  35  L.  Ed.  247; 
Meyer  v.  Bull  :\Iedicine  Co.,  GO  Off. 
Gaz.  197;  18  U.  S.  App.  372;  7  C. 
C.  A.  558;  58  Fed.  Rep.  884;  Hig- 
gins  Co.  V.  Higgins  Soap  Co.,  144 
N.  Y.  402;  39  X.  E.  Rep.  490;  43 
Am.  St.  Rep.  769;  Wm.  Rogers 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  R.  W.  Rogers  Co.,  66 
Fed.  Rep.  60;  73  Off.  Gaz.  970; 
DeLong  v.  DeLong  Hook  &  Eye 
Co.,  74  Off.  Gaz.  809;  Garrett  v. 
Garrett  &  Co.,  24  C.  C.  A.  173,  79 
Off.  Gaz.  1081;  78  Fed.  Rep.  472- 
478;  Baker  &  Co.  v.  Baker,  77  Fed. 
Rep.      181;      78      Off.     Gaz.      1427; 


Rogers  .Mfg.  Co.  v.  Rogers  &  Spurr 
Mfg.  Co.,  11  \'<d.  Kep.  495;  Price 
&  Steuart,  021;  Tuerk  Power  Co. 
V.  Tuerk,  36  X.  Y.  Supp.  384;  92 
Hun,  05;  (Jillis  v.  Hall,  Cox,  596; 
Devlin  V.  Devlin,  69  X.  Y.  212; 
lussaud  V.  Tussaud,  38  \V.  R.  440; 
l-'ra/er    v.     Fra/.er    Luitricator    Co., 

121  111.  147;  13  X.  E.  Rep.  639; 
Sliaver  v.  Shaver,  54  la.  208;  India 
Ruhher  Coml)  Co.  v.  Rubber  Comb 
Co.,  45  X.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  R.  258; 
C.age  V.  Canada  Pub.  Co.,  11  Can. 
Sup.  306;  Rogers  Co.  v.  Wm.  Rog- 
ers Mfg.  Co.,  70  Fed.  Rep.  1017; 
17  C.  C.  A.  576;  Landreth  v.  Lun- 
dreth,  22  Fed.  Rep.  41;  Manufactur- 
ing Co.  V.  Simpson,  54  Conn.  527 ; 
Rogers  v.  Rogers,  53  Conn.  121 ; 
Hohner  v.  Gratz,  52  Fed.  Rep.  871; 
\\'illiams  v.  Johnson,  2  Bos.  1;  Cox, 
214;  Stuart  v.  F.  G.  Stewart  Co., 
33  C.  C.  A.  480;  91  Fed.  Rep.  243; 
reversing  s.  c,  85  Fed.  Rep.  778 ; 
International  Silver  Co.  v.  Simeon 
L.  &  George  H.  Rogers  Co.,  110 
Fed.  Rep.  955;  Chickering  v.  Chick- 
ering  &  Sons,  120  Fed.  Rep.  69; 
56  C.  C.  A.  475 ;  Royal  Baking  Pow- 
der Co.  V.   Royal,  58  C.  C.  A.  499; 

122  Fed.  Rep.  337;  International 
Silver  Co.  v.  Wm.  G.  Rogers  Co., 
113  Fed.  Rep.  526;  Robinson  v. 
Storm.  103  Tenn.  40;  52  S.  W.  Rep. 
880;  Wm.  A.  Rogers,  Ltd.  v.  Cohan- 
net  Silver  Co.,  186  Fed.  Rep.  241; 
Rock  Springs  Distiller^'  v.  Monarch, 
15  Ky.  L.  Rep.  800;  22  S.  W.  Rep. 
1028;   Morton  v.  Morton,   148  Calif. 


§77) 


lUd'KINS    ON    TU.Vl>KMAUKS. 


178 


•'EvtM-y  oMo  lias  tlio  alisolulr  ri^'lit  to  msi«  his  own  name 
honestly  in  liis  own  business,  even  thouf^h  he  may  thereby 
ini'idfutally  int(MftMi'  witli  and  injure  the  business  of  another 
having'  the  same  name.  In  sueh  ease  the  ineonvenienee  or  loss 
to  whirh  tluise  havin;,'  a  comnioii  li^'ht  aire  subjeeted  is  dam- 
uum  ai)S(jur  injurui.  But.  althou^rh  lie  may  thus  use  liis  name,  he 
ean  not  resort  to  any  artifiee  or  to  any  aet  eaiculated  to  mis- 
lead the  i)ublie  as  to  the  identity  of  the  business  firm  or  estab-' 
lishment,  or  of  the  artiele  pnxhiced  by  them,  and  thus  jirodueo 
injury  to  the  other  beyond  lliat  which  results  from  the  simi- 
larity of  name.  Where  the  name  is  oiu^  which  has  previously 
thereto  come  to  indicate  the  source  of  numufacture  of  j)artie- 
ular  devices,  the  use  of  sueh  name  ])y  another,  uiuiccompanied 
with  any  precaution  or  indication,  in  itself  amounts  to  an  ar- 
tifice calcidated  to  j)roduee  the  deception  alluded  to  in  the 
foregoing  adjudications."  -^ 

"A  person  may  use  his  imme,  which  lie  has  the  right  to  use, 
in  such  a  way  as  to  deceive,  and,  when  he  does  this  with  fraud- 
ulent intent,  may  be  liable.     It  is  a  question  of  evidence."-'' 

In  a  flagrant  case  the  defendant  has  been  absolutely  en- 
joined from  the  use  of  his  own  name  in  connection  with  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  artificial  limbs.-''  But  the  decree  was 
modified  on  appeal,  jiermitting  the  use  of  his  name  i)rovided 
an  exi)lanation   was  attached.-" 

(c)  Where  the  defendant  is  a  corjioration  whose  corpor- 
ate name  includes  a  proper  name  and  was  selected  by  its  in- 
corporators with  the  intent  and  for  the  jmrpose  of  deceiving 


142;  R2  Tar.  R.p.  r>C,4 -.  Gordon  Hol- 
low Blast  Crati-  Co.  v.  f'.ordon,  142 
Mich.  48S;  10.')  X.  \V.  H.p.  11 18. 
24 — Sinpcr  Mff;.  Co.  v.  .June  Mfg. 
Co.,  163  U.  S.  1(H»;  41  L.  Kd. 
118;  RiiBhmon-  v.  Saxon,  l.'»8 
Fed.  R«'p.  4!»n,  r»09.  "A  man 
may  not  iiw  hirt  own  nami'  to 
Hr<-om|iliHh  a  fraud.  dcHi(rnod  or  con- 
Ktnirtivc."  .Ii-nkinH,  .F..  in  Stuart  v. 
K.  ('.  Sti'wart  Co.,  HI  F<d.  Rep. 
24.3-248;  .3.3  C.  C.  A.  480.  The  U8o 
of  a  Hurnamt'  l>y  a  defendant  with 
whoae  Jninin«-HH  no  om?  of  tliat  namu 


is  connected  is  evidence  of  fraudu- 
lent intent  a8  a^'uinst  an  older 
liusine88  hearing;  a  similar  name. 
Scanlan  &  Rartell  v.  Williams,  114 
S.  W.  Hep.  H(>2;  .'»:{  Te.\.  Civ.  App. 
28. 

2.') — Uay,   •!..   in    Allen    v.    Walton 

W 1   &    Metal    Co..    178    Fed.    Rop. 

287. 

20 — .7.  K.  Kowley  Co.  v.  Rowley, 
1.-.4  Fed.   R.p.  744. 

27— Rowley  V.  .1.  F.  Rowley  Co., 
nil    Fed.    Hei.    ill;   88  C.  C.  A.  258. 


17!) 


WHAT    CONSTITCTES   A    VAMI>   'lUAHKM  AKK. 


§77 


the  puhlii-  into  tlif  Ix'licl'  that  its  j^'oods  ai'c  the  j^'oods  of  the 
plaint ilT.      Such    liaiids   will   of  course  be  enjoined.-'* 

{(I)  Whore  the  dcfendanl  lias,  solely  for  the  purpose  of 
unfair  trade,  seeui'ed  from  some  person  liavint,'  tlu;  same  name 
as  tlie  i)laiiitiiT  a  license  to  use  that  name  for  th(^  jjurpose 
of  fraudulently  eompetiuf,'  with  the  |)laintiff.  This,  being  an 
artifice  in  promotion  of  unfair  trade,  renders  the  defendant 
liable  to  injunction.'-"' 

In  such  a  ease,  the  licensor  is  a  joint  tort-feasor  with  tin' 
licensee.'"' 

Finally,  in  regard  to  the  assignment  of  the  right  to  use  one's 
name,  the  law  is  well  settled  that  a  man  can  so  assign  the  right 
to  use  his  name  subject  only  to  the  general  rules  of  j)ul)lic  j)olicy 
governing  contracts  in  restraint  of  trade."^' 

"It  is  -well  settled  that  a  person  Avho  has  adopted  and  used 
his  surname  as  a  trademark,  or  tradename,  may  transfer  the 
same  with  the  goodwill  of  a  business  and  thereby  divest  him- 
self of  the  right  to  use  his  name  in  connection  with  .such  a 
business. "  •'^2  Having  .so  divested  himself  "he  may,  of  course, 
be  enjoined  from  using  his  name  in  that  business.  "^3 

The  right  to  use  the  name  Booth,  in  connection  with  a 
theatre,  described  in  the  assignment  of  a  lease  as  "Booth's 


28 — \Vm.  Rogers  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Kogera,  73  Ofl.  Gaz.  !)7U;  84  Fed. 
Wvp.  ()3!);  Rogers  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Rog- 
ers &  Spurr  Mfg.  Co.,  11  Fed.  Rep. 
405;    Higgins  v.   Higgins  Soap  Co., 

144  N.  Y.  462;  39  N.  E.  Rep.  490; 
43  Am.  St.  Rep.  769;  Plant  Seed 
Co.  V.  Michel  Plant  &  Seed 
Co.,  23  ]\Io.  App.  579;  Garrett  v. 
T.  II.  Garrett  &  Co.,  24  C.  C.  A. 
173;  78  Fed.  Rep.  472;  Clark 
Thread  Co.  v.  Armitage,  21  C.  C. 
A.  178;  74  Fed.  Rep.  936;  Stuart 
V.  F.  G.  Stewart  Co.,  91  Fed.  Rep. 
243;  reversing  s.  c.,  85  Fed.  Rep. 
778;  Dodge  Stationery  Co.  v.  Dodge, 

145  Cal.  393;  78  Pac.  Rep.  870; 
Nesne  v.  Sundet,  101  N.  W.  Rep. 
490;  03  Minn.  299. 

29 — Melachrino      v.      Melachrino 


Egyptian  Cigarette  Co.,  4  R.  P.  C. 
215;  Cartmell,  223;  Sawyer  v.  Kel- 
logg, 7  Fed.  Rep.  720 ;  Cox,  Manual-, 
681;  R.  Heinisch's  Sons  Co.  v.  Bo- 
ker,  86  Fed.  Rep.  765;  Garrett  v. 
T.  H.  Garrett  &  Co.,  78  Fed.  Rep. 
472;  24  C.  C.  A.  173. 

30— Wm.  G.  Rogers  Co.  v.  Inter- 
national Silver  Co.,  55  C.  C.  A.  83; 
118  Fed.  Rep.   133. 

31— Brewer  v.  Lamar,  60  Ga.  656; 
47    Am.    Rep.    766. 

32 — Knapp,  J.,  in  Gutli  v.  Gutli 
Chocolate  Co.,  140  C.  C.  A.  410; 
224  Fed.  Rep.  932;  affirming  Guth 
Chocolate  Co.  v.  Guth,  215  Fed. 
Rep.    750. 

33— Lurton,  .7.,  in  Royal  Baking 
Powder  Co.  V.  Royal,  58  C.  C.  A. 
409,  508;    122   Fed.    Rep.   337,   346. 


§  77]  HOPKINS   ON    TRADEMARKS.  180 

TluMtro,  "  was  lu-ld  ti)  pass  to  Ihr  assij^in'c  ht'i-ausi'  it  liatl  liccoine 
aflixcd  to  the  cstablislimcnt ;  •"  uiul  it  may  follow  tliat  proper 
namos  nttaclietl  to  or  used  in  coniieetioii  w  itli  phuH-s  of  auuise- 
uiont  utMu'rally  would  i)ass  to  an  assignee  without  spciific 
enumeriUion  in  the  instrument  of  assignment. 

It  was  suggested  in  the  ease  of  r/im/,i/  v.  Murpliy,  involving 
the  right  to  use  the  words  "Christy's  Min.strcls,  "  that  if  the 
plaintiff  had  seen  fit  to  do  so  he  eould  have  conveyed  to  the 
defendants  an  irrevocable  license  to  use  that  name  in  connec- 
tion with  that  form  of  theatrical  enterpri.se.''''  But  in  the  more 
recent  case  of  Messcr  v.  The  Fadrttcs,  the  Supreme  Court  of 
^lassaehusetts,  Lathrop.  J.,  dissenting,  refu.sed  to  recognize  an 
assignment  of  the  name  of  an  orchestra,  holding  that  while  the 
organizer  and  conductor  of  a  musical  organization  may  have 
some  right  of  ownership  in  it,  such  right  is  purely  personal,  de- 
pending upon  the  personal  reputation  or  skill  of  the  conductor, 
and  is  therefore  not  assignable;  and  that  the  continued  use  of 
the  name  would  mislead  and  therefore  work  a  fraud  upon  the 
public. •'"'•  "While  the  name  involved  ("The  Fadettcs")  is  not  the 
name  of  a  person,  tlie  decision  is  projierly  noticed  here  as  a 
striking  departure  from  the  doctrine  of  Christ;/  r.  Murphjf, 
supra,  and  from  what  the  author  conceives  to  be  the  law.  The 
dissenting  opinion  of  Justice  Lathroji  is  Avell  grounded  on 
authority,  and  the  reader  is  referred  to  it  for  his  reasoning. 
Briefly,  tiie  court  ought  to  havedone  as  has  l)een  occasionally 
done  in  the  federal  courts,  namely,  it  should  have  instructed 
the  assignee  of  the  name  "Tlie  Fadettcs"  how  to  use  that 
name  ini  ts  advertising  matter  so  as  not  to  deceive  the  public 
into  a  belief  that  tlie  orchestra  was  still  under  the  jiersonal 
direction  of  its  former  manager  and  director.  To  hold  that  the 
assignment  was  void  was  to  put  a  premium  on  dishonesty. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  a  subsequent  case  the  same 
court  affirms  a  decree  directing  a  defendant  to  clearly  mark 
his  goods  so  as  to  indicate  they  are  not  the  plaintiff's.^" 

.14_n<Kith  V.  .Iiirntt.  (VI  How,   I'r.  .Irt— M<'hh<t    v.    TIk-    Fndi'ttoa,    108 

109;   Si-\>.  r.24.  MnHH.  140. 

3.'i — ChrJHty   V.    MiirjiJiy.   12  How.  .17— Flnfrp    Mf^'.    Co.    v.    riohvay, 

I'r     77:    r,.T,    K.t  .    S.t,.    1.17.  178    Mnsw.    8:i ;    .M)    N.    K.    Kcp.    (107. 


181 


\VII\T    CONSTITUTES    A    V\M.)    IKADKM  AUK. 


§77 


One  wiio  has  a.s.si;,nir(l  the  li^rlit  to  use  his  iiaiiic  in  specific 
trade  ^vill  Ix'  ciijoinrd  rrom  iisin^'  liis  own  iiaiiH'  in  that  trade, 
in  ('(Hiipctition  with  liis  assi^'iicc,  foi-  such  ('(Miipct itioii  would  be 
unfair  and  fraudulent.'''  Promoters  of  a  eor|)oration  wlioso 
names  luive  been  used  as  a  ])art  of  the  eoi-porati;  name  can  not. 
be  i)ern)itted  to  use  their  names  in  connection  ^vith  and  as  the 
name  of  a  rival  company.  Such  conduct  will  lie  enjoined  be- 
cause of  "the  injury  to  the  party  a«;grieved,  and  the  imposition 
upon  the  public,  by  causing,'  them  to  Ixdieve  that  the  goods  of 
one  man  or  firm  are  the  production  of  another."'''' 

In  conclusion,  the  general  rule  underlying  this  (dass  of  cases 
lu'is  been  aptly  stated  as  follows:  "All  these  cases  in  equity 
dei)end  ujjou  an  approjjriation  by  one  person  of  the  reputation 
of  another,  sometimes  actually  fraudulent,  and  sometimes  only 
constructively  so."'" 

Where  competing  pencil  manufacturers  named  "Faber"  en- 
tered into  a  contract  defining  how  the  name  should  be  used  by 
them  respectively,  the  contract  was  u]>held  as  valid,  and  in 
the  absence  of  proof  that  the  defendant  had  wilfully  violated 
its  terms,  a  decree  for  injunction,  upon  the  ground  of  unfair 
competition  in  the  use  of  the  name,  was  reversed.^' 

The  mere  assignment  of  a  patent  carries  with  it  no  right  to 
the  use  of  the  patentee's  name  as  a  trademark  for  articles 
made  under  the  patent. ^- 


38 — Mevera  v.  Kalamazoo  Buggy 
Co.,  54  Mich.  215;  Thynne  v.  Shove, 
L.  R.  (1890)  45  Ch.  D.  577;  Wood 
V.  Sands,  Scb.  4G7 ;  Russia  Cement 
Co.  V.  Le  Page,  147  Mass.  20C;  17 
N.  E.  Rep.  304;  Kidd  v.  Johnson, 
100  U.  W.  ()17  ;  25  L.  Kd.  7<iO  ;  Spieker 
V.  Lash,  102  Cal.  38-45;  Hoxie  v. 
Chaney,  143  Mass.  592;  10  X.  E.  Rep. 
713;  Skinner  v.  Oakea,  10  Mo.  App. 
45;  Grow  v.  Scligman.  47  ilich.  647  ; 
Churton  v.  Douglas,  Johns,  174; 
28  L.  J.  Ch.  841;  5  Jur.  N.  S.  887; 
33  L.  T.  57;  7  W.  R.  3G5.  And 
where  the  assignor  has  aequiesced  in 
the  opening  of  mail  addressed  to 
him,  by  his  assignee,  he  will  be 
enjoined  from  receiving  and  open- 
injr    sjich    mail    addressed    to    him. 


Dr.  David  Kennedy  Corp.  v.  Ken- 
nedy, 55  X.  Y.   Supp.  917. 

30— Holmes,  Booth  &  Haydens  v. 
Tlie  Holmes,  Booth  &  Atwood  Mfg. 
Co.,  37  Conn.  278;  9  Am.  Rep.  324; 
Sel).   340. 

40 — Lowell,  J.,  in  ^^"m.  Rogers 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Rogers  &  Spurr  Mfg. 
Co.,   11   Fed.  Rep.   495-499. 

41— Von  Faber-Castell  v.  Faber, 
71  C.  C.  A.  383;  139  Fed.  Rep.  2.57; 
reversing  Von  Faber  v.  Faber,  124 
Fed.  Rep.  fi03 ;  modified  in  Von 
Faber-Castell  v.  Faber  (2).  76  C. 
C.  A.  538;    145  Fed.  Rep.  626. 

42 — Dr.  A.  Reed  Cushion  Shoe  Co. 
v.  Frew,  162  Fed.  Rep.  887,  889; 
89  C.  C.  A.  577. 


§  78]  IIOI'KINS    ON    TKADEMARKS.  182 

^78.  Fictitious  proper  names,  Wliftlifr  \\\o  iiso  of  a  fu'ti- 
tious  propiM-  iiaiiH'  will  vitiate  an  aiM-nnipaiiyiii^  tradonuirk  so 
as  to  iK'privc  its  owner  of  relief  in  eijuity  depeiuls  upon  wlicthor 
fraiul  is  aeeoiui)lislie(l  tliruufili  the  use  of  the  iwime.  Thus,  one 
Thoinns  Nelson  Dale.  niaiUintr  thread  made  ami  sold  l»y  him 
with  the  fietitious  firm  nanu»  "Thomas  Nelson  ti  Co."  was 
irranted  an  injunetion  against  an  infriiifjer.  the  court  sayinp: 
"the  public  i.s  not  in  faet  deeeived.  as  it  is  shown  that  no  sueh 
firm  exists  as  Thomas  Nelson  &  Co.  who  are  known  to  be 
manufacturers  of  thread."^''  Vpou  the  same  principle,  if  a 
manufacturing:  or  business  establishment  has  a  firm  name  which 
it  uses  upon  its  merchandise,  it  is  no  fraud  upon  the  jjublic 
if  the  firm  name  no  lonjrer  represents  the  same  individuals 
that  it  did  when  first  adopted.^^ 

In  eases  of  this  class,  if  the  two  proper  nanies  involved  are 
idnn  .s-onaiut.  a  difference  in  spellinfr  is  n<>  defense.^-'' 

§  79.  Revocation  of  license  to  use  one's  own  name. — When  a 
l)erson  has  permitted  another  to  build  ui)  a  business  under  his 
name,  the  license  may  become  irrevocable.  It  was  so  held  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania,  where  the  purchaser  of 
the  machinery  and  stock  of  floods  of  an  insolvent  iiartnershiji 
at  a  sheriff's  sale  was  given  permission  to  continue  the  use  of 
the  firm  name.  A  bill  was  filed  four  years  subse(piently  to 
enjoin  the  purchaser  from  continuing:  to  use  the  name,  and  for 
an  account  of  jjrofits.  Among:  other  controlling:  facts,  it  aj)- 
peared  that  at  the  time  of  the  sheriff's  sale  the  p:oodwill  and 
firm  name  were  valueless,  and  that  their  sole  value  was  due 
to  the  elr"-{s  of  the  ])nrchaser.  This  decision  seems  to  be 
sound,  and  it  is  chiefly  of  value  because  of  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  license  here  involved,  and  the  license  which  is  im- 
plied in  the  case  of  the  infrinp:er  of  a  technical  trademark, 
and  which  has  been  held  to  be  revocable  at  any  time.     Mcstre 

43— Dale  V.  SmithHOM.  12  .\1.1).  TV.  (McLean   v.   Fl.-miii;:.  'M\  V.  S.  248; 

237;      Cnx,      Ani.riniM      Tradrnmrk  24  L.  Kd.  S2!» )  :  "IJoprs"  mid  "HoD- 

C'aw>fi,  2R2.  ilf'TH"    (Intirnatinnal    Silver    Co.    v. 

44 — I^atlKT     Clotli     Co.     Lt<l.     V.  Ho^rcrH    Hrow.    Cutlery   Co..    \'M\   Fed. 

Ami-riran    T-<iiUi.r    Clotli    Co.    Ltd.,  IJrp.  iniO );  "Stuart"  and  "Sti'wart" 

I..   R.,   11    M     I.    C.   r.23,  r.42.  (Stuart   v.    F.    O.    Sti-wnrt    Co..    01 

4r>—An,  "M(l..an"  and  "McT.an.-"  V<-<\     H.p.    243;    33    C.    C     A     430). 


IH'.i  WHAT    CONSTITUTES    A    VAMD   TKAbKM  AitK.  [  §  ^^ 

ZJil,  .].,  siiid:  "It  is  ii(i(l()ul)t('dl y  tnir  that  a  iiicr*'  lifciisc  with- 
out cousidciMt ion  is  dctenniiiablo  at  tlic  pleasure  of  the  li- 
ci'usoi'.  liut  that  is  not  llic  rule  in  tliis  state,  where  tiie  eiijoy- 
ineiit  of  llie  license  must  iieeessarily  !)(•  and  is  preceded  by  tiie 
ex])en(litnfe  of  money.  In  such  cases  tin-  license  beeonies  an 
agreement  on  a  valuable  consicb-rat ion.  and   is  irrevocable. "■•* 

§80.  Corporate  names.  The  freneral  rule  governing  the 
su|)ei'vision  of  ecpiity  over  the  names  of  corporations  ha.j  been 
eoinprehonsively  stated  as  follows:  "In  resj)ect  to  corporate 
names,  an  injunction  lies  to  restrain  the  simulation  and  use 
by  one  coi-])()ration  of  the  name  of  a  prior  corporation  which 
tends  to  create  confusion,  and  to  enable  the  later  eorjioration 
to  obtain,  by  reason  of  the  similarity  of  7iames.  the  business  of 
the  prior  one.  The  courts  interfere  in  these  eases,  not  on  the 
ground  that  the  state  may  affix  such  corporate  names  as  it 
may  elect  to  the  entities  it  creates.  l)ut  to  prevent  fraud, 
actual  or  constructive.  The  jiames  of  corporations  organized 
under  general  laws,  and  in  most  other  cases,  are  chosen  by  the 
promoters,  and  it  would  be  ati  easy  way  to  escape  from  the 
obligations  which  are  enforced  as  between  individuals  if  a 
corpoi-atiou  were  granted  immunity  by  reason  of  their  corpo- 
rate character."^" 

Probable  confusion  of  business  is  usually  a  prominent  factor 
in  the  dis]>osition  of  cases  of  this  class. -^^ 

"A  corporation  may  be  enjoined  from  using  a  name  or  con- 
ducting a  business  under  a  name  so  similar  to  the  name  of  a 
previously  established  corporation,  association,  partnership, 
or  individual,  engaged  in  the  same  line  of  business,  that  con- 
fusion or  injury  results  therefrom."""^ 

"Tt  is  uncpiestionable  that  such  deception  may  be  practiced 
by  fraudulent  use  of  a  corporate  name."'^'^ 

46— Harris  v.  Brown.  2f»2  Pa.  Ifi;  40— Mount.   J.,  in   Martcll   v.   St. 

f)!   All.   Rop.   r^86.  Francis   Hotel   Co.,   Til    Wash.    375; 

47 — Hippins  Co.  v.   Hippins  Soap  OS     Pac.     Rep.     11  Ifi;     quoted     and 

Co.,   144  X.   Y.   4(i2;    30   X.   E.   Rep.  followed    in    Rosenhurcr   v.    Fremont 

400:   43  Am.  St.   Rep.   760.  Undertakinrr  Co..  63  Wash.  .-)2:    114 

48 — Drummond     Tobacco     Co.     v.  Pac.   Rep.    886. 

Randle,   114  111.  412;   2  X.  E.   Rep.  ;">() — Seaman,  J.,   in   Keystone  Oil 

536;   Original  LaTosca   Social   Club  &   Mfp.   Co.   v.  BuzhT.   135  C.  C.  A. 

V.  LaTosca  Social  Club.  23  App.  D.  185,    188;    210    Fed.   Rep.   473,   476. 
C.   96. 


§80]  IIOI'KINS    ON    TKADKMARKS.  184 

TIk'  i'«)urts  are  cuiit'used  in  tlit-ir  iiliiiiscolti^'y  with  rt-ffri-iu'e 
to  the  charnoter  of  corporate  names.  There  can  hv  no  trade- 
mark rijrht  in  a  corporate  name,  for  the  conrhisivi*  n-ason  that 
it  is  not,  as  siu'h.  api>litMl  to  thr  suhject-mattcr  of  commeree. 
In  an  oarly  rase  .hul^'e  Deady,  of  ()re{:fon,  said,  "'riic  corporate 
name  of  a  corporation  is  a  tradenuirk  from  tlic  necessity  of 
the  thinjr,'"'"'  and  this  very  j)lirase,  with  other  dicta,  has  been 
(pioted  witli  approval  in  a  nn)i-c  recent  ease.^'-  The  anthor 
Inis  in  a  former  section  coUected  the  jndicial  (h'finitions  of 
trademark,  and  it  is  a  scientiiie  impossibility  to  l)ring  Judge 
Deady  "s  dict\im  within  the  scope  of  either  of  those  definitions, 
or  to  extend  the  delinitions  to  inviude  that  dictum.  Mr.  Justice 
Clifford's  definition  may  be  referred  to  as  makinj;  the  author's 
»l)Ositiou  clearer."' '  It  is  entirely  erroneous  to  treat  a  corporate 
name  as  being  a  trademark. 

This  error  lias  arisen  from  the  unfamiiiarity  of  the  courts 
with  the  es.sential  requirements  of  tecliiiical  trademarks,  and 
the  fact  that  etiuitable  relief  had  to  be  administered  in  eases 
where  the  courts  had  no  i)recedents  at  hand  except  in  tlie  trade- 
mark decisions,  which  afforded  similar  reasoning  to  support 
their  conclusions. 

The  reason  why  ecjuity  intervenes  to  protect  cor])orate  mimes 
from  imitation  is  that  they  are  essential  parts  of  the  being  of 
eorj)orations.  or.  as  expressed  by  the  Sui)reme  Court  of  Mis- 
souri, its  name  is  a  necessary  element  of  the  existence  of  a  cor- 
poration.''^ 

As  the  Rhode  Island  court  has  phrased  it:  ''The  principles 
upon  which  these  cases  rest  are  that,  altliough  a  corj)oration 
may  be  legally  created,  it  can  no  more  use  its  corporate  name 
in  violation  of  the  rights  of  others  than  an  individual  can  use 
his  name,  legally  ac(|uired,  so  as  to  mislead  the  public  and  to 
injure  another.  "''•''     The  courts,  therefore,  will  protect  a  cor- 

."il — Xowhy    V,    Rnilroad   Co.,    Fed.  ".2 — Tnvc8ti>r    Tiili.    Co.    v.    l)ol)in- 

CaHC   No.    I<»lt4,    Dimly,    «U!I.     "Tli.'  Hon,  72   Fed.    Hrp.  r,(»:i.  f.on. 

name    of    n    corporation    Iibh    Ix-cn  M — McL<nn  v.   Fli-minj.',  W  V.  S. 

Haid  to  U'  thf  'knot  of  itH  oomliina-  24.'")-2r)4 ;  24  I..  Kd.  828. 

tion,'  without  wliifli  it  ran  not  prr-  .')4— State    v.     McCrath,    92     Mo. 

form  itH  ror|Mirat«'  funrtionH."    Wal-  3.')7. 

lapi',  J.,  in  ('•mulyrnr   RhIiImt  Co.  v.  r>."> — .\rmin;;ton   v.   Palmer,  21    R. 

<:.HHlyi-ar'H  RnMn'r  Mf;;.  Co.,  21  F.-d.  I.   Htn-.  4.5  L.  H.  A.  O.");  42  Atl.  Rop. 

n«p.  270.  308. 


185  WllAI'    CO.NS'II  riTKS    A    VAI,II>     IK  \l  »i;.M  \KK.  [§8^-' 

poi-alioM  in  the  use  of  its  iiaiuc  in  tlic  abscnci;  ui"  any  e\]jress 
statulo.-y  ciiactiiiciil.  •'•  'I'lie  exerciNC  of  tliis  power  is  an  en- 
forc'onu'iil  of  llic  law  of  unfair  coiiiix'tition  as  shown  in  the 
following  .anjj^ua^,'*'  of  liradh'y,  .].:  "Fair  coinpclilion  in  l)nsi- 
ness  is  k't^itiniato,  and  pr-oniotes  the  pnlilic  ;xoo(l  ;  Iml  an  un- 
fair a])pr()priaf  ion  of  ariothi-r's  business,  by  using  his  name 
oi"  t  i-a(b'niark.  or  an  imitation  thereof  eah'uhiled  to  dec^eivc 
(he  ])ubli(\  oi-  in  any  otln-r  way,  is  justly  punishable  by  dam- 
ages, and  will  be  enjoined  by  a  eourt  of  (Mpiity. "'"  This  dictum 
is  contained  in  the  o|)iinon  in  the  Celluloid  case,  where  the 
corporate  name  hapi)ened  to  bo  the  trademark  applied  by  the 
corporation  to  merchandise  manufactured  and  sold  by  it.  It 
is  a  self-evident  j)roi)osition  that  a  generic  word  embodied  in 
a  corjiorate  name  is  }iot  entitled  to  ])rotcction  in  ecpiity.  The 
I'ub^  was  thus  stated  by  Mr.  Justice  Field,  in  delivering  the 
opinion  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  a  case  where 
the  Goodyear  Rubber  Co.  sought  to  restrain  another  corpora- 
tion from  using  the  name  "Goadyear's  Rubber  ^lanufactiiring 
Co."  Tie  said:  "The  name  of  'Goodyear  Rubber  Company' 
is  not  one  capable  of  exclusive  appropriation.  'Goodyear 
Rubber'  are  terms  descriptive  of  well-known  classes  of  goods 
produced  by  the  process  known  as  Goodyear 's  invention. 
Names  ■•vhich  are  thus  descri])tive  of  a  class  of  goods  can  not 
be  exclusively  appropriated  by  any  one.  The  addition  of  the 
•word  'Company'  only  indicates  that  parties  have  formed  an 
association  or  partnershiji  to  deal  in  such  goods,  either  to 
])roduee  or  to  sell  them.  Thus  parties  united  to  produce  or 
sell  wine,  or  to  raise  cotton  or  grain,  might  style  themselves 
wine  company,  cotton  company,  or  grain  company;  but  by 
such  description  they  would  in  no  resjiect  imjiair  the  equal 
right  of  others  engaged  in  similar  business  to  use  similar  desig- 
nations, for  the  obvious  reason  that  all  persons  have  a  right 
to  deal  in  such   articles  and  to  jiublish  the  fact  to  the  world. 

50 — Farmers'    Loan    &    Trust    Co.  v.     Doliinson,     72     F.d.     Rep.    f)l)3 : 

V.    Farmers'    Loan    &    Trust    Co.    of  Industrial    Mutual    Deposit    Co.    v. 

Kansas,  1  X.  Y.  Rupp.  44;  William  Central    :Nrutual    Deposit    Co.,    112 

Rogers  IMfp.  Co.  v.  Rofrcrs  &   Spurr  Ky.  0.37 :  00  S.  W.  Rep.  10.32. 
Mfp.   Co.,   11   Fed.  Rep.   405;    Collu-  r)7— Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ccllon- 

loid  :\Ifg.  Co.  V.  Cellonite  :^Tfg.  Co.,  ite  Mfg.  Co.,  32  Fed.  Rop.  94. 
32  Fed.  Rep.  94;   Investor  Rub.  Co. 


§80] 


lUtl'KINS    ON    TUADKMARKS. 


18(1 


Nauu's  of  siu-li  artirlos  i-iiii  not  Ix*  luluptt^d  as  Iradciiiarks, 
aiul  ho  tluM-t*l)y  api»r(»|iriatt'(l  to  tlu'  rxfliisivo  ri^^lit  ol  any  oiu'. 
nor  will  the  iiirorporation  of  a  (•oiu|)any  in  tlio  name  of  an 
artii'U*  of  i-oninuTro.  uitlunil  other  spccilicatioii,  create  any 
exclusive  ri«rht  to  the  use  of  the  name."'''* 

In  a  leadinp  opinion  upon  this  subject,  the  United  States 
Suj>reme  Court,  speakiuf;  tliroii^rh  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Fidler, 
says  "tlie  principle  that  one  corporation  is  not  entitled  to 
restrain  another  from  usiufr  in  its  cori)orate  title  a  name  to 
which  others  have  a  common  ri^'ht.  is  sustained  by  the 
discussion  in  Columbia  Mill  Co.  v.  Ahoni  (150  U.  S.  460),  and 


')8 — Mr.  .lustico  Kitld.  in  <Ioi>(l 
yrar  Co.  v.  (.Joodyoar  HuIIkt  Co., 
128  U.  S.  .-)08-002:  32  L.  Va\.  M.l; 
ri-viT8iii;j  s.  c,  21  Fed.  Ri'p.  27fi. 
Thus  in  an  action  Ity  one  fin-  insur- 
ance company  to  restrain  another 
from  tlu-  uw  of  tlu"  word  "Contint-n- 
tul"  in  its  corporate  name,  the  court 
said:  "Tin-  distin^^uisliin;;  fcuturt"  of 
tlif  nami'H  of  the  two  incorj>orated 
companies  is  tiio  word  'Continen- 
tal.' It  is  the  use  of  tliis  word 
liy  the  defendant  which  the  com- 
]dainant  seeks  to  enjoin.  It  is  the 
contention  of  the  complainant 
that,  hy  reason  of  the  lonii-contin- 
ued  use  of  this  word  hy  it,  and  l\u'. 
fact  tliat  it  has  huilt  up  a  large 
and  lucrative  husiness  under  this 
diHtin;.niishing  name,  it  has  se- 
cured a  projierty  ri;_'ht  in  said 
word  'Continental,'  in  connection 
with  its  incor|iorated  nami*.  and  it 
is  entitled  to  tlie  exclusive  use  of 
the  word  'Continental,'  in  connec- 
tion witli  its  insurun<-e  husiness. 
in  the  h4>ctions  of  4lie  country 
where  it  is  engap-il  in  such  husi- 
nesH.  I'pon  the  showin;;  made  hy 
tlic  complainant,  it  mi^'ht  lie  en- 
titled to  tlie  relief  soll^'llt,  Wen-  the 
diHtin;.'uiMhin(;  w«»rd  <if  its  corpo 
rate   Tiame    stich    a    one   as  could    he 


exclusively  !i|iprn)iri!ite(l  in  the 
designation  or  conduct  of  a  busi- 
ness hy  a  person,  firm  or  corpora- 
tion. Till-  word  'continental'  is  in 
fjeneral  and  prevalent  use,  and 
m»'ans  pertainin;,'  to  or  character- 
istic of  a  continent.  As  applied  to 
or  desi;^nating  an  insurance  com- 
pany, it  would  Im"  d«'scriptive  of 
the  hounds  within  which  such 
comjiany  carried  on  its  hnsineas. 
Tiie  scope  of  the  business  carried 
on  by  many  insurance  companies 
is  continental  in  extent.  -A  term 
wliich  can  be  truthfully  xiw^d  by 
many  in  the  description  of  a  busi- 
ness or  occupation  can  not  be  ex- 
clusively Hp|>ropriated  l)y  any  one 
of  tlieni.  Tlie  word  'continental' 
is  a  generic  term,  and  it  is  not  the 
policy  of  the  law  to  permit  the  ex- 
clusive appro])riation  of  words  or 
terms  which  are  generic;  that  is, 
wliich  pertain  to  a  class  of  related 
tilings,  and  which  are  of  general 
application.  The  right  to  us««  such 
words  should  remain  v»'sti'<l  in  the 
public."  Meek,  .1.,  in  Continental 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Continental  Kire  .Ass'n, 
1»(J  Fed.  Hep.  H4(J-84S;  afhrmcd,  41 
C.  C.  A.  32fl;  101  Fed.  Rep.  Sri.-i. 
To  th<>  same  cfTivt  K<>e  Ooodycar 
i^ibber  Co.  V.  Day,  22  Fed.  Rep.  44. 


187  WHAT    CONSTITITKS   A    VALID   TltADK.M  AKK.  [  §  80 

is,  we  tliiiiU,  necessarily  upplifahli-  to  nil  ii;mii-s  j/ublici 
Juris."  •"'" 

A  foreign  corporation  ean  not,  by  application  to  a  court  in 
the  state  in  which  a  new  corporation  is  being  organized,  secure 
an  injunction  restraining  tiie  formation  of  the  new  cori)ora- 
tion  undci-  the  same  corporate  name  as  that  of  the  plaintiff. 
But  in  dismissing  a  bill  brought  for  such  a  purpose,  Judge 
({resliam  said  :  "T  do  not  say  what  may  be  done  if  the  defend- 
ants succeed  in  ci-cating  tlicii*  corporation  bearing  the  com- 
plainant's name,  and  a  suit  shall  be  brought  by  the  complain- 
ant to  i)i*event  individuals  claiming  to  ])c  oflficers  or  manag<'rs 
of  such  cor])ora1ion  from  interfering  with  the  complainant's 
business. '  '"'* 

In  conclusion,  thei-e  Is  no  practical  difference,  so  far  as  equi- 
table rights  and  remedies  are  concerned,  between  corporate 
names  and  the  name  of  a  copartnership  or  an  individual. 

"There  is  no  distinction  between  corporations  and  natural 
persons  in  the  princiide.  Avhich  is  to  prevent  a  fraud."'"' 

As  said  by  Mr.  Justice  Bradley,  on  circuit,  in  dealing  with 
the  names  of  corporations  plaintiff  and  defcTulant,  "the  fact 
that  both  are  corporate  names  is  of  no  consequence  in  this 
connection.  They  are  the  business  names  by  which  the  par- 
ties are  knoAvn,  and  are  to  be  dealt  with  precisely  as  if  they 
were  the  names  of  private  firms  or  partnerships.  ""^^ 

And  in  a  similar  case,  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois  has  said, 
"Even  if  the  cor]iorate  names  of  the  two  corporations  are  some- 

r)0 — Howe    Scale   Co.    v.   WyckofT,  larfrely  on  tlio  court.     One  court  haa 

Seamans  &  Benedict,  198  U.  S.  118;  held  that  the  names  "Travelers'  In- 

40   L.   Ed.  072;   citinp  America  Ce-  surance   Company"   and   "Travelers' 

real  Co.  v.  Eli  Pettijohn  Cereal  Co.,  Insurance  Machine   Company"  were 

72  Fed.  Rep.  00.3;  76  Fed.  Kep.  .372;  so  "unlike    *    ♦     ♦    that  it  was  not 

Tlazelton  Boiler  Co.  v.  ITazelton  Tri-  prol)al)le  that  confusion  will  arise." 

pod  Boiler  Co.,  142  111.  404;  Monarch  Travelers'  Ins.  Mach.  Co.  v.  Travel- 

V.   Rosenfeld,  10   Ky.   Law   Rep.    14;  ers"   Ins.   Co.,    143   Ky.   210;    134    S. 

30  S.  W.  Rep.  230.  W.  Rep.  877. 

60— Lehiph    Valley    Coal    Co.    v.  (i2— Celluloid  :Mf<i.  Co.  v.   Cellon- 

Tlamblen,  23  Fed.  Rep.  225,  226.  it.-  Mfp.  Co.,  32  Fed.  Rep.  04.  07.  To 

CI — Mr.  .Justice  Holmes  in  Water-  tl>e      same     effect,     see     Baker     v. 

man  Co.  v.  :Modern  Pen  Co.,  23.-i  U.  Baker.   r>3   C.   C.   A.    157;    115   Fed. 

S.    88,    04;     50    L.    Ed.     142.       The  Rep.      207;      Howe      Scale      Co.      v. 

depree    of    resemblance    which    will  Wyckoff.    Seamans   &   Benedict,   193 

result    in    enjoining    the    use    of    a  U.  S.   118;    49   L.   Ed.   972. 
corporate    name    of    course  depends 


§  so]  HOPKINS    ON    THAUKMAKKS.  188 

what  similar,  yet.  in  tlu'  abseiu-c  of  any  iiiti-nt,  art.  »»r  artiiu-o 
to  mislead  tlfalrrs  in  \\\c  market  or  the  public  at  large  as  to 
the  identity  (»f  the  eori)oratious,  the  Elgin  Creamery  Company 
has  the  same  right  to  use  its  eorjxirate  name  in  the  transaction 
(»f  its  business  tliat  the  El^'in  l'.\itter  ('nni|>any  has  to  use  its 
eorjxtrate  nanu>.  It  would  seem  that  tlie  same  rule  should  api)ly 
to  eori)orations  in  this  regard  that  obtains  in  respeet  to  natural 
persons;  and.  in  the  absence  of  any  fraudulent  intention  or 
act.  or  any  contract  to  proliibit  it.  every  luitural  person  has  the 
absolute  right  to  his  own  luime  in  his  own  business.""-'' 

As  to  the  use  of  a  proper  name  of  an  incorporator  as  i)art 
of  the  corptu-ate  name.  Judge  Lochren  has  stated  the  rule  as 
follows:  "While  any  person  has  the  right  to  use  his  own  name 
in  the  eonduet  of  his  business,  in  describing  the  articles  of  his 
manufacture,  and  which  lie  is  dealing  in.  he  lu>s  not  the  right 
to  use  the  name  of  any  other  dealer;  and  it  is  well  settled  by 
the  authorities  that  a  corporation  has  not  the  right  to  use  the 
name  of  one  of  its  incorporators  for  the  jjurpose  of  unfair 
competition  with  an  older  dealer,  where  it  is  likely  to  do  him 
injury,  and  that  it  will  not  be  permitted  to  use  that  name  if  it 
is  the  name  by  whicli  the  older  article  is  usually  called  for  and 
described.""^ 

A  corporation  can  not.  by  securing  a  license  from  or  em- 
ploying a  person  bearing  the  desired  proper  name,  so  use  that 
name  as  part  of  its  corjiorate  name  as  to  maintain  an  unfair 
competition  with  an  older  business  employing  the  name.<"^ 

It  is  not  necessary  that  the  comidaiTuint  be  a  corporation 
having  the  same  corporate  name.  If  the  trade  name  of  the  com- 
jtlainant's  product  is  taken  as  a  corporate  name  by  the  defend- 
ant it  will  be  enjoined.'"'" 

A  foreign  corporation  (estal)lislicd  in  a  country  foreign  to 
the  I'nited   States)    can  not  enjoin   the  use  of  its  name  by  a 

M— Bnk.r,    J  .     in    Kl^'in     llutt.r  0.%— nnrr.tt    v.    T.    IT.    Ciirr.tt    A 

Co.  V.   VAu'in  Cn-anKTy  Co..    I')''   HI  f  <> .  "«  l'^'''    I^'P     '"'-•    -^  <'    ^'-   •'^• 

127:  40  N.  K.  H<'p.  010.  !"•> 

04 — I.  gc  P.  CiitH  V.  .lolin  Cont<H  00— Rat. h  Mf>;.  Co.  v.  Bntos  Xum- 

Thn-ad  Co..  l.ir.  K.<1.  H.-p.   177.  170.  l..rin>;    Marh.    Co..    172    F.'d.    Rep. 

To    tin-    Hamc    rfT.-it    wf    David    E.  802;    nfTirnK.l    in    BatcH    NnmlKTinjj 

Font/.  Co.  V.  S.  A.  Foutz  Stork  Food  MnrJi.    Co.    v.    haU'H    ^Iff?.    Co.,    17ft 

Co..   103   Fc-d.   Rep.  408.  F"l     H-p.    Oftl ;    102  C.    C.    A.    181. 


189  VIIAT    CONSTITUTES   S    \  MAU   THAOKMAUK.  [  §  80 

curporuiiuu  cslablislicd  uiulor  tlio  laws  ol'  one  oi'  llic  liiitrd 
States,  where  laches  is  chargeable  to  it,"' 

I'luler  a  i)iMial  statute  of  Illinois  providiiij,'  a  imiiisliinent  for 
any  i)ers()n,  company  or  association  not  incorijoralcd,  assum- 
ing "a  corporate  name,"  relief  in  equity  has  been  denied  indi- 
viduals doing  business  as  "Aetna  Ii-on  Works. '"'''  And  in  an- 
other instance  it  has  been  held  that  individuals  doing  business 
as  "Ilazleton  Boiler  Company"  could  not  convey  the  right  to 
use  said  luuue."''*  In  the  former  case,  the  rule  is  broadly  laid 
down  that  in  that  state  a  copartuershii)  can  have  no  i)rop- 
erty  in  a  luime  importing  a  cori)oration. 

In  the  latter  case,  it  was  held  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Illinois  that  a  foreign  corporation  had  no  standing  in  the 
courts  of  Illinois  to  contest  the  right  of  an  Illinois  corporation 
to  use  the  same  name.  Judge  Jenkins  has  remarked  that  this 
holding  "is  not  in  accord  with  the  decisions  of  the  federal 
and  of  other  state  courts."'^ 

Even  where  the  corporate  name  attacked  so  nearly  resem- 
bles the  corporate  name  of  the  relator  as  to  be  calculated  to 
deceive,  and  where  it  is  manifest  that  the  secretary  of  state 
should  have  refused  to  file  and  record  the  later  prepared  certifi- 
cate of  incorporation,  thus  effecting  the  incorporation,  certiorari 
will  not  lie  to  review  his  action;  as  his  action  is  not  conclusive 
and  the  courts  have  frequently  granted  relief  to  a  prior  cor- 
poration aggrieved."^  ]\Iandamus  will  not  lie  to  compel  a  sec- 
retary of  state  to  issue  a  certificate  of  incor])oration  under  a 
name  whose  use  could  subsequently  be  enjoined  by  a  prior 
user  of  a  substantially  identical  name.'^ 

07 — Lii'bijr's  Extract  of  Meat  Co.  1017;    PuMishinj,'    Co.    v.    Dohinsoii, 

V.  Lifbig  Extract  Co.,  172  Fed.  Rep.  72   Fed.    Rep.    003;    Hippins   Co.   v. 

l.-,8.  Hippins   Soap   Co.,   144   X.   Y.   402; 

68— Clark   v.    Aetna    Iron    \\drks.  .*?0    X.    E.    Rep.    400;    27    L.    R.    A. 

44   111.   App.    r)10.  42:    43    Am.   St.    Rep.   700;    Holmes. 

09 — Ha/.elton    Boiler    Co.    v.    Ha-  Booth   &    Hayden   v.   Holmes.   Booth 

zelton    Tripod   Boiler    Co..    142    111.  &   Atwood   ilfp.   Co.,  37   Conn.   278, 

404;   30  X.   E.  Rep.  339.  203;    0  Am.   Rep.   324. 

70 — The  Pock  Bros.  &  Co.  v.  Peck  71 — People  ex  rel  Columbia  Chem. 

Bros.  Co.,  r»l  C.  C.  A.  2r,l;   113  Fed.  Co.  v.  O'Brien,  01  X.  Y.  Supp.  040; 

Rep.  201.  302;  citinp  Celluloid  Mfp.  101    App.   Div.   200. 

Co.    V.    Cellonite   :Mfp.    Co..    32    Fed.  72 — People  rx  rrl  Power  v.   Rose, 

Rep.  04:   Ropers  Co.  v.   Ropers  Mfp.  21'.t    111.   40;    70   X.  E.   Rep.   42. 
Co.,   17  C.  C.   A.   570;   70  Fed.   Rep. 


§81]  HOPKINS    ON    TRADEMAltKS.  190 

§81.  Names  of  unincorporated  associations.  -TIk-  ^a-mral 
principles  governing  tlie  inlringenu'nl  of  corporate  names  ap- 
])ly  to  the  names  of  unincorporated  a.ss()ci;»tions.  The  general 
rule  is  that  relief  in  eiiuity  will  he  refused  where  no  intent 
to  deceive  is  proven,  ;iiul  iKt  such  siniilarity  of  names  of  the 
two  organizations  exists  as  is  calcidated  to  mislead  the  ordi- 
nary citizen  of  averagt>  intelligence."'' 

§82.  "Secondary  meaning"  defined. — Of  late  years  the  ex- 
jiression  "secoiulary  nu-aiiiiig"  has  Ixmmi  frequently  employed 
in  opinions  in  eases  of  unfair  competition.  The  expression  has 
come  to  indicate  a  moaning  that  may  ho  "secondary"  either 
in  point  of  intent,  or  in  ]ioint  of  timo. 

Thus,  in  n  lending  English  onso.  Tjord  Macnaghten  said: 
"The  appellants  oonoodo — thoy  can  not.  indeed,  any  longer 
dispute — that  everyhody  who  makes  belting  of  camel  hair,  is 
entitled  to  de.scrihe  his  helting  as  'Camel-hair  Bolting,'  pro\nded 
he  does  so  fairly.  "But  they  coTitond.  and  T  think  with  reason, 
that  neither  Banham  nor  aiiyhody  else  is  entitled  to  steal  Red- 
daway's  trade  under  color  of  imparting  accurate  and  possibly 
interesting  information.  Practically  the  only  difTerenco  which 
the  unexpected  turn  in  the  evidence  has  made  is  this:  the  case 
now  comes  under  the  second  branch  of  the  i)roposition  laid 
down  by  Lord  Justice  James,  if  Tamel-hair  Belting'  had  kept 
its  place  as  a  fanciful  term,  it  would  have  fallen  under  the 
first.  The  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  maintained  that 
the  expression  Tamol-TTair  Bolting,'  used  by  Banham,  was 
the  'simple  truth.'  Their  j^roposition  was  that,  'whore  a  man 
is  simply  tolling  the  truth  as  to  the  way  in  Mhich  his  goods 
are  made,  or  as  to  the  materials  of  which  thoy  are  composed, 
ho  can  JU)t  bo  hold  liable  for  mistakes  which  the  jiublic  may 
make.'  That  seems  to  mo  to  be  ratluM-  begging  the  question. 
Tan  it  be  said  that  the  description  Tamel-IIair  Belting.'  as 
iised  by  Banham.  is  the  simple  truth?  T  will  not  call  it  an  abuse 
of  language  to  say  so.  but  certainly  it  is  not  altogether  a 
happy  expression.     The   whole   merit    of  that   (h'scription — its 

7.'J— Porlinm      v.      Richmnn.      l.^fi  ns   T,.    IJ     .\.   O.^fi;  AnKTican   Ordor 

Vi-d.    Hop.    .140;    SiiprffTlP    lioHjrr    K.  of    Sc«.tfiHli     CtnnH  v.     Merrill.     1.'>1 

of  P.   V    Tmprovcfl   Ordor  K.   of  P..  Mrhh.   .'>:.«;    21    X.  K.    K.p.   Olfl;    R 

m  Mirti.   l.-n.   71   V.  W.  R.-p,  47n;  r.   R.   A,  :\2(). 


191  NVllAT    CONSTITLTLS    A     \  Al.ll)    J  KADK.M  AKK.  I  §  ^2 

one  virtue  tor  l>aiili;iin  s  imrposos — lies  in  its  (liiplicit y.  It 
means  two  tilings.  At  I'.auliam  s  works,  wlicic  it  can  not 
mean  Kecldaway 's  l)(•ltin^^  it  may  Ix-  conslrucd  to  in<'an  In-lt- 
ing  made  of  camel's  iiaii'.  Abioad.  to  the  (Jcniian  iiianulac- 
tiirer,  to  the  Bond)ay  mill  owner,  to  tlie  npcount ry  native,  it 
must  mean  Reddaway's  l)eltin<r;  it  can  mean  iiotliing  else.  I 
venture  to  tliiidv  that  a  statement  whieh  is  literally  true,  but 
whieh  is  intended  to  eon\-ey  a  false  iinjtression,  has  soniethinjr 
of  a  faulty  rinj,'  about  it  ;  it  is  not  sterling  eoin  ;  it  has  no  right 
to  the  genuine  stamp  and  impress  of  truth."'' 

Here,  both  in  point  of  time  and  point  of  intent,  "Camel- 
Ilair"  meaid  primai'ily  helting  having  eaniel's  hair  as  a  eom- 
ponent. 

Where  the  mark  in  its  first  apjdieation  is  a  valid  ti'ademark, 

"the  mere  faet  that  the  artiele  hn^  obtairu-d  such  a  wide  sale 

that  the  mark  has  also  ])eeome  iiulieative  of  quality  is  not  of 

itself  sutlieient  to  debai-  the  owner  of  j)roteetion  or  make  it  the 

,eommon  ])roi)erty  of  the  trade.  "■^■'■' 

Where,  on  the  other  hand,  the  mark  in  the  first  instance  is 
generic,  because  merely  descriptive  or  geographical,  or  the 
name  of  a  person,  and  under  that  mark  a  particular  trader 
has  occii])ied  the  market,  a  subsequent  invasion  of  the  market 
by  another  using  the  nuirk  may  (though  it  does  not  necessar- 
ily) constitute  unfair  comi)etition  ;  but  no  matter  how  long 
the  use  continues,  the  mark  will  never  become  a  technical 
trademark."''' 

The  rule  has  heen  frequently  aj^plied  and  illustrated.  It 
has  been  admirably  stated  by  Judge  Lurton  in  the  following 
terms : 

"That  a  descriptive  -word  or  sign  or  symbol,  descriptive 
from  popular  use  in  a  descriptive  sense,  may  acquire  a  sec- 
ondary significance  denoting  origin  or  ownershiji,  is  true. 
But  this  secondary  significance  is  not  protected  as  a  trade- 
mark, for  a  descriptive  word  is  not  the  subject  of  a  valid  trade- 
mark;  the  only  oflfice  of  a  trademark  being  to  indicate  origin 

74— Roddavay  V.  Banliam  (ISnr.  i.  Tliaycr   Dry-.iroods  Co.,   47   C.   C.    A. 

App.   Cas.   mo.  .-,32:    108  Fed.   Rep.  024,  f)27 ;   Com- 

75 — Brown.     .1.,      in     Burton     v.  pntin;r  Scale  Co.  v.  Standard   Com- 

Stratton.  12  Fed.  Rep.  096,  702.  putinfr  Scale  Co.,  55  C.  C.  A.  4.'>n ; 

76 — Brennan   v.   F  m  e  r  y  -  B  i  r  d-  IIS  Fed.  Rep.  965,  968. 


§82] 


HOI'KINS    ON     TKAOK.M  AUKS. 


192 


»ir  ()\\  lUTsliip.  Wln'ii  a  (h'si'i-i|tti\  c  i>r  j,'t'(»jri-a|tliiciil  woiil  or 
symbol  foinos  by  adoption  to  havo  a  siToiulary  nu'aiiing  de- 
iiotiii{?  origin,  its  use  in  this  secoiulary  souse  uuiy  be  restrained, 
if  it  amounts  to  unfair  eomi)etition.  In  such  ease,  if  the  use 
of  it  by  aM(»thi'r  be  for  the  purpose  of  palminp  off  the  goods 
of  one  as  and  for  the  poods  of  another,  a  court  of  ofpiity  will 
interfere  for  the  jmrpose  of  preventinpr  siich  a  fraud.  But 
this  kind  of  relief  depends  upon  tlu*  facts  of  each  case,  and 
does  not  at  all  conu^  iindcr  tlic  rules  api)licaMc  to  the  infringe- 
ment of  a  tradenuirk.*'"' 

As  to  the  secondary  meaning  of  geographical  names,  Mr. 
Justice  Brown  has  said,  "geographical  names  often  acquire 
a  secondary  significance  iiidifativc  not  only  of  the  ])lace  of 
manufacture  or  production,  but  of  llio  name  <»f  the  manufac- 
turer or  producer  and  the  excellence  of  the  thing  mamifactured 
or  produced.  Avhich  enables  the  owner  to  assert  an  exclusive 
right  to  such  name  as  against  (n-ery  one  not  doing  business 
within  the  same  geograjihieal  limits;  and  even  as  against 
them,  if  the  name  be  used  fraudulently  for  the  purpose  of 
misleading  buyers  as  to  the  actual  origin  of  the  thing  produced, 
or  of  passing  off.  the  ])roductions  of  one  jjcrson  as  those  of 
another.  "^^ 


77 — Vacuum  Oil  Co.  v.  Climax  R«'- 
fininp  Co..  'td  C.  C.  A.  00;  120  Fed. 
I{<'p.  2r>4,  2'>(\.  To  the  same  olTt'ct  see 
Standard  Varnish  Works  v.  Fish- 
.r.  1"»3  Fed.  Rep.  !)28.  "It  is  well 
wttled  that  words  which  are  not 
in  themselves  a  valid  trademark 
nuiy,  hy  association  with  tlie  {.'oods 
of  a  particular  manufacturer,  ac- 
<|uire  a  secondary  uii^nification  dif- 
f<-rin;r  from  tlieir  primary  meanin;; 
and  di-notin^  the  product  of  that 
manufactur<-r,  and  when  this  is 
made  to  appear  their  use  in  tiiat 
wiim-  will  he  priiteeted  liy  restrain- 
ing; tin-  UH«'  of  the  words  l»y  others 
in  such  a  way  as  to  amount  to  a 
fraud  or  deception  on  the  public 
and    to    raus<'    Injury    to    thow*    to 


menninj,'  has  hecome  attached,  upon 
the  principle,  wliich  underlies  the 
law  pertaining'  to  trademarks,  that 
the  nianufacturcr  of  the  particu- 
lar piods  is  entitled  to  the  reputa- 
tion or  ;rt)odwill  which  they  have 
ac<niired,  an<l  tin-  puldic  is  entitled 
to  tlu'  means  of  distin<,'uishin<j  he- 
t Weill  tliem  and  other  goods,  or, 
in  other  words,  to  state  it  conciwdy, 
that  no  one  may  pass  «)ir  his  jjoods 
as  aixl  for  the  goods  of  an<ither." 
llaight.  .1..  in  HuMx-r  &.  Celluh»id 
II.  T.  Co.  V.  F.  W.  DeVoe  &  C.  T. 
Keyn.dds  Co..  2:{:«  K.il.  Rep.  l.'»0, 
i:.4. 

7S — La  l!epulili<|ue  I'rancaise  v. 
Saratoga  VUhy  Spring  Co.,  ini  V. 
S.     127.    1.».'>:    AH    I,.    i:d.    247.    2')2; 


M-hoHC  employment  of  them  a  special       aflirming     La     Repulique     Francaiw* 


193 


WHAT    CONSTirrTKS    A    VAhlD    TKADK.M AKK. 


§82 


The  ^'ciicral  (locti-iiic  lias  Ijccn  Ktuted  witli  admirable  con- 
ciseness by  Jiul^'c  Lwrtoii,  as  follows:  "  WIhmi  the  word  is 
incai)al)lt'  oi"  beconiijij^  a  valid  trademark,  because  descriptive 
or  geographical,  yet  has  by  use  come  to  stand  for  a  particular 
maker  or  vendor,  its  use  by  anotiicr  in  this  secondary  esnse 
will  be  restrained  as  unfair  and  fraudulent  competition,  and 
its  use  in  its  j)rimary  or  common  sense  confined  in  such  a  way 
as  will  prevent  a  probable  deceit  by  enabling  one  maker  or 
vendor  to  sell  his  article  as  the  product  of  another.""" 

Further  illustrative  cases  are  collected  in  the  note.*" 


V.  Saratopa  Vicliy  Springs  Co.,  40) 
C.  C.  A.  418;  107  Fod.  Rep.  459. 
To  the  same  ofTect  see  Elgin  Na- 
tional Watch  Co.  V.  Loveland,  132 
Fed.  Rep.  41,  47;  American  Walt- 
ham  Watch  Co.  V.  United  States 
Watch  Co.,  173  Mass.  8.");  53  N.  E. 
Rep.   141. 

70 — Computing  Scale  Co.  v. 
Standard  Computing  Scale  Co.,  55 
C.  C.  A.  45!);  118  Fed.  Rep.  9G5, 
967.  Citing  Lawrence  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Tennessee  Mfg.  Co.,  138  U.  S.  537, 
549 ;  1 1  Sup.  Ct.  396 ;  34  L.  Ed.  997  ; 
Chemical  Co.  v.  ]\Ieyer,  139  U.  S. 
540;  11  Sup.  Ct.  625;  35  L.  Ed.  247; 
Mill  Co.  V.  Alcorn,  150  U.  S.'  460; 
14  Sup.  Ct.  151;  37  L.  Ed.  1144; 
Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  June  Mfg.  Co., 
163  U.  S.  169;  16  Sup.  Ct.  1002;  41 
L.  Ed.  118;  Bennett  v.  McKinlej-, 
13  C.   C.   A.   25;    65  Fed.   Rep.   505. 

80 — "Easy  Emptying"  grass 
catchers  for  lawn-mowers.  Zittloscn 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Boss,  135  C.  C.  A.  551 ; 
219  Fed.  Rep.  887;  and  Lawrence 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Tennessee  Mfg.  Co.,  138 
U.  S.  537;  11  Sup.  Ct.  396;  34  L. 
Ed.  997;  Coats  v.  Merrick  Thread 
Co.,  149  U.  S.  562;  13  Sup.  Ct.  966; 
37  L.  Ed.  847;  Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
June  Mfg.  Co..  163  U.  S.  169;  16 
Sup.  Ct.  1002:  41  L.  Ed.  118;  Elgin 
Nat.  Watch  Co.  v.  Illinois  Watch 
Co.,  179  U.  S.  665;  21  Sup.  Ct.  270; 


45  L.    Ed.    365;    French    Ropulilic  v. 

Saratoga  Vichy  Co.,  191  U.  S.  427; 

24    Sup.    Ct.    145;    48    L.    Ed.    247; 

Herring,  etc..  Safe  Co.  v.  Hall's  Safe 

Co.,  208  U.  S.  554,  559 ;  28  Sup.  Ct. 

350;  52  K  Ed.  616;  Standard  Paint 

Co.    V.    Trinidad    Asphalt    Co.,    220 

U.   S.   446;   31   Sup.   Ct.  456;    55  L. 

Ed.   536;    Davids  Co.  v.  Davids,  233 

V.    S.    461,    471;    34    Sup.    Ct.    648; 

58    L.    Ed.    1046;    Trinidad   Asphalt 

Co.  V.  Standard  Paint  Co.,  1<;3  Fed. 

Rep.  977;  90  C.  C.  A.   195   (C.  C.  A. 

8th    Cir.);    Standard    Paint    Co.    v. 

Rubheroid  Roofing  Co.,  224  Fed.  Rep. 

69.5";    140  C.  C.  A.  235   (C.  C.  A.  7tii 

Cir.)  ;    Samson    Cordage    Works    v. 

Puritan  Cordage  Mills,  211  Fed.  R.-p. 

603;  128  C.  C.  A.  203;  L.  R.  A. 
1915F,    1107     (C.    C.    A.    0th    Cir.); 

Vacuum  Oil  Co.  v.  Climax  Refining 

Co.,  120  Fed.  Rep.  254,  256;  56  C.  C. 

A.  90  (C.  C.  A.  6th  Cir.)  ;  Fuller  v. 
Ilnfi-,  104  Fed.  Rep.  141;  43  C.  C.  A. 
453;  51  L.  R.  A.  332  (C.  C.  A. 
2nd  Cir.);  Scrivcn  v.  North,  134 
Fed.  Rep.  366;  67  C.  C.  A.  348  (C.  C. 
A.  4th  Cir.)  ;  United  Lace  &  Braid 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Barthels  Mfg.  Co.,  221 
Fed.  Rep.  456;  International  Silver 
Co.  V.  Rogers  Corp'n.  66  N.  J.  Eq.  1 19  ; 
.57  Atl.  1037;  2  Ann.  Cas.  407;  af- 
firmed 67  N.  J.  Eq.  646;  60  Atl.  Rep. 
187:  110  Am.  St.  Rep.  .506;  3  Ann. 
Cas.  804;   Rubl)er   &   Celluloid  Har- 


§  83]  IIorKINS   ON    TR.\DEMARKS.  1*)* 

§83.  Words  of  double  meaning.  -In  connection  witli  the 
subject  of  "secondary"  meaning's,  we  may  consider,  briefly, 
the  decisions  coucerninjj:  the  appropriation  to  trade  uses  of 
the  class  of  words  having  double  meanings,  being  in  ()iu>  sense 
arbitrary  and  in  another  descriptive. 

A  careful  .search  of  the  decisions  involving  wonls  of  tliis 
character  fails  to  disclose  a  clearer  statement  of  the  correct 
rule  than  is  embodied  in  the  following  language  of  Judge 
Wallace:  "Xo  jirinciple  of  the  law  of  trademark  is  more 
familiar  than  that  which  denies  i)rotection  to  any  word  or 
name  wliicli  is  descri]itive  of  lln'  (puilities,  ingredients,  or 
characteristics  of  the  article  to  which  it  is  applied.  An  ex- 
elusive  right  to  the  use  of  siu'h  a  word,  as  a  trademark,  when 
ai^plied  to  a  iiarticular  article  or  class  of  articles,  can  not  be 
acquired  by  the  ju-ior  ai>in-opriation  of  it.  because  all  persons 
who  are  entitled  to  jiroduce  and  vend  similar  articles  are  en- 
i  it  led  to  descril)e  them,  and  to  employ  any  appropriate  terms 
for  that  i>urpose.  Whether  a  word  claimed  as  a  trademark 
is  availalile  because  it  is  a  fanciful  or  arl)itrary  name,  or 
whether  it  is  obnoxious  to  the  objection  of  being  descriptive, 
must  depend  upon  the  circumstances  of  each  ease.  The  word 
which  would  be  fanciful  or  arbitrary  when  applied  to  one 
article  may  he  descriptive  when  applied  to  another.  If  it  is 
so  apt.  and  legitimately  significant  of  some  (luality  of  the 
article  to  which  it  is  sought  to  be  apidied.  that  its  exclusive 
concession  to  one  person  would  tend  to  restrict  others  from 
properly  describing  their  own  similar  articles,  it  can  not  be  the 
subject  of  a  moiU)i)oly.  On  the  other  hand,  if  it  is  merely 
suggestive,  or  is  figurative  oidy.  it  may  be  a  good  trademark, 
notwithstanding  it  is  also  indirectly  or  remotely  descriptive."^' 
In  the  opinion  (pioted  from,  the  word  "instantaneous"  was 
held  to  be  aptly  descriptive  of  one  of  tlu>  (jualities  of  tlu- 
goods  to  which  it  was  applied.  In  a  later  case  it  has  been  held 
that  the  words  "Queen."  or  "Queen  Quality."  as  applied  to 

n.-HH  Trimmin;'  ("c».  v.  Uul)lK'r-Houn(I  ."{.'•;   WotluTHi)<)un  v.  Curri.-.  L.   H.  r> 

HniHh  Co..  HI  \.  .1.  I>|.  410;  88  Ail.  H.    L.    .^08;    U.ddnwiiy    v.    llanlmm 

H.p.    210;     Ann.    (hh.     lOl'.B.    'Mr,;  (IHiMK.    A.    (".    1!M»;    2.'.    Kn^.    Kul. 

afTirm.-rl    81    \.  .T.    K<|.  .'iin;   88   Atl.  (uh.    in.1. 

Hip.    210;    Ann,    ((im      MH'.H.    .'Ifl.'i;  HI— It.nmtt    v.    MrKinloy.    13    C. 

ThompHon  V.  Mont^'om.ry.  41  Ch.  n.  C    A.    2r.;    O.-i    Fed.    Hip.    r>0.'>,    506. 


19i 


WHAT   CONSTITUTES   A   VALID   TRADKMAIIK. 


§84 


slioes,  arc  not  sd  dcscrii)! ivc  as  f(i  j)iM'clii(lr  flicir  exclusive  ap- 
propriation as  a  "tiadrnanic, "  •liid^'-c  SevcreiiH  apparently  us- 
ing the  word  "tradename"  as  synonymous  witii  "  trade- 
mark. "^- 

"It  has  been  repeatrdly  cuh'd  that  a  word  which  suppests 
even  the  e(>mi)osition.  (]nality,  or  ehai-aetei-isties  of  an  article 
to  Avhieli   it  is  applied  may  yet   he  a   <rood  trademark."**'' 

§  84.  The  mark's  validity  to  be  judged  as  of  the  date  of  its 
adoption,  in  our  eonsi(h'rat  ion  of  what  may  and  wliat  may 
not  he  appro|)riated  as  a  technical  trademark,  it  must  be  borne 
in  mind  tiiat  the  (juestion  must  he  jndpred  as  of  the  time  when 
its  claimant  first  ap])lied  it  to  merchandise,  and  "hefore  he  had 
taufrht  the  trade  its  meaning:.  *  *  *  That,"  says  Judge 
Sanborn,  "is  the  true  test."*^ 


82— Tliomas  G.  Plant  Co.  v.  May 
Co.,  44  C.  C.  A.  r),34;  10.1  Fed.  Rep. 
37"),  .370. 

8.3— Show-alter,  J.,  in  Bi-adlestoii 
&  Woerz  V.  Cooke  Brewing  Co.,  20 
C.  C.  A.  40.') ;  74  Fed.  Rep.  229,  234 ; 
citinrf  Keasl)ey  v.  Cliemical  Works, 
142  N.  Y.  407;   37   X.   E.  Rep.  476. 

84— Dissent  in  Wolf  Bros.  &  Co. 
V.  Ilamilton-Brown  Shoe  Co.,  165 
Fed.    Rep.    413,   418;    91    C.    C.    A. 


363;  citing  Wellcome  v.  Thomp- 
son A,  Capper,  1  L.  R.  Ch.  Div. 
I!m4,  736,  742,  749,  750,  754; 
Keashcy  v.  Brooklyn  Chem.  Work.s, 
142  N.  Y.  467,  471,  474,  475,  476;  37 
N.  E.  Rep.  476;  40  Am.  St.  Rep. 
(12.3.  Jnd<.'e  Sanborn's  dissent  has 
heen  a[)])r(ived  hy  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Hamilton-Brown  Shoe  Co.  v. 
Wolf  Bros.  &  Co.,  240  U.  S.  641; 
60  L.  Ed.  — , 


ClIAPTKH  IV. 

TRADEMARK  RIGHTS  IN  TITLES  OF  BOOKS,  PERIODI- 
CALS AND  PLAYS. 

§  85.  Trademark  in  title  of  a  book. — Upon  this  subject  there 
has  btHMi  li'ss  lianii(>ii\-  ul"  ojiiiiion  than  wouhl  be  exix'e'ted.  It 
has  been  said  l)y  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  ^laryland  that  "A 
publisher  has  oitlier  in  the  title  of  his  ^vork  or  in  the  aj)i)li- 
cation  of  his  name  to  the  work,  or  in  the  particular  marks 
which  designate  it,  a  species  of  property  similar  to  that  which 
a  trader  has  in  his  trademark."' 

Mr.  Browne  in  his  learned  treatise  on  trademarks  says  :  "Can 
])rinted  books  be  protected  by  tradem-^rks?  Yes,  as  mere  mer- 
chandise; no.  as  literary  productions.'*-  This  is  true,  in  so  far 
as  it  as.serts  that  marks  or  devices  may  be  used  to  distinguish 
the  product  of  the  publisher  or  book  dealer."*  lie  says  further: 
"There  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  why  the  title  of  a  book 
may  not  be  deemed  a  valid  trademark,"^  and  thereby  ex- 
l)resses  tlie  error  contained  in  the  careless  dictum  of  the  Mary- 
land court  quoted  above.  The  correct  view  is  stated  in  clear 
terms  by  Mr.  Rowland  Cox,  in  his  note  to  Clcmans  r.  Belford:^ 
"It  is  necessarily  true  that  the  name  of  a  book  is,  under  all 
circumstances,  a  descriptive  term  which  means  a  particular 
thinpr.  The  book  is  created  and  given  a  name,  and  the  name 
is  added  to  the  language  as  a  term  of  description.  If  a  copy- 
right is  taken,  the  owner  of  the  copyright  enjoys,  as  long  as 
the  privilege  continues,  the  exclusive  right  to  the  use  of  the 
name:  and  wlion  the  privilege  expires,  the  name,  always  a 
descriptive  ttiin.  becomes  puhlici  juris.  If  the  book  is  not 
copyrighted,  the  literary  matter  becnmcs  })uhli(i  juris  as  soon 

1  —  lUilMTtHon    V.     IJcrry,    .'><>    M<I.  rilad-d     to    i)n>|)iTty    ri;:ht     in    tho 

.''•01;    Prin*  Sl   St<*tinrt,   l.'i.'J.  title   <if   a    pcriodicul    piililirntion. 

2 — Hrciwrif.  Trndi'mnrkH,  wp.   110.  4 — Hniwiir,  TriKlfinarkH.  wo.  IIR. 

'A — Mr.   HmwiH'  «-it<'H  Hix  ••«»*<•«  in  r* — 14    Vvi\.    Hep.   7'2H;   Cox,  Man- 
support  of  thJH  propoHitit  n.  mitln-r  ual,    fi8.">. 
>iii.-    .,f    viliiili     \h    npjilical)!)-.        .Ml 

i;»(; 


197  BcxjK  Trri.£S  as  trademarks.  [§bu 

as  it  is  published,  iiiitl  llic  Jiamc  of  the  literary  mutter  goes 
to  the  public  as  an  incident  of  that  which  it  describes.  If 
there  is  language  in  some  of  the  cases  which  seems  to  indicate 
that  the  name  of  a  book  can  be  protected  as  a  trademark,  re- 
flection will  demonstrate  that  it  can  not  be  made  good.  The 
names  of  periodicals  and  newspapers,  as  distinguished  from 
books,  are  i)rotected  as  in  the  nature  of  trademarks;  and  in 
many  instances  the  j)ul)lications  in  connection  with  which  the 
names  have  boon  used  were  proper  subjects  of  copyright.  In 
some  cases  thoy  contained,  or  might  have  contained,  articles 
in  connection  with  which  the  statutory  privilege  had  been 
acquired.  But  the  name  which  has  been  protected  has  never 
been  sinii)ly  the  name  of  a  book,  but  always  that  of  a  con- 
stantly changing  series.  Thus  the  term  'Old  Sleuth  Library' 
was  distinctly  arbitrary,  and  never  the  name  of  a  particular 
book  or  literary  production,  and  for  this  reason  it  was  in  an 
accurate  sense  a  trademark,  and  must  continue  to  be  as  long 
as  the  publication  was  continued.  But  if  the  publication  of 
the  periodical  were  discontinued  for  a  period  of  years,  the 
name  would  cease  to  be  arbitrary  and  take  its  place  in  litera- 
ture as  indicating  a  definite  collection  of  articles,  pictures,  etc., 
and  as  soon  as  it  acquired  that  settled  meaning,  it  would,  in 
the  absence  of  copyright,  become  puhlici  juris." 

It  is  now^  established  law  that  there  is  no  trademark  right  in 
the  title  of  a  book.  Judge  Wallace  stated  the  rule  very  lucidly 
■when  he  said:  "Neither  the  author  or  proprietor  of  a  literary 
w^ork  has  any  property  in  its  name.  It  is  a  term  of  description, 
which  serves  to  identify  the  work  ;  but  any  other  person  can 
with  impunity  adopt  it,  and  apply  it  to  any  other  book,  or  to 
any  trade  commodity,  provided  he  does  not  use  it  as  a  false 
token  to  induce  the  public  to  believe  that  the  thing  to  which 
it  is  applied  is  the  identical  thing  which  it  originally  desig- 
nated. If  literary  property  could  be  protected  upon  the  theory 
that  the  name  by  Avhich  it  is  christened  is  equivalent  to  a 
trademark,  there  Avould  be  no  necessity  for  copyright  laws."° 
This  doctrine  is  fully  sustained  by  the  later  cases."^ 

6 — Black  V.  F.lirich,  44  Fed.  Ixop.  ^fr.     Justice     Milh-r     on     circuit)  ; 

793.  704.  Morriam     v.     Famous     Shoe     and 

7 — Morriam     v.     ITolloway     Pub.  Clothinf?    Co.,    47    Fed.     Rep.    411 

Co.,  43   Fed.    Rop.'  4.")0    (opinion  hy  (opinion   hy   Judge  Thayer)  ;    Mnr- 


§S6)  TTOPKiNS  ON   T^A^^^fARKS.  198 

IItp.  ns  olsowhrrc,  tlif  linnul  lioctriiu's  of  uiifjiir  compotition 
may  W  invoked,  cvt'ii  in  tlio  «,l>seno4>  of  copvriirht.  In  a  case 
wliere  the  plaintifT  piihlislied  an  nn('opyri<rhte(i  eoniitilation  of 
hynwK  an<l  poems.  lK>nnti  and  illustrated  in  distinctive  fashion, 
and  the  di'fendant  copied  the  work,  in  ;i  dicaper  manner,  the 
court  said:  "The  in.iury  likely  to  l»e  done  phiintifT  is  twofold. 
First,  it  is  threatened  with  a  loss  of  sales  and  suhsecpient 
profit:  and.  seeon«lly.  it  is  thn>atened  with  a  loss  of  ref)utation 
as  a  jiroducer  of  fine  and  artistic  hooks.  •  •  •  Hpon  the 
general  right  of  tlie  jdaintifT  to  ]>rotectivo  relief  wo  can  not 
see  any  reason  Avhy  the  same  rule  should  not  he  applied  to  a 
book  that  has  heen  aj>])lied  to  a  ^ame.  or  to  ei«rars.  or  to  any- 
tliinp  else  which  is  distinprnished  ])y  a  lal)el,  or  by  the  dis- 
tinctive form  or  style  of  the  package.  The  decisive  fact  is 
that  the  defendants  arc  unfairly  and  fraudulently  attemptin^r 
to  trade  upon  tlie  reputation  wliich  ])laintiff  has  built  up  for 
its  books.'"* 

§86.  Trademark  in  title  of  periodical. — In  1S59  Vice-Chan- 
ceilor  Stuart  enjoined  a  defendant  who  had  bejrun  the  jmbli- 
cation  of  "The  Penny  Bell's  Life  and  Sporting  News"  from 
j)ublishing  any  newsj)aper  under  that  luune,  or  any  other  luime 
in  which  the  words  "Bell's  Life"  should  occur,  the  application 
being  made  l)y  the  iiroj>rictors  of  "Bell's  Life  in  London."  In 
the  course  of  liis  opinion  the  vice-chancellor  said:  "This  is  an 
ai)])lication  in  sujiport  of  the  right  to  property."^  Thus  was 
distinctly  recognized  the  right  of  trademark  in  the  title  of  a 
periodical  ])u])1icatioji.  Long  prior  to  this  time,  however,  equity 
had  suppressed  this  species  of  piracy  hetweiMi  ])ublishers,  the 
first  rei)orted  case  being  that  of  Uoffff  r.  T\irh>i,  where  the  com- 
plainant was  the  proprietor  of  a  magazine  called  "The  Wonder- 
ful Magazine"  and  the  defendant's  publication  ])ore  sidistan- 
tially  the  same  name  witli  the  addition  of  the  words  "New 
Series,  Im])roved."  The  injunction  was  granted  by  Lord 
Eldon.'" 

rlam    v.    Tcxns    Siftinys    Piiti.    Co.,  0— CN'mont    v.    ^fncldick.    1    C.'ifT. 

40      Vi-<\.      FN|i.     9J4      (opinion     hy  fi« ;     T.    .lur.    \.    S.    r){)2;     Xl    I..    T. 

•ludfjp    .'^hipmnn  t  :     Kijdiny    v.     (i.  117;    Sr!).    174. 

P.    Putmnn'H    Sonn.    120    IVd.    Rep.  10— IIo(:;r  v.    Kirl.y.   S    Vih.    21.''>; 

631;   r,7  C.  C.  A.  20.'').  Si'h.      10.      I-ord     llMou     uIho     ro- 

8 — K.   T*.    Dntton   tc   Co.   v.   C'lipp-  Htraim-d  n  ilcfcn<Innt  from  tlic  piib- 

1»'H,    102   N.    Y.    Supp.    .300.  liciition    of    a    cnnrt   oalmdar    wliich 


19U  I'.OOK    TITI.KS    AS    TRADKMAHKS.  f  §  ^^ 

In  tlif  riiitc"!  Stall's  ( 'liaiicrllor  SaiKifonl  was  tlu-  first  to 
recofTTiizo  this  riirht,  in  1825,  'althoMf;li  lie  n-fuscd  Xo  enjoin 
the  use  of  the  tilh'  "The  New  York  National  Advocate"  on 
the  ai^plieation  of  tlie  pro|)rietor  of  "The  National  Advocate," 
l)otii  names  Ix-iii;,'  ajiplicd  to  iie\vsi)apers  ])nhlishe(l  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  iiohlin^'  the  names  to  be  substantially  difTerent;  and 
this  iiotwithstandin}^  the  fact  that  the  defendant  iiad  been  the 
editor  for  the  publisher  who  liad  sold  "The  National  Advocate" 
to  the  complainant.  The  chancellor  did  not  expressly  hold  the 
title  of  the  j)ai)er  to  be  a  trademark,  but  treated  it  as  part  of 
the  goodwill  of  the  printing  establishment.*^  Indeed  he  seems 
to  have  treated  the  subject  solely  from  the  standpoint  of  un- 
fair competition,  ignoring  the  question  of  technical  property 
right,  as  did  Chancellor  Walworth  in  1840  in  refusing  to  en- 
join the  use  of  the  title  "New  Era"  on  the  application  of 
complainants  who  published  the  "Democratic  Republican  New 
Era,"  saying  i)itcr  alia,  "There  could  be  very  little  excuse 
for  the  editor  of  a  new  paper  who  should  adopt  the  precise 
name  and  dress  of  an  old  established  pajicr,  which  would  be 
likely  to  interfere  with  the  goodwill  of  the  latter  by  actually 
deceiving  its  patrons. "'- 

In  1867,  however,  a  clear  cut  opinion  of  the  Court  of  Com- 
mon Pleas  of  the  City  of  New  York  recognized  the  property 
right  in  unmistakable  terms.  The  plaintiffs,  proprietors  of 
the  "National  Police  Gazette,"  applied  for  an  injunction  to 
restrain  the  publication  of  the  "United  States  Police  Gazette" 
by  the  defendants.  P,rady,  J.,  said:  "The  title  of  a  news- 
paper may  be  a  ])urely  original  one,  and  the  proprietor  for 
that  reason  entitled  to  its  exclusive  use.  lie  may  create  a 
Mord.  or  combination  of  words,  for  the  particular  designation 
of  his  paper,  and  in  that  way  acquire  an  exclusive  right  to 
the  use  of  the  name  employed.  lie  may  combine,  as  the  plain- 
tiffs have,  Avell-known  English  words  in  common  use.  *  *  • 
It  also  appears  that  the  plaintiff's  paper  has  been  published 
Aveekly  under  that  name  for  many  years,     *     *     *     that  its 

he    was    issuinrr    as    a    continuation  11 — Snowdt-n    v.    Noah,    Hopkins, 

of    tlie    complainant's   work.      Lon^j-  ('1\.  R.  ."^47;   Cox,  1;    Sob.  41 
man    v.    Winchester,    16    Yes.    260;  12— Bell   v.    Locke,    8   Paige,   7.T; 

Seb.   15.  Cox,    11;    Seb.   65. 


C  361  HOPKINS    ON    THAPKMARKS.  200 

cirt-ulntion  is  Innr^  an-l  valualvlr.  nn.l  that  it  was  tho  only 
police  pazotto.  (^o  nomine,  p»il)lishr(l  in  the  I'nitcd  States  at 
the  time  of  tho  puhliration  of  the  pap.T  eomplained  of  by 
them.  •  •  •  From  these  faets  it  is  apparent  that  the  plain- 
tiffs have  acquired  a  ripht  eonnectcd  with  the  puhlicatioii  of 
a  newsjiaper  ealU'd  the  National  Poliee  Gazette,  which  must 
be  i)reserved  ajrainst  any  fraud  attempted  to  be  i)crpetrated 
against  them."  '^ 

In  1870.  in  the  Philadelphia  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  Judge 
Paxson  said:  "the  luime  of  a  newspaper  is  a  trademark.  As 
much  so  as  a  label  stamped  upon  a  bale  of  muslin."  '^  But 
this  was  mere  ohUrr  (tii'tum^  as  the  learned  court  was  dealing 
with  the  mark  and  dress  of  a  stove  jjolisli. 

Subsequently  the   Superior   Court   of  New  York  City,   per 
Monell,   J.,   said:  "I   do  not    understand   that   the   protection 
which  the  law  affords  to  'trademarks,'  even  assuming  the  name 
of  a  newspaper  to  be  a  trademark,  goes  so  far  as  is  claimed 
iiv  this  case.     The  protection  which  has  been  granted  to  that 
species  of  property  has  never,  I  believe,  been  extended  over 
anything  that  was  the  subject  of  a  patent  or  a  copyright,  but 
is  confined  to  approjiriations  of  names  designating  some  par- 
ticular manufacture  or  business.     There  can  be  no  such  prop- 
erty in  a  newsjjaper  except,  perhaps,  in  the  name  or  title  of 
the  paper,  which  is  the  only  continuing  portion,  of  it.     The 
contents  of  each  issue  are  the  comi)osition  or  creation  of  the 
editor  or  contributors,  are  varied  each  day,  and  when  given 
to  the  public  all  literary  proprietorship  in  them  is  lost.    Ajid  the 
law  of  trademarks,  like  the  law  of  eopyright.  can  iu)t  be  ap- 
plied to  a  work  of  so  fhictuating  and  fiLgitive  a  character."  ^'^ 
As  late  as  ISSl  Sir  George  Jessel,  master  of  the  rolls,  .said: 
"It  does  not  appear  to  me  that  there  Mas  any  invention   in 
the  combination  of  'Splendid   Misery,'  any  more  than  there 

13 Matwll    V.    Flanafjan,   2    Al)l>.  <»nirt  citiH  an  opinion  lioldin;;  tliat 

Pr.  X.  R.  4'»0;   Cox,  307;   Seb.  270.  a   n.-wspapir    or    jtrico    curn-nt    can 

14_I)ixon    Cruril.l.'    Co.    v.    ("JiiK-  lu.t     bo     copyri^'litcd     hmuisc     th«« 

^'.■nli.-im,  2  linwHlrr,  321;  Cox,  r..'>n.  t«rm  wicnr.-  cim  not,  with  any  pro- 

l.'V— St«>pln-nH  V.  I).-  C(.nto,  7  Rob-  I'ri.ty,  b.-  ai.i>li.(l  to  a  w»)rk  of  h(. 

prtunn,   343;    4   Abb.    Pr.   X.   S.    47;  nmtiiatin;,'    and     fii;;itiv.'     a     form. 

Cox,    442;    Sfb.    29:).      The-    Itarind  Clayton  v.   Stono,   2    Pain.-.   382.302. 


201  It()(»K    'IITI.RS    AS    TltADKMAHKS.  [  §  8G 

\\()iil(l  !)('  ill  tilt'  words  '  Misci  al)l('  SiiiinT.'  or  aiiyf  liiii^'  of  that 
kind.  'I'lic  a(loi)lioii  of  llic  words  as  tin'  title  of  a  novel  iiii^ht 
inako  a  t  radeniai'k.  '""■ 

In  1S!)S  the  Appellate  Division  oi"  the  Siij)reiiie  ( 'ourl  of  New 
Yoi'k  said  it  eoiild  not  follow  the  reasoning,'  of  counsel  "when 
lie  contends  that  the  j)ul)lie,  by  its  short  way  of  referring'  to 
the  'Conwnei'eia!  Advertiser,'  has  ^'iven  the  plaintiff  some  kind 
of  an  undefined  tradeniaik  in  this  poj)ulai*  form  of  s])eech, — 
a  doctrine  which  would  ('(pially  apply  to  a  'sohriijuet'  or  di- 
minutive; that  its  unauthorized  use  by  the  defendant,  whether 
likely  to  in.jui-e  the  jjlaintiff  or  not,  should  be  absolutely  en- 
joined as  an  invasion  of  a  strict  jiroperty  rij,dit."  '" 

While  on  the  other  hand,  the  United  States  Circuit  Court 
for  the  District  of  New  Jersey  had  held  in  1894  that  the  words 
"Social  Register,"  applied  by  a  i)ublisher  to  a  directory  of 
a  certain  locality,  containing  names  of  persons  resident  therein, 
selected  with  reference  to  the  personal  and  social  standing 
of  such  persons,  "become  a  trademark,  and  are  entitled  to 
j>rotection  as  such."  ^^ 

From  our  cursory  view  of  the  foregoing  decisions  and  dicta 
it  is  jdainly  manifest  that  the  right  to  technical  trademark 
in  the  title  of  a  periodical  has  been  affirmed  and  denied  with 
some  show  of  reason  upon  each  side.  The  subject  has  been 
ably  discussed  by  ]\Ir.  Browne,  who  concludes  that  the  name 
so  used  is  a  technical  trademark.'''  In  that  conclusion  we 
must  coincide,  and  it  is  well  sustained  by  the  reasoning  of 
Mr.  Rowland  Cox,  which  we  have  before  quoted.-"  But  the 
fact  is  patent  that  it  is  still  a  mooted  question,  and  that  the 
solicitor  attemjiting  to  restrain  piracy  of  this  kind  would  better 
frame  his  bill  ujion  unfair  competition  aiul  not  upon  technical 

\C — Dicl<s  V.  Yates,  L.   K.   18  Ch.  Va\.),    §11.").       As    instances    of    iii- 

1).   70-88.  junction      restraining     use     of     in- 

17 — Commercial      A  d  v  c>  r  t  i  s  e  r  frin<:ini^    titles    of    periodicals,    see 

Ass'n    V.    Haynos.    40    X.    Y.    Supp.  Edmonds    v.     Benbow,    Seton     (3d 

038-942.  Ed.),  90.");   In  re  Edinl)urgh   Corro- 

18 — Social      Register      Ass'n      v.  spondont    Newspaper,    Ct.    of    Seas. 

Howard,    00     Fed.     Rep.     270,    271.  Cas.    1st.    ser.  T    (new   ed.),   407   n; 

Tlie   same   ruling  was  made   in   So-  Cox,  ^lannal.   Xo.   .34. 

cial  Register  Ass'n  v.   Murphy,    128  20 — Xote   to   Clemens   v.    Relford, 

Fed.    Rep.    110.  14    Fed.    Rep.    728;    Cox,    Manual. 

10 — Browne,       Trademarks        (2d  084;    ante,   §8.). 


§  87]  HOI'KINS   «».\    TK.VDKMAHXS.  202 

tra<lcmark.  Tlio  New  York  Sui)rcim'  Cuurt,  in  its  decision 
above  referrpil  to.  says  that  "the  fumlainental  doi'trine  upon 
which  relief  in  this  chiss  of  eases  is  afforded"  is  that  of  "mis- 
leadiiiiT  or  the  tendency  to  mislead,  with  eonseciuent  injury, 
actual  or  probable." -• 

In  a  decision  of  the  Tnitcd  States  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals 
for  the  Second  Circuit,  rendered  since  the  foregoing  was  writ- 
ten, it  is  distinctly  held  that  the  juuiic  of  a  periodical  is  a 
tt^Muiical  common  \[rw  trademark.^^ 

In  harmony  with  tliis  doctrine  it  has  been  held  that  the 
words  "Buster  Hrown"  at  the  head  of  a  single  page  of  a  comic 
section  of  a  ncwspai)er  t-onstitute  a  valid  trademark.-'' 

§  87.  Play  titles  as  trademarks. — The  principles  stated  by 
Judge  Wallace  in  the  language  which  we  have  heretofore 
quoted  in  reference  to  book  titles  as  trademarks.  "If  literary 
property  could  be  protected  upon  the  theory  that  the  name  by 
which  it  is  christened  is  ecpiivalent  to  a  tradenuirk.  there  would 
be  no  necessity  for  copyright  laws."  applies  with  eipial  cogency 
to  the  name  by  which  a  jtlay  is  designated.  But  there  is  thi.s 
distinction  between  the  titles  of  i)lays  and  the  titles  of  books; 
the  former  are  comprehensive  of  something  more  than  the 
mere  title  of  the  literary  composition  which  is  produced  as 
a   play,   while   the   latter   are   strictly  limited    to   the   literary 

21 — Ccimmcrcial      A  d  v  t- r  1 1  8  c  r  rurmcrs'    T^ian    A    Triist    Co.,    1    N. 

Ass'n    V.    HayricB,    41)    X.    Y.    Supp.  Y.    Supp.    44;    Bortliwick    v.    Evon- 

f)38-n42;  ritin;,'  Brndlmry  v.  Bct'ton,  inp  PoKt,  L.  R.  M  Ch.  D.  449;  Estt'S 

39     Law     J.     Ch.     r>7 ;     Tnpram     v.  v.    Leslie     (2).    20    F.-d.    Rop.    91; 

Stiff,  r>  .lur.  X.  S.  947;   Leo  v.  Ila-  Kstos   v.    Leslie    (1),   27    Fed.    Rep. 

l.y,   .'■.   Ch.    App.    Cas.    I.m;    riem.nt  22;    Estes   v.   \V..rtliin';ton,   .31    Fed. 

V.  Maddiek,   '.  .Tiir.  X.   S.  592.     And  IN-p.    ir)4. 

to    the   name   effeet    see    .^nowdcii    v.  22— flannett    v.    Rupert.  02   C.    C. 

Xoah.    Hopkins,    Ch.    347;     Bell    v.  A.    .')94 ;     127     F<d.     R.p.    902;     ro- 

IxKke,     H     Paifre.     7".;      Talknt     v.  versing'    8.    e.,     119    Fed.    Rep.    221; 

Moore,    0    Hun,     100;     .Stephens    v.  fo    the   fiamo    elTeet,    see    S.    T.   Tay- 

DeConto,     4    Ahh.    Pr."   X.    S.     47;  h.r    Co.    v.    Xast,    l.Vt    \.    V.    Supp. 

Matw-n  V.    Flana^ian,  2  Ahh.   Pr.   X.  1»H2. 

S.    4.'.9;     Puhlinliin^'    Co.    V.     Dohin-  2.3— X.w     York      Herald     Co.     v. 

Hon.    K2    Fed.    Rrp.    .")« ;     Uicliardson  Star      ('<>..      IMJ      Fed.      Rep.      204; 

ii     Boynton     Co.     v.     Riehanlson     i  anirmed     \4(\    F.'d.     Rep.     1023;     70 

Mor;.'Bn     Co.,    8    X.     Y.     Supp.     .'.3;  C.   C.   A.    078. 
FarriHrs'     T^>aii     A     Trust     Co.     v. 


2o:} 


HOOK    TIl-UCS    AS    TKADKMARKS.  [§  87 


pnuluction   itself.     Pra.-tiriilly,   i.i   Ml  of  the  cases   invclvrnt' 
play   titles   with   \\l.i<'li   the   courts  of   this  country    have   had 
to  do.  there  was  some  scheme  of  production   involved   which 
represented   the   hiisiness  enterprise   of  tlie   manager,   as  well 
as  the  i)resentation  of  the  ideas  of  the  author.     The  ideas  of 
the  author  ajraiii  are  not  entirely  embodied  in  lanf^ua^e  which 
reaches  the  audience  in  word  sung  or  sjM)l<eii.     The  "business 
of  the  play  is  sonietinies  never  reduced  to  writin«r,  and  in  the 
majority  of  cases  the  i)roduction  of  the  ])rain  of  a  third  person, 
the  skilled  staf^e  manap:er.  is  of  tlie  very  essence  of  the  play, 
and  is  at  times  the  detenninin<r  factor  wliich  makes  the  play  a 
success.    So,  in  its  last  analysis,  the  name  of  a  play  is  the  medium 
which   signifies   to  the   patrons   of   the   theatre   three   thing's: 
the  literary  production   of  the  ])layri«]rht,  the  artistic  aid  of 
the  stajre  manajrcr,   and  the  moneyed   investment   as  well   as 
the  skill   in  cast  selection  of  the  manager.     And  these  three 
things  disregard  the   accompanying  investiture   of  costumes, 
scenery,  and  incidental   music  which  represent  the  efforts  of 
the   musician,   the  landscape  painter,   the   costumcr,  and   the 
skilled   selector  of  furniture   and   other  accessories.     A  play 
title   then  stands   for   a    kind    of  personal    pro]ierty   which    is 
strictly  sui  gevcn'.'i.  the  distinguishing  mark  by  which  the  pro- 
duction is  identified  to  the  public  before  and  after  the  first 
performance.     It   is  manifest   that   a   play   title   also   carries 
with  it  a  specific  and  unique  form  of  goodwill  to  which  all 
of  the  things  which  we  have  enumerated  help  to  contribute. 

The  extent  to  which  courts  of  equity  will  protect  a  play 
from  piracy,  aside  from  any  question  of  copyright,  is  not  yet 
fully  determined.  The  cases  are  few  in  number,  but  arc 
sufficient  to  establish  the  general  principle  that  the  broad 
doctrine  of  unfair  competition  in  trade  which  we  hav-  con- 
sidered in  this  book  may  be  invoked  wherever  deception  of 
the  public  and  injury  to  the  complainant  will  probanlv  result 
from  a  refusal  of  the  injunction.  This  fact  is  more  important 
because  of  the  difficulty  attendant  upon  making  out  a  case  of 
copyright  infringement  where  the  subject  matter  involved  is 
a  dramatic  composition. 

In  a  case  in  Avhich  "L'Aiglon"  was  the  play  involved,  and 
in  an  opinion  in  which  he  refers  to  that  name  as  being  a 


§88]  IIDI'KINS    (»N    TK.vnr.MAKKS.  204 

trndoniark  for  tlio  i)laintifr's  (>i'j;ani/at ioii.  Jiul;rt'  McAilaui 
has  said;  "'llu'  (lui'stioii,  "What's  in  a  iiaiiu'"  has  hi'cii  answered 
by  the  eourts  in  many  well-eonsitlercd  eases,  wherein  the  exelu- 
sive  rijfht  to  a  name  possessed  or  owned  by  a  sueeessl'ul  businesa 
enterprise  has  been  maintained  a^yainst  imitators  and  wrong- 
doers who  Roupht.  by  an  unauthorized  use,  to  deeeive  the  public 
and  jirofit  by  the  wronjj.  Wliile  courts  have  in  some  instanees 
refused  injunctive  relief  to  i)roteet  the  use  of  the  title  where 
plays  were  dissimilar,  and  the  appropriation  a  mere  coincidenee 
{FroliDwn  v.  Miller,  8  Mise.  Rep.  370.  21)  N.  Y.  Siipp.  1109), 
they  have  uniformly  enjoined  such  use  where  deception  of 
the  publie  and  injury  to  the  j)]aintiff  were  likely  to  follow  a 
refusal  to  grant  ecjuitable  aid  (Shook  v.  ^Voo(l.  '\2  Lei:.  Int.  2l)4; 
nier  V.  Abrahams,  82   N.   Y.   510)."  2'      i„    .^   ].,|,.,.   ,..,^^.   ^1,^. 

Supreme  Court  of  Illinois  afTirmed  a  decree  of  injunction  in 
a  case  where  the  ])lainti}T  was  the  j)roducer  of  the  jjjay  "Sher- 
lock Holmes'*  and  the  defendant  subse(piciitl.\'  produced  a 
j)lay  entitled  "Sherlock  Holmes,  Detective.  "  In  affirming 
the  decree  of  injunction,  the  sujirenie  court  based  the  jilain- 
tiff's  right  to  equitable  n^iicf  upon  the  ground  tliat  the  names 
of  the  res])ective  jilays  were  so  siiuihir  that  the  public  "would 
be  deceived  to  believe  that  the  drama  of  the  appellant  company 
was  that  which  the  appellee  had  been  ])roducing. "  The  court 
exjiressly  declined  to  decide  whether  or  iu)t  the  plaint IfT  had  a 
trademark  right  or  jjrojicrty  in  the  words  "Sherh)ck  Holmes," 
basing  the  relief  upon  the  general  rule  as  to  unfair  competition, 
Judge  Roggs  remarking  that  "Ecpiity  jirovides  a  remedy  to 
prevent  such  unfair  and  fraudulent  competition  among  busi- 
ness rivals  in  any  and  all  lines  of  legitimate  trade  and 
business. "  -'' 

\Vlicr(!  the  |)lay  is  a  dramatization  of  a  book,  whose  copy- 
right has  expired,  its  tith'  is  not  an  infringement  of  the  title 
of  another   (eo|»\rightc(l  i   play  l)as('(l  upon  the  book.-'"' 

§  88.  Infringement  of  book  titles  and  play  titles  by  motion 
picture  titles.     The  niatnifarturcrs  of  motion  |)ictur('  lilnis  have 

•Jt— Frdhrnnii   v.    r;i\  t«.n,  (JS  X.  V.        K.p.    .1!)1  ;     alliriniii;,'    s.    c.    UlM    111. 

::iip|..  840.  .\pp.  01.1. 

2.'> — II(>|)kiiis     .XmiiHi-mcnt    Co.     v.  2fl — r.lnwr    v.    St.    I'lmo    Co.,    ITS 

rroliman,    202    111.    MI;    (57    N.    E.       F.'d.    Kop.    270. 


205  H()(<K    'nTM«S    AS    TKAKK.M  AKKS.  [§88 

used  luaiiy  titles  of  j)>-('-('xist  iii^'  copyfi^'litcd   hooks  ami  plays 

as    the    titles    of    their    films.      in    the    uhseiiec    of    eopyrij^'ht 

questions,   tho   similarity  (»f  title   alone   can   jrive  no   cause  of 

aetion. 

The  "Nick  Carter"  case  was  based   ui)on  the   name  "Xiek 

Carter"  rej^istered  "for  a  weekly  periodical  devoted  to  fiction." 

The  defendant  made  a  film  entitled  "Nick  Carter  the  Great 

American  Detective  Solving  the  $100,000  Jewel  Mystery,"  the 

plot  of  the  film  play  not  being  an  infringement  of  any  of  the 

hundreds  of  "Nick  Carter"  stories  published  by  the  plaintiff. 

A    ])reliminary    injunction    was    appealed    from,    the    appeal 

resulting  in  a  dismissal  of  the  bill. 2'     The  underlying  doctrine 

is   that   "if  literary   property   could    be   protected   upon    the 

theory  that  the  name  by  which  it  is  christened  is  equivalent 

to   a   trademark,  there  would  be  no  necessity  for  copyright 
law.''2M 

In  an  English  case  the  suit  was  brought  by  the  authors  and 
owners  of  the  copyright  of  a  play,  "Sealed  Orders,"  to  restrain 
the  defendants  from  using  and  advertising  a  film  play  under 
that  title.  The  case  coming  on  before  ]\Ir.  Justice  Eve,  the 
court  was  so  clearly  against  the  plaintiffs  that  the  case  was 
settled  by  a  consent  decree  under  which  the  defendants  agreed 
to  change  the  title  of  the  film  to  "Orders  Under  Seal."  The 
learned  judge  asked  two  questions  during  the  hearing  which 
are  clearly  suggestive  that  British  law  is  in  harmony  with  our 
decisions.  "Could  not  anyone  paint  a  picture  and  call  it  'Sealed 
Orders?'  A  person  might  Avrite  a  book  now  and  call  it  'Sealed 
Orders,'  and  is  not  what  the  defendants  want  to  show  merely 
a  pictorial  book?"2!> 

27— Atlas    ^Uis.    Co.    v.    Stroot    &  28— Black  v.  Elnicli,  44  Fed.  Rop. 

Smith,   122  C.  C.  A.   r)fl8;   204  Fod.  704. 

Tvt'p.   ."108;   appeal  in   supreme  court  20 — Ralcijjh      v.      Kinematofrraph 

dismissed   in   Street  &  Smitli  v.  At-  Trading   Co.,   31   R.   P.   C.    143,    145. 
las    Mfj:.    Co.,    231    U.    S.    348;    58 
L.  Ed.  262. 


CTTAPTEK  V. 

THE  LOSS  OF  THE  RIGHT  TO  A  TRADEMARK  S  USE. 

§89.  Laches.— Thore  is  no  hifhcs  wliori'  a  c'oini)lainant  is 
only  waitiiif;  to  get  a  sufficient  (luantity  of  evidence  to  secure 
a  successful  i)rosecution  of  the  infriiifjcr,'  and  of  course  none 
exists  where  the  comi)lainant  has  no  knowledge  of  the  fact 
of  infrintronient ;-  and  it  has  been  distinctly  held  by  the  federal 
supreme  court  that  an  iiijuiut ion  will  not  fjenerally  be  refused 
on  the  pround  of  delay  alone.'  Followinjj:  that  decision,  it 
was  said  by  Jjidjre  Nixon,  in  llic  I'nited  States  Circuit  Court 
in  the  District  of  New  Jersey:  "There  has  been  larpe  discus- 
sion of  the  (juestion  how  far  laches,  in  stojiiunf,'  the  infringe- 
ment of  a  trademark,  will  deprive  a  comi)lainant  of  the  benefits 
of  a  jireliminary  injunction.  But  that  discu.ssion  has  been 
])ut  to  rest,  so  far  as  this  court  is  concerned,  by  the  recent 
decisioji  of  the  suju-eme  co\irt  in  the  case  of  McLean  r.  Flcinhu/,* 
where  it  was  licld  that  ac(iuieseenee  of  lonp:  standing  was  no 
l)ar  to  an  injunction,  although  it  i)reclnded  the  party  actpiies- 
cing  from  any  right  to  an  account  for  jiast  i)rotits. "  ' 

The  rule  that  laches  which  will  be  a  i)ar  to  an  accounting 
will  not  be  a  defense  as  against  a  i)rayer  for  injunctive  relief, 
obtains  in  all  cases  of  unfair  comi)etition,  whether  or  not  a 
technical  tradcmaik  is  involved." 

l_C'avo     V.     Myers,     Seton      (4tli  -1 — Supra. 

VA.),   2:J8:    I.<-.'    \.    Ilal.v.    22    1..    T.  ') — Consolidiitcd    I'riiit   .lur  Co.   v. 

X.  S.  2.')1.  TliomnH.     Cox,    CA\r>.       And     to     tlio 

2_/n    rv   FHriiia.   27    W.    U.    4.")0;  Himic      cfTcct      we      La      Ri'puliIiqiK' 

S<'b.    r.42;     Wcldoii    V.     Diik,    L.    II.  rruiicais.'     v.     SHiultz.     42     ('.     C. 

10  Ch.  I).  247;   .10  L.  T.  N.  S.  4t;7 :  A.    2:1.5;     Ut2    F.-d.    U»|).    l.">:i;    Snn- 

Sm-I..  6.38;   Taylor  r.  CarpenttT    (1),  d.TH  v.   .laroh.  20  Mo.   .\i>p.  00;    N. 

3    Story,    4.'i«;    Cox,    14;     Sch.    7S;  K.    Fairliank    Co.    v.    l.iKk.l.    Kini,' 

Tavlor   V.    Carpenter    (2).   2   Wood.  &  Cake  .Soap  Co.   {4i.  11'.  I""l    l'<" 

A     M.     1;    Cox.    .'{?.;    0    L.    T.    r,14;  •Mi2;    rA  C.   C.    .\.   204. 

C.ilka    V.    Mihaloviteli.    .'.0   Fed.    IJep.  0— WorelieHtrr    Hrewiii.'    t"t|..    s. 

427.  Keiiter    fc    Co..    S»     C.     C.     A.    (JOo; 

:j_MeLean    v.    FI<-miiiK.   00    V.    .S.  Lw     Fed.     Kep.    217,    2l!t 
24.-.;   24  L.  F.d.  K2S. 


209 


207  LOSS    OK    KKillT    TO    TK  AI)i:.M  AKK  "s    ISK.  [§89 

The  nilo  luis  always  been,  however,  that  ladies  on  the  part 
of  the  owner  of  a  trademark  woiiUl  be  a  bar  to  liis  ai)i)lieation 
for  a  j)reliiniiiary  iiijuiief ion.  .Iiidfre  Wallace  stated  the  rule 
as  follows:  "Ladies  in  pi'osecnt in^r  infringers  has  always  been 
reeo^nii/ed  as  a  suflieient  I'eason  for  denying  a  i)reliminary 
injunction;  sometimes,  ai)i)arcntly,  by  way  of  disci])line  to  a 
comj)lainan1  who  lias  manifested  reluctance  to  burden  liimself 
with  the  expense  and  vexation  of  a  lawsuit,  and  delayed  legal 
proceedings  until  his  i)atieiiee  was  exhausted.  When  delay 
of  the  owner  of  a  jjatent  or  trademark  to  prosecute  infringers 
has  been  of  a  tendency  to  mislead  the  jjublic  or  the  defendant 
sought  to  be  enjoined  into  a  false  security,  and  a  sudden 
injunction  would  result  injuriously,  it  ought  not  to  be  granted 
summarily,  but  the  comj)lainant  slioidd  be  left  to  his  n^liof 
at  final  hearing.''  " 

In  cases  of  unfair  competition,  where  no  technical  trademark 
is  involved,  a  prelimiiuiry  injunction  has  been  denied  where 
the  defendant's  goods  had  been  sold  o])enly  for  many  years 
in  the  package  complained  of.'' 

But  in  a  later  case  the  court  of  appeals  of  the  seventh 
circuit  has  l)r()a(lly  applied  the  doctrine  of  McLean  i\  Fleming 
to  a  case  of  unfair  competition;"  to  whicli  liolding  the  con- 
trary has  been  held.*"  Knowledge  by  a  jilaintiff  of  a  few 
instances  of  defendant's  unfair  competition  will  not  be  a  bar 
to  injunction.^' 

Laches  which  prevents  recovery  in  one  case,  will  not  be  a  bar 
to  another  action  of  the  same  complainant  against  a  subsequent 
infringer.  Tlius,  in  the  "Hunyadi"  cases,  the  complainant, 
the  vend(jr  of  a  Hungarian  mineral  water,  was  denied  relief 
as  to  the  use  of  the  word  "Hunyadi"  against  the  vendor  of 
water  from  another  spring  in  Hungary,  upon  the  ground  of 

7_Estos      V.      Worthington,      22  it— Dr.   Ti-trr   H.   Falirnoy  &  Sons 

Fc-d.   Rep.  822.     To  the  same  efTect,  Co.    v.    Iluiniiier,    82   C.    C.    A.   621  -, 

see  C.  0.  Burns  Co.  v.  W.  F.  Burns  l.')."?   Fed.   Rep.   73'),   737. 

Co.,    118    Fed.    Rep.    944;    Havana  10— E.  &   .1.  Burke,  Ltd.  v.   Bisli- 

Commercial  Co.  v.  Nichols,  1')")  Fed.  op,  7;')  C.  C.  A.  C(!(i;    144  Fed.  Rep. 

Rep.   302.  8:!S. 

8 — Von   Mumm  v.   Steinmetz,   137  11  — Ford    Motor    Co.    v.    Wilson, 

Fed.      Rep.       108;      Virginia      Hot  223  Fed.  Rep.   808. 
Sprin;,'9    Co.     v.     Hepeman     &     Co., 
13S    Fed.   Rep.   S.'..'),   802. 


§90]  IIOIKINS   ON    TRADKMARKS.  208 

laclios,  fourloon  ilifToronl  Ilunpariaii  iiiincral  watt-rs  liavinj; 
been  niarkrtiMl  in  tlu'  I'liitt'd  States  uiulcr  the  name  "Ilun- 
yntli."  aiul  tlie  i'»)ni|)laiiuint  being  estt)i)i)eil  as  to  dealers  in 
sueh  Ilunfjarian  bitter  waters  by  laehos.'^  Subsccpiently  an 
Ameriean  dealer  entered  the  market  with  an  artificial  water 
to  which  he  applied  the  mark  "llunyadi."  In  aflirming  a 
decree  granting  the  injunction,  »Iudge  (jrosseup  said  "appellant 
oflfers  a  manufactured  water  of  whose  contents  the  public  has 
no  knowledge,  and  at  a  cost  ruinous  to  the  importation  of  the 
genuine  water.  The  supreme  court  never  meant,  in  our  judg- 
ment, to  throw  around  such  a  competitor  the  i)rotection  of 
the  estojipel  indicated,  or  exj^osc  the  jiublic  to  a  device  under 
which  they  would  drink  the  waters  of  Lake  Michigan,  doctored 
after  api)ellant's  recipe,  in  the  ])clief  that  they  were  drinking 
the  natural  waters  of  Iluiijrary. *'  '•' 

§90.  Laches  and  acquiescence  distinguished. — "Laches" 
and  "ac(puesceiice"  ai-e  terms  fi-iMiucnt ly  used  synonymously, 
or  at  least  without  due  regard  to  tlieir  respective  incaiiings. 
"Laches"  imports  a  merely  passive,  while  "acquiescence" 
implies  an  active  assent.'^  The  Supreme  Court  of  California 
has  said,  "  'Laches'  would  strictly  seem  to  imply  neglect  to 
do  that  which  ought  to  have  been  done;  'acquiescence'  a  rest- 
ing satisfied  with  or  submission  to  an  cxistijig  state  of 
things."  '•'• 

"Acquiescence — that  is.  assent — is  tantamount  to  an  agree- 
ment." "•  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  by  Mr. 
Justice  Swayne,  has  said  :  "Acquiescence  and  waiver  are  always 
questions  of  fact.  There  can  be  neither  without  knowledge. 
The  terms  imi)ort  this  foundation  for  such  action.  One  can  not 
waive  or  actpiiesce  in  a  wrong  while  ignorant  that  it  has  been 
committed.      Current    sus|)icioii    and    niiiior    are    not    enough. 

12 — Saxlihinr  v.   NirlHon,   17fl   V.  i:i— Tiinckcray    v.    Snxli-limr,    00 

S.    4.3;     4.".     L.     IM.    77;     n-v«THin;,'  C    C    .\.    r)fi2;    12.")    Fed.    R.«p.   Oil, 

SaxMin.r    v.    Nrilson,   .34   C.    C.    A.  !•!:?. 

OnO;    J>1    Fi-d.    ]{i]).    1004;    tlic   latter  1  1  — W 1     <'ii      I.imKiitinns.     hoc. 

rvviTHinn      SaxliliiKT      v.      NrilHon,  (52. 

88    K.d.    l{.-i>.    71;    Samo    v.    KiBn«r  l.'i — T.tix   v.    I  In;.';.' in,   CO   ("al.    2.").')- 

&    M.nd.lH..n    ("o.,    179    U.    .S.    10;  2(i0. 

4.'>  L.    Kd.   00.  10 — Mattlu'WH    v.     Murrliirton,     17 

Fod.    H«-p.   7(10-700. 


209  i-oss  OK  KUiiiT  TO  tkadkmakk's  L'SK.  [§91 

There  must,  he  know  h'd're  ol"  I'aets  whicli  will  oiiahle  the  party 
to  take  etVeetiial  action."  '' 

§91,  Acquiescence.  "'I'he  consont  of  a  niaimfaetnrer  to 
the  u.se  or  iniilalion  ol"  liis  tra(hMiiark  l)y  another  may,  perliaps, 
be  justly  inferred  from  his  knowled^^'c  and  silcnee;  hut  .such 
a  consent,  wliether  expressed  or  implied,  when  purely  ^ratui- 
tou.s,  may  certainly  be  withdrawn;  and  when  imi)lied,  it  lasts 
no  h)nger  than  tiie  silence  from  whieli  it  springs.  It  is,  in 
reality,  no  more  than  a  revocable  license.  The  existence  of  the 
fact  may  he  a  jiroper  subject  of  iiupiiry  in  taking  an  account 
of  profits  if  such  an  account  shall  hereafter  be  decreed  ;  but 
even  the  admission  of  the  fact  would  furnish  no  reason  for 
refusing  an  injunction."''*  This  dictum  of  Judge  Duer  in 
Amoskcag  Mfg.  ('o.  v.  Siicar  is  so  comprehensive  as  to  warrant 
its  extended  (piotation  above  given.  While  it  was  held  by 
Vice-chancellor  Wood  that  a  plaintiff's  acquiescence  in  the 
defendant's  use  of  his  mark  for  two  years  after  the  ])laintiff 
had  seen  it  publicly  exhibited  would  disentitle  him  to  relief,'"  an 
injunction  was  granted  in  a  case  where  a  dissenting  opinion 
shows  that  the  essential  feature  of  the  mark  had  been  used 
by  others  than  i)laintiff  with  his  knowledge  for  more  than 
twenty  years.^"  It  has  been  held  in  a  federal  circuit  court 
that  acquiescence  for  a  time  equal  to  that  prescribed  in  the 
statute  of  limitations  must  be  shown.^'  Acquiescence  can  not 
be  inferred  and  it  is  revocable  if  it  could  be.-- 

17_IV„Po   V.    Lan-rdon.   Oil   U.    S.  20 — Gillott      v.      Estcrbrook,      47 

r)78-r)81;  25  L.  Ed.  420.    See  also  to  Barl).    45;-);    Cox,    .340.      Dissent    of 

the  same  efTect,  Allen  v.  ]McKeen,   I  Infjraliam,  J. 

Siimn.     27(5-314;     Evans    v.     Small-  21— Taylor    v.    Carpenter    (2),    2 

eomhe.  L.   \X.,  3  TI.  L.  249 ;   Pvamsden  Wood.     &     M.     1 ;     Cox.     .32.       But 

V.  Dyson,  L.  R.,  1   H.  L.   129;   Reed  "laelies     for     even     less     tlian     the 

V.    West,    47    Tex.    240.  statutory      period      of      limitations. 

18 — Amoskeaj,'  Mfj,'.  Co.  v.  Spear,  aided   by    other   eircumstane.s,   will 

2   Sandf.   S.   C.   .')9n;    Cox,  87.     The  l)ar     a     ri<rht."       Acheson,     J.,     in 

withdrawal     of    gratuitous    permis-  Prince's    Met.    Paint   Co.    v.    Prince 

sion    to    use    one's    name    may    be  Mfp.   Co.,  6  C.   C.   A.   647;   57    Fed. 

made  at  the   pleasure  of  the   party  Rep.    9.38-044.    where    the    plaintiff 

prantinp;   such    permission.      McCar-  was   held    to   be   estopped   by   eipht 

del   V.    Peek.   28    How.    Pr.    120.  years'  acquiescence. 

19_Beard  v.  Turner,  13  L.  T.  R.  22— Cillott  v.   Estcrbrook.  supra: 

N.  S.  74?;  Cox,  717.  Amoskeag  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Spear,  supra: 


§921  JIOIKINS    ON    TUADKM  AKKS. 


mo 


"In  Enplnml  tho  r\\\o  is  strinpont  in  trademark  oasos  lliat 
lack  of  (lilifTtMU'o  in  suinjr  deprives  tlio  coniplaiiiant  in  ocjuity 
(»f  tho  rijrht  either  to  an  injunction  or  an  aecount.  Our  courts 
are  more  liberal  in  this  respect.  A  lonj:  lapse  of  tini(>  will  not 
deprive  the  owner  of  a  trademark  of  an  injunction  a-rainst  an 
infringer,  hut  a  reasonable  dili^'cnce  is  recpiired  (»f  a  complain- 
ant in  assert  ill};  his  riphts.  if  he  would  hold  a  wrongdoer  to 
an  account  for  iirofits  and  damages.  This  ride,  however,  applies 
only  to  those  cases  where  there  has  been  an  accpiiescence  after 
a  knowledge  of  the  infringement  is  brought  home  to  the  com- 
plainant." -^ 

§92.  Caution  notices  to  infringers  as  evidence  of  acquies- 
cence.- In  a  case  of  unfair  competition,  iiivdlviii;:  tlic  iiiiiiil)er 
":iO:r'  apidied  to  pens,  a  caution  notice  had  been  ai»i)lied  by 
the  plaintilT  for  many  years,  warinnp  the  pid)lic  a<:ainst  imita- 
tions of  his  pens.  The  court  said,  "we  see,  by  his  notice  or 
'caution,'  that  he  knew  that  others,  also,  had  used  the  same 
combination  of  numbers,  for  the  jnirpose  of  defrauding  him; 
but  it  does  not  appear  that  he  had  discovered  any  individual 
Avhom  he  could  attack  as  an  offender.  Nor  can  I  believe  that 
a  'caution'  to  the  public  apainst  the  fraudulent  use  of  his 
device  can  be  deemed  an  acquiescence  in  the  use  by  others  of 
the  peculiar  arrangement  of  numbers  njion  steel  pens  and 
packing  boxes  which  the  plaintiff  had  first  adoi)ted  and  used 
and  which  had  come  to  be  a  designation  of  a  particidar  and 
])opular  pen  with  the  public."-' 

§  93.  Abandonment. — The  consideration  of  laches  and  ac- 
quiescence leads  us  naturally  to  the  subject  of  abandonment. 
The  first  form  of  abandonment  is  by  disuse  of  the  mark.  "That 
the  right  to  use  a  trademark  may  be  lost  by  abandonment  or 
di.suse  is  too  clear  to  need  argument  or  the  support  of 
authority. "^'^    But  the  length  of  time  during  which  the  mark 

(  liriHty    V.    Murj.liv,    12    II. .w.     Tr  -j:)— Hu^'Im-h,   J.,    in    niackwt-U    v. 

77;     ("ox,    104;     S.-h.     137;     Momn-  Dil.r.'ll,     I<V<1.    Case-     No.      1475;     3 

•Irx  V.   Holt.    128  TV   S.   r.U;    .12   1..  IIiif,'lu-B,     l.'il ;     14    Off.    Gaz.    633; 

j;,l.   r,2rt.  Price    &     Stcniart,     .'»!>;     Sob.     .lOO; 

23— Nixon.  J.,  in   Shwv.  r  v.   K<1-  to  tlic  Hamc  ••(Tcct.  Lav.rin- v.  ncM)iHT, 

lo;r;,'.  n  F«-d.   Il«-p.   (W»l.  Ind.  L.  R.  H  Mad.   14!>;   Hoyal  Uak- 

24— Leonard,    .1.,     in     (lillott    v.  mn  r.>\v<l.-r  Co.  v.  Uayinond.  Tit  Fed. 

l>l«Tl»rook.     47     Uarl).     4ri.'»;     (ox.  H<|).  'ITrt. 
AmiT.   Trademark   Cawii,   340,   3(n. 


211  i/)ss  or  Ric.iiT  TO  trademark's  use.  [§93 

is  not  used  is  iimnalcrial  cxcci)!  wlicn  it  is  sndi  as,  taken  in 
connei'tion  with  all  the  circumstances,  will  show  the  intention 
of  its  owner  to  abandon  it.-''  *'A  man  who  has  a  traileniark 
may  properly  iiuve  re^'ard  to  Hie  state  of  the  market  and  the 
demand  for  the  goods;  it  would  be  absurd  to  sujjpose  Ih;  lost 
his  trademark  by  not  i)utting  more  goods  on  the  market  when 
it  was  glutted."  -'  Registration  "svas  refused  in  England  where 
the  applicant's  niaik  "Emollio"  had  not  been  used  by  him 
for  eleven  years,  and  his  application  was  opposed  by  one  who 
had,  in  the  meantime,  registered  the  word  "Emolline"  as  a 
trademark  for  articles  similar  to  those  npon  which  the  applicant 
intended  to  affix  his  mark  (perfumery). 2«  Before  the  courts 
will  declare  an  abandotnnent  by  disuse  there  must  be  satisfac- 
tory proof  of  intention  of  abandonment.  It  has  been  suggested 
by  Chitty,  J.,  that  such  intention  will  be  gathered  from  the 
OAvner's  acts  in  breaking  up  the  moulds  by  which  the  mark  is 
made,  and  taking  the  trademarked  article  from  his  price  lists.^" 
Tt  must  be  borne  in  mind,  in  this  connection,  that  the  defense 
of  abandonment  is  not  favored  by  the  courts.  One  judge  has 
said,  "there  is  something  very  abhorrent  in  allowing  such  a 
defense  to  a  wrong."  •"^^'  Although  as  a  matter  of  course  a 
trademark  once  abandoned  may  be  adopted  by  another  for 
the  same  class  of  merchandise."^^  there  must  be  clear  proof  of 
the  fact  of  abandonment,''^  and  it  ought  to  be  clearly  shoAvn 
that  such  other  i^erson  is  adopting  the  same  mark  fairly  and 
honestly,  and  not  in  an  attempt  to  filch  from  its  original  owner 
the  reputation  he  has  obtained  for  it.-^"'  What  act  or  acts  will 
constitute  an  abandonment  must  be  determined  by  the  facts 
in   each   particular  case.     One   English   decision  held   that   a 

2G— Burt    V.    Tucker.    178    Mass.  .'iO— Woodbury,    J.,    in    Taylor    v. 

493;    59  X.   E.   Rep.    1111.  52  L.   R.  farpentcr     (2 1,    2   Wood.    &    M.    1; 

A.   112;   GilU-tt  V.  Lumsden,  4  Ont.  Cox,   32. 

Law  Rop.  3nn.  31— MfnciuU-z  v.   Holt.   12S  U.   S. 

27_nutty.     .T..      in      Monson     v.  .".14;    .32  L.   Ed.    'ylCt:    Royal    Baking 

Boolini.   L.    R..  2(5    Cli.    1).    3'.)S-400;  Rowdrr    Co.    v.    Raymond,    70    Ft-d. 

Cartm.ll,  233.  Rt'p.    370-382. 

o8_./„   ,.p  Grossmitli.  f.   R.   V.   ('.  32— Sohl  v.  Oeisendorf,   1   Wilson 

ISO;    (iO  L.   T.  X.  S.   r.12:    Cartm.'ll.  (Ind.),   00;    Rd).    .307. 

l.n.  33— Royal  Baking  Powder  Co.  v. 

20— M,.n!<on   v.   Boolim.   L.   R.,  20  Raymond,  70  Fed.  Rep.  370-382. 
Ch.   D.  398-405;   Cartmell,  233. 


§93] 


IIOI'KINS    ON    THAl'I.M  \UKS. 


212 


dismissal  of  a  bill  for  iiijmictioii  was  an  ahamloimuMit  of  the 
trademark  soiifjlil  to  bo  protoi-tod  by  tlie  biil.'^ 

The   aliandonmoiit    of   names   used   in   eonuectiun   with    |>ar- 
tieidar  i)remises  where  selling;  or  manufaetiiring  is  eondueted 
has  led  to  some  apparent  eonflicts  of  opinion  amonj;  the  eourts. 
Careful    aiuilysis   of   the    faets   ^vill    show    that    there    is   some 
semblance  of  harmony  in  the  rulinfrs.    Whether  a  removal  from 
the    premises   will    ccuistitiite   an   abandonment    of   the   use   of 
the  name  depeiuls  on  Avhether  th«'  name  indieates  the  buildinp 
itself,  or  merely  the  business  conducted  therein.    Thus,  "Booth's 
Theatre"  desipnated  the  theatre  and  nut  the  actor,  and  upon 
its  sale  by  Edwin  Booth  he  could  not  restrain  his  vendee  from 
the  use  of  the  name,  as  ^Messrs.  Jarrett   &  Palmer  had   fully 
advertised  the  fact  that  they  were  lessees  and  nuinaprers.  and 
no  question  of  fraud  could  be  raised."''     As  stated  by  Wallace. 
J.,  in  Atlantic  MUUng  Co.  v.  Eohuison:  "The  ritrht  to  the  exclu- 
sive use  of  a  word  or  symbol   as  a   trademark   is  inseparable 
from  the  ri^rlit  to  nud<e  and  sell  the  commodity  which  it  has 
been  appropriated  to  designate  as  the  i>roduction  or  article  of 
the  proprietor.     It  may  be  aban(b)ned   if  the  business  of  the 
proprietor  is  abaiuloned.     It  may  become  identified  with   the 
place  or  establishment   where  the  article   is  manufactured  or 
sold,   to   which    it   has   been    applied,   so   as  to   desi^rnate   and 
characterize   the   article   as   the   production    of    that    place   or 
establishment,   rather   than   the   ]iroiu-ietor.      A    trademark    of 
this  description  is  of  uo  value  to  the  original  i)r()prict(tr  because 
he  could  not  use  it  without  deceiition.  ami  therefore  would  not 
he  protected  in   its  exclusive   enjoyment.     Such   a   trademark 
■would  seem  to  he  an  incident  to  the  business  of  the  place  or 
establishment  to  which  it  owes  its  oritrin.  and  without  which 
it  can  have  no   independent   existence.     It  should   be  deemed 
to  pass  with  a  transfer  of  the  business  because  such  an  implica- 
tion  is  consistent  with  the  character  of   the  transaction   ami 
the  presumable  intention  of  the  parties. "  •""'■ 


.34 — Hrowri'-  v.  Frccnian,  12  W. 
R.  .30r.;   4  N.  R.  470. 

3:, — Rooth  V.  Fiirn-lt,  .">2  TIow. 
Pr.    IfiO. 

.1ft— Atlantic  Milling  Co.  v.  Roh- 
inFon,     20     r<;\.     K-p.     218;     ritiny 


Di.von  Cnirililt'  Co.  v.  (JuRftcn- 
heim.  :\  Am.  L.  T.  228;  Iliidmin  v. 
OHlx.rn.',  :J!)  L.  •!.  Cli.  N.  S.  7ft; 
Shipwri^'lit  V.  CI.nKi.ts.  10  \V.  R. 
fiftft.  Sri'  nlrto  to  tlio  pnmp  efToct 
Ilnll    V.    RarrowB,    4    DoC..    J.    4    S. 


2\:\ 


IX)SS    OK    KKillT    TO    TRADKMAHK  S    USE. 


[§93 


So  lliiil  llic  use  of  llic  name  "Stilliiiaii "  to  iiidiciite  llie  clotli 
product  of  the  Slilhnan  Mills;'''  "Old  Oscar  I'cppcr"  to  indi- 
cate the  i)roduct  of  the  distillery  of  that  name  ;'^  "(Jshorne 
House"  to  designate  a  hotel  first  owned  by  Osborne;'''^  "Tower 
Palace,"  designating  a  building,  having  a  tower,  where  a 
clothing  business  was  conducted,*"  are  all  held  to  be  indicative 
of  tlie  premises  and  abandoned  i)y  the  owner  of  the  name  who 
sells  the  premises  or  removes  therefrom.  It  follows  that  a 
mere  arbitrary  name  not  designating  the  locality  or  building  in 
which  a  business  is  transacted  will  survive  a  change  in  the 
location  of  the  business.-*^ 

The  length  of  time  during  which  a  trademark  is  not  used 
is,  as  we  have  seen,  merely  a  circumstance  to  be  considered 
with  all  the  other  facts  in  the  case  in  determining  whether 
there  was  an  intention  to  abandon  its  use.  Thus,  defendants 
have  been  restrained  from  using  a  mark  that  has  lain  in  disuse 
for  periods  of  one  year,^^  three  years,^^  four  years,^'  nine 
years,-*-"^  ten  years,-*"  and  even  twenty  years.^"  The  vital  ques- 
tion is  the  intention  of  the  owner  of  the  mark,  and  the  burden 
of  establishing  abandonment  lies  upon  the  party  who  affirms 
it.^8 


150;  Glen  &  Hall  Mf{,'.  Co.  v.  Hall, 
61  N.  Y.  227-2:54;  Kidd  v.  Johnson, 
100  U.  S.  (517;  2.-)  L.  Ed.  760; 
Leather  Cloth  Co.  v.  American 
Leather  Cloth  Co..  11  Jur.  N.  S. 
r)13;  Ainsworth  v.  Walmesley,  44  L. 
J.  555. 

37 — Carmichael  v.  Latimer,  11 
R.  I.  395. 

38 — Pepper  v.  Lahrot,  8  Fed. 
Rep.    29. 

39 — Hudson  v.  Osborne,  39  L.  J. 
Ch.  X.   S.  79. 

40 — Armstrong,'  v.  Kleinhaus,  82 
Ky.  303. 

41— Dewitt  V.  Mathey  (Ky.),  35 
S.  W.  Rep.  1113  (not  officially  re- 
ported ) . 

42 — Lemoine  v.  Ganton,  2  E.  D. 
Smith,  343;    Co.x,  142. 

4.3 — Julian  v.  Hoosier  Drill  Co., 
78   Ind.   408. 

44 — Burt    V.    Tucker,    178    Mass. 


493;  .59  N.  E.  Rep.  1111,  52  L.  R. 
A.   112. 

4.'>— Lazenhy  v.  White,  41  L.  J. 
X.  S.  354;  Saxlehner  v.  Eisner  & 
Mendelson  Co.  (3),  179  U.  S.  19; 
45  L.  Ed.  60.  An  injunction  was 
refused  because  plaintiff  delayed  ac- 
tion for  nine  years  in  Amoskea{» 
Co.  V.  Garner,  55  Barl).   151. 

40— Wolfe  V.  Barnett,  24  La. 
Ann.   97. 

47— Gillott  V.  Esterbrook,  48  X. 
Y.    374. 

48 — Julian  v.  Hoosier  Drill  Co., 
78  Ind.  408.  This  is  analogous  to 
the  rule  that  where  one  sued  for 
infrinpinji  a  trademark  sets  up  a 
prior  ri>,'lit  to  the  mark  in  ques- 
tion, it  is  incumbent  upon  him  to 
establisli  his  prior  use  by  satisfac- 
tory evidence.  Tetlow  v.  Tappan, 
85  Fed.  Rep.  774. 


§  93]  llorKlNS    ON    TK.VDKMAUKS.  214 

Tlicrc  may  Ik*  an  iiivoluiilary  ahniHlnniiu'iit  of  a  t ratli'iuark 

through  tlu'  fact  that,  oiu'c  distinctivi',  it  lias  ceased  to  indicate 

the   mercliaiulise  of  the   owner  of  the   mark  ami   has  become 

puhlUi  juris  because  it    indicates  only   a   peculiar  product   or 

method  of  manufa«Murc.     This  a{;ain  arises  fi-om  the  peculiar 

circumstances  of  each   case.      "What    is   the   test    by    wliich   a 

decision    is    to    be    airived    at.    whether    a    word    which    was 

....  .       * 

originally  a  trailenuirk  has  become  puhhci  juris.'     I  ihiid\  the 

test  must  be  whether  the  use  of  it  by  otlwr  persons  is  still 
eah'ulatcd  to  (bn-eive  the  i)ublic;  wiiether  it  nuiy  still  luive  the 
eflfect  of  intlucin^'  the  public  1o  buy  jr<Hitls  not  made  by  the 
original  owner  of  the  tradenuirk  as  if  they  wci'c  his  goods.  If 
tlie  nuirk  has  come  to  l)e  so  public  and  in  such  universal  use 
that  nobody  can  be  deceived  by  the  use  of  it.  or  can  ])e  induced 
from  the  use  of  it  to  believe  that  he  is  biiying  the  goods  of  tlie 
original  trader,  it  appears  to  me,  however  hard  to  some  extent 
it  may  ai)pear  on  the  trader,  yet  practically  as  the  right  to  a 
trademark  is  simply  a  right  to  ]irevent  a  trader  from  being 
cheated  by  other  j)ersons'  goods  being  sold  as  his  goods  through 
the  fraudulent  use  of  the  trademark,  the  right  to  the  trade- 
mark must  be  gone."  This  extract  from  an  ojiinion  of  Melli.sh, 
L.  J..^'*  is  probably  the  clearest  exjjlanation  of  the  eases  involv- 
ing this  to])ic.  The  eases  turning  upon  this  point  are  many.'"' 
The  adoption  of  a  new  label  or  brand  is,  of  course,  an 
aljandonment  of  all  the  distinctive  features  of  the  old  label 
or  braml  not  preserved  in  the  new  one.*"^' 

40— Ford    V.    Fostrr.    I-.    IJ.    7    Ch.  sliall     v.     I'iiiklium.     .'.2    Wis.     'u'2: 

I),    fill.  I'ri.r    A     Sffuart,    VM.      Tlic    moro 

.")() — Lu/.niliy    V.    W'liitc,     II     \..    ■!.  fact    tliat    a     iiaiiw    >isc(l    as    trndc- 

Ch.    354;    lA-a   v.    Millar.    Sdi.    .'>1.*};  mark  comes    into    i><>|Milar   use    in    n 

S«'ton    (4tli    K<1. 1 .  242;    Lea   v.    Dca-  (IcHcriptivo    sense    does    not    invati- 

kin.      Fed.      Caw      No.      Hl."i4;       11  date   its   use  as   a   trademark.     Sel- 

BiB8.    23;    /ii    rr   ArI.en/.,    L.    R.,   3.")  cliow  v.   Raker.  03  N.  Y.  .'".0;   (Vllu- 

f'h.    I>.    24S:    Neva    Stearine  Co.    v.  loid  Mf^'.  Cn.  v.  ("elhmite  Mf;j.  Co.. 

Mowlin;/.    0    Vict.    L.    R.    08;    Slu-r-  32     Fed.     lJe|...    01;     Lawrence    Mf-i. 

w<km1   v.    Andrews.    .''»   Am.    L.    R.    X.  Co.    v.    Teniu'ssee   "Mfj;.    Co.,    138    IT. 

S.    r,HH;    In    rr    Hall,    13    Off.    C.a/..  S.   .'■)37  M7 :   34    I-.   Kd.   007;    Rurtun 

220;    Liel.i>.''H    Extraet    Co.    v.    Ilan-  v.  Stratton.  12  Fed.  Rep.  fiOfi. 

I.ury.   17   L.  T.  N.  S.  208;   WatkinH  r.l— Manluittan    Medicine    Co.    v. 

V.  Landon,  r,2  Minn.  380-.393;   .'.4  \.  Wood,    lOS    V.    S.    218;    27    L.    Ed. 

W.  Rej).  193;   19  L.  R.  A.  23«;  Mar  7'i(5;  I^a  v.  Millar,  Seton  (4th  Ed.), 

242;   S.I,.   r,l3. 


215  I/)SS    OK    KKillT    TO    TRAKK.M  SKK's    USE.  [§93 

Tlio  OMiicr  III"  a  f  riidciuark  may  by  a  practice  of  sliipping 
goods  bearing  the  mark  to  the  same  consignee,  so  that  it  may 
be  held  out  to  or  believed  by  purchasers  to  indicate  some 
right  to  the  marl<  in  the  consignee,  lose  the  exclusive  right 
to  its  use.''- 

The  fact  that  u  numulacturer  uses  his  name  uv  an  additional 
symbol,  such  as  a  coat-of-arms,  in  connection  with  the  dis- 
tinctive word,  does  not  deprive  him  of  his  trademark  right 
in  the  distinctive  word.  Thus  the  manufacturer  of  "Eureka" 
shirts,  wiiich  he  marked  "R.  Ford's  Eureka  Shirt,  London," 
was  awarded  an  injunction  restraining  a  defendant  from  the 
sale  of  an  article  nuirked  "The  Eureka  Shirt."  •"••'  The  manu- 
facturers of  "Excelsior  White  Soft  Soap"  sought  to  enjoin 
the  makers  of  "Bustard  &  C'o.'s  Excelsior  White  Soft  Soap." 
and  upon  the  motion  it  was  held  that  their  right  to  injunctive 
relief  was  not  affected  by  the  fact  that  the  defendants  had 
never  used  the  word  except  in  conjunction  with  their  firm 
namc.-'''^ 

A  manufacturer  who  uses  his  trademark  in  connection  with 
words  indicating  that  his  goods  are  the  product  of  another 
maker  will  lose  his  right  to  have  the  word  used  as  trademark 
protected.  This  Avas  held  in  a  case  where  "Eton"  cigarettes 
were  so  jiut  uj)  as  to  suggest  that  they  were  of  foreign  manu- 
facture.'^"''  But  a  manufacturer  who  uses  his  trademark  on 
goods  prepared  for  the  jobbing  trade,  adding  to  or  using  there- 
with the  luime  of  the  jobber,  does  not  lose  his  right  to  the 
protection  of  the  trademark,  for,  as  said  by  Judge  Colt:  "In 

ry2 — Rohinson      v.       Fiiilay,      and  nioiid    v.    Bnuik.r,   0   R.   P.   ('.    301: 

Ward  V.   Uol.inson,  1..   R.,  0  Ch.   D.  Cartmcll,   142. 

4S7.  .'>4 — Braham   v.   Bustard,    1    H.   4 

r,:?_Ford  V.  Fostor,  L.  R.  7  C'li.  M.  447:  !)  L.  T.  N.  S.  100;  11  W. 
D.  010;  L.  R.  7  Ch.  D.  Oil;  41  L.  R.  1001;  2  X.  R.  ",72;  Scb.  220. 
.f.  Ch.  08^2;  27  L.  T.  X.  S.  210;  20  Tho  same  di-fenso  was  attempted 
W.  R.  81S;  Sc'b.  384.  Tho  more  whore  "Cottolcne"  was  the  trade- 
addition  of  a  coat-of-arma  to  a  mark  and  "Cottolco,"  with  the  de- 
trademark  (as  rejristored  in  En^'-  fendanfa  name,  the  alleged  in- 
land) is  not  sufficient  to  disen-  frinj^cment.  Defendant  was  en- 
title the  person  usinj;  tlie  mark  to  joined.  X.  K.  Fairl.ank  Co.  v. 
sue  for  an  injunction.  :Melachrino  Central  Lard  Co..  (>4  Fed.  Rep.  133. 
V.  Melachrino  Cigarette  Co.,  4  R.  5")— Wood  v.  Lambert,  L.  R.  32 
P.    C.    215;    Cartmcll,    223;    Ilam-  Ch.    D.    247. 


§  93]  IIOPKIN'J^   ON    TRArEMARKS.  216 

doing  this  110  ri'al  tloieit  was  inattircd  iijioii  the  public,  because 
tlie  purchaser  obtalucd  the  same  ^'oods  which  lie  would  have 
purchased  if  the  name  of  the  jobber  had  not  been  upon 
them. "^"  In  one  case  it  was  argued  by  the  defendants  that 
when  the  plaintiffs  furnished  their  "Excelsior"  stoves  to  the 
trade  and  marked  the  dealers'  names  upon  the  stoves,  they 
thereby  iiermitted  the  dealer  to  hold  himself  out  to  the  public 
as  the  manufacturer  of  the  stoves.  This  was  not  a  successful 
defense,  but  the  coiirt  stood  upon  the  fact  that  there  was 
"nothing  in  connection  with  the  luimes  of  these  dealers  to 
indicate  that  they  are  the  manufacturers,  and  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  any  one  ever  siipposcd  they  wovo  the  manufac- 
turers." ''~ 

Advertisements  ])ublished  in  the  United  States  by  a  cor- 
jioration  having  the  exclusive  sale  of  certain  Hungarian  mineral 
waters,  to  the  effect  that  the  name  under  which  the  waters 
were  sold  had  become  a  general  name  for  all  similar  waters, 
and  that  the  cori)()ration  would  thenceforth  distinguish  the  par- 
ticular water  sold  by  it  by  a  s])ecial  trademark,  were  held  not 
to  evidence  an  aliaudoiiment  of  th(>  (iriginal  mark  which  was 
binding  on  the  ownei-  of  the  wells;  I\Ir.  Justice  Brown  an- 
nouncing the  following  rule:  "To  establish  the  defense  of 
abandonment  it  is  necessary  to  show  not  only  acts  indicating 
a  practical  abandonment,  but  an  actual  intent  to  abandon. 
Acts  which  unexplained  woidd  be  sufficient  to  establish  an 
abandonment  may  be  answered  by  showing  that  there  never 
was  an  intention  to  give  up  and  reliinpiish  the  right  claimed."  '* 

.'>6— Pike    Mf^.    Co.    V.    CK-veland  v.    l'<)\v»-ll.   L.    II.    (lS!t7).  .App.   CftR. 

Stone    Co..    .3"»    Fed.     Rep.    890-898.  710,     71(5;      Liclit<iistein     v.     Oold- 

"One    docs    not     low    the    {,'ood\viU  Hinith,    37    Fed.    Re|>.    ;J.")0. 
of    luH    trade    in    an    artiele    of    his  ru — Sheppard  v.  Stiiart.  1.1  Pliila. 

manufacture     liy     placinfr    upon     it  117;    Price  &   Steuart.   19:5. 
the    nainoH    of    hiH    cuHtomers    who  .'iS — Saxlehner   v.    Kisner   &    .Men-, 

are   en^'a^ed    in    selling'    it.    nor    l.y  delHon  Co.,  179  U.  S.  19-31 ;  4.')  L.  Ed. 

the    fact   that   the  conHtimerH   know  0(1;    citinjr  Sinp-r  Mf;:.  Co.  v.  .T\ine 

only    the    name    and    excellence    of  Mf^'.  Co.,  103  V.  S.  Ui9,  18(1;    Jl    L. 

the   article,    and    neither    kn«»w    nor  Kd.  118,  12.">;  10  Sup.  Ct.  Rip.  1002; 

rare    who    makeH    it,"    Sanborn,    .1.,  Moore    v.    StevenHon,    27    Conn.    14; 

in    Shaver    v.    Heller    &.    Merz    Co.,  I.ivermore  v.  White,  74  Mi-.  4.")2;  43 

108  Fed.   Rep.   K21  824;    48  C.  C.  A.  Am.  Rep.  000;  .ludHon  v.  Malloy.  40 

48;     alTirminL'     Ilelhr    4     Merz    Co.  Cal.    299;     Hiiknimi     v      Link.     110 

V.   Shaver.    102    Fed.    Rep.    882.      To  .Mo.    123;    22    S.    \V.    \Ui>.    472. 
the   aame   effect,  City    Brewery   Co. 


217  I/>S.S   OF    KKillT    TO    trademark's    USE.  [§9'^ 

In  the  same  caso,  tlio  (liscoiiliiiuance  (»f  two  suits  for  infringe- 
ment, l)i'()u^'lit  by  the  selling  corporation,  after  preliminary 
injunctions  had  been  obtained,  are  lield  hy  the  supreme  court 
not  to  be  bindinfr  upon  the  eoniplainant  in  the  absence  of  proof 
that  the  discoulinuance  was  made  with  the  complainant's 
knowledfre   and   ac'(|ui('seenee/'" 

Tlir  EuiiVish  RuU .  That  mere  cessation  of  use  does  not  es- 
tablish abandonment  of  the  trademark  has  been  thus  stated, 
"to  constitute  a])ando)inient  an  intention  to  abandon  must 
be  shown.  Merc  non-user  of  a  trademark  can  no  more  be  said 
to  constitute  abandonment  than  tlic  mere  non-user  of  a  ripht 
to  foul  a  stream  beloufrinp:  to  a  mill  as  an  easement  can  be 
said  to  constitute  an  abandonment  of  the  easement."'"'" 

There  may  be  a  constructive  abandonment  of  specific  fea- 
tures of  a  trademark,  arisinjr  from  a  failure  to  enumerate 
such  features  in  securing  registration.  Tf  the  registration 
shows  a  claim  to  a  trademark  "more  limited  in  its  description 
than  the  owner's  common-law  rights  would  otherwise  be,  the 
owner  is  bound  by  such  limitation  as  showing  what  he  really 
claimed. "  ''1  Thus,  in  an  application  for  registration  of  a  trade- 
mark, the  failure  to  claim  the  letter  "s"  as  a  part  or  fea- 
ture thereof  was  held  to  be  an  abandonment  of  that  feature 
of  the  mark.''2 

A  person  who  acquires  a  patent  covering  a  manufactured 
article  known  by  a  trademark,  may,  during  the  life  of  the  pat- 
ent, enjoin  an  infringer  even  though  he  has  ceased  manufac- 
turing the  patented  article.'''* 

A  trademark,  once  abandoned,  may  be  adopted  by  another.*"'^ 

.r,n— Saxlohnor  v.    Eisnor   &    Mf-n-  Bcesliorc,   8  C.   C.   A.   215;    59   Fed. 

delson  Co.,  170  U.  S.   in,  34;   45  L.  Rop.    572;    Ricbter    v.    Reynolds,    8 

Ed.  GO.  t'.  C.  A.  220;  59  Fed.  Rep.  577. 

GO—Cliitty,  .!..   in   :\rouson  &   Co.  62— rittsl)urf;h  Crushed  Steel  Co. 

V.    Boehm.    L.    R.    26    Ch.    D.    398.  v.   Diamond  Steel  Co.,  85  Fed.   Rep. 

As  to  evidence  of  abandonment  see  637. 

Louise  &  Co.  Ltd.  v.  Gainsboroujxb,  63 — Tanney     v.     Tan-Coast     Ven- 

20   R.    P.    C.    61;    BloKS   V.    Ander-  tilator  Mff,'.  Co.,  128  Fed.  Rep.  121. 

son,   X.   S.    W.    21    L.    R.   Eq.   238;  64— Deitach  v.  Geo.  G.  Gibson  Co., 

In    re     Wrifiht,     Crossley     &     Co.'a  155   Fed.    Rep.    383;    W.   A.   Gaines 

Application,  17  R.  P.  C.'386.  &   Co.   v.   Kahn.   155  Fed.  Rep.   639. 

61_na\vley.    J.,    in    Hennessy    v.  645;   Cohen  v.  Xajjle,   190  Mass.  4; 

Braunschweiper  &  Co.,  89  Fed.  Rep.  76  X.  E.  Rep.  276;  Daniel  v.  White- 

664-668;   citing  Kohler  Mfg.  Co.  v.  house,   15  R.  P.  C.   134. 


CTIAPTKTx^   VT. 
GOODWILL. 

§94,  Defined. — Goodwill,  hccauso  of  tlio  various  forms  in 
which  it  exists,  is  dinit-ult  of  definition.  It  may  he  j)ersonal, 
in  whieh  event  it  is  the  i-esuit  of  the  lahor  and  efforts  of  the 
person  to  whom  it  hel(inj;s  and  survives  a  ehan<re  of  locality. 
It  may  be  local,  in  which  event  the  personal  elTorts  of  those 
who  have  created  or  assisted  in  creatinj;  it  have  so  identified 
it  with  the  location  that  it  adheres  thereto  and  does  not  attach 
to  a  business  subsequently  established  elsewhere  hy  the  same 
persons.  Or,  in  the  case  of  local  jroodwill.  the  fjoodwill  may 
have  larpely  had  its  orijrin  in  the  natural  advantages  of  the 
locality  before  any  personal  exertions  have  been  expended  upon 
it;  as,  for  example,  a  location  upon  a  water  front  peculiarly 
accessible  and  desirable  as  a  location  for  the  erection  of  a  ^'rain 
elevator,  ship  yard,  pier  or  warehouse,  where  there  exists  a 
natural  advantage  of  site  before  human  enterprise  erects  the 
elevator  or  other  structure.  The  goodwill  which  then  arises 
consists  of  three  things,  the  natural  advantages  of  the  site, 
the  erection  of  a  suitable  building  or  structure  with  its  proper 
mechanical  equipment,  and,  finally,  the  good  reputation  that 
results  from  skillful,  enterprising,  and  honest  management 
of  the  business.  The  definitions  of  goodwill,  therefore,  must 
be  read  in  the  light  of  these  distinctions. 

"Goodwill  is  a  modern  but  important  growth  of  the  law, 
not  mentioned  hy  some  of  the  early  writers,  but  given  great 
prominence  at  the  present  time."  '  Mr.  Justice  Story  has  de- 
fined goodwill  as  "the  advantage  or  benefit  which  is  accjuired 
hy  an  establishment  beyond  the  mere  value  of  the  capital, 
stock,  funds,  or  jiroperty  employed  therein,  in  consequence 
of  the  general  i)ublic  patronage  and  encouragement  which  it 
receives    frrmi    constant    or    habit nal    customers,    on    account 

l_Vnnn.    .T  .     in     I'.-nplr    v.     KolMTtH,    !.-.!»    N.    Y.    70  SO;    ':\    N.    V..    U<'p. 

68.".;    4:.   L.    11.   .\.    12«J. 

218 


219 


GOODWILIi. 


§94 


of  its  local  position  or  fommon  oolcbrity,  or  reputation  for 
skill  or  iiniiM'iict'.  or  i)unc'tuality,  or  from  other  accidental 
circiiiuslanccs  or  necessities,  or  even  froiii  ancient  i)artialities 
or  prejudices."  - 

It  \vould  be  very  diffieult,  if  indeed  i)ossible,  to  frame  a 
more  accurate  and  comprehensive  definition  of  local  goodwill. 
This  one,  as  <;iven,  has  been  expressly  and  in  hare  verba  adopted 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Chief  Justice 
Fuller  pref acinar  his  use  of  it  by  sayinpr  "there  is  difficulty 
in  decidin-'  accurately  what  is  included  under  the  terra. "^ 


2 — story   on    Partnership,   S  !»!». 

3 — Motropolitan  Bank  v.  St. 
Louis  Dispatcli  Co.,  149  U.  S.  43G- 
446;  37  L.  Ed.  7!)!).  "It  is  the  prob- 
ability  tliat  tlie  Imsinesa  will  con- 
tinue in  tlu'  future  as  in  tlie  past, 
addinj,'  to  tlic  j)r()fits  of  the  concern 
and  contril)utinj,'  to  the  means  of 
meeting  its  en<i;agements  as  they 
come  in."  Sanderson,  J.,  in  Bell  v. 
Ellis,  33  Cal.  020-G2r). 

"Goodwill  was  defined  hy  Lord 
Eldon  in  Cruttwell  v.  Lye,  17  Ves. 
335-346,  to  he  'notliinj^  more  than 
the  probability  that  the  old  cus- 
tomers will  resort  to  tlie  old 
place;'  but  Vice-Cliancellor  Wood, 
in  Churton  v.  Douj:las,  Jt)hnson, 
174-188,  says  it  would  be  takinjr 
too  narrow  a  view  o5  what  is 
there  laid  down  by  Lord  l^ldon  to 
confine  it  to  tliat,  but  that  it  must 
mean  every  positive  advantage 
that  has  been  acquired  by  tlie  old 
firm  in  the  progress  of  its  busi- 
ness, wiiether  connected  with  the 
premises  in  wliicli  tlie  business 
was  previously  carried  on,  or  with 
the  name  of  the  late  firm  or  with 
any  other  matter  carrying  with  it 
the  benefit  of  the  business."  Mr. 
Chief  Justice  Fuller  in  Menendez 
V.  Holt,  1-2S  V.  S.  .-)14-.-)22;  32  L. 
Ed.    ^^2^]. 

"The  goodwill  of  an  established 
business,   which    is   a   common   sub- 


ject of  contract,  is  nothing  but  the 
chance  of  ijeing  able  to  keep  the 
business  wliich  has  been  estab- 
lished." Wallace,  J.,  in  Barber  v. 
Connecticut  Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co., 
la  Fed.   Rep.   .T)2,  313. 

"It  is  property  of  a  very  peculiar 
and  exceptional  character.  It  is 
intangible  property  which,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  can  have  no  ex- 
istence apart  from  a  business  of 
some  sort  that  has  been  estab- 
lished and  carried  on  at  a  partic- 
ular place."  Thayer,  J.,  in  Metro- 
jwlitan  Bank  v.  St.  Louis  Dispatch 
Co.,  36   Fed.    Rep.  722-724. 

"The  goodwill  of  a  business  com- 
prises those  advantages  which  may 
inure  to  the  purchaser  from  hold- 
ing himself  out  to  the  public  as 
succeeding  to  an  enterprise  which 
has  been  identified  in  the  past 
with  the  name  and  repute  of  his 
predecessor."  Wallace,  .J.,  in 
Knoedler  v.  Boussod,  47  Fed.  Rep. 
465,  466.  This  definition  was  ap- 
proved on  appeal.  Knoedler  v. 
Olaenzer,  55  Fed.  Rep.  895-809. 

"Goodwill  has  been  defined  as 
'all  that  good  disposition  which 
customers  entertain  toward  the 
house  or  business  identified  by  the 
particular  name  or  firm,  and 
which  may  induce  them  to  con- 
tinue   giving    their    custom    to    it.* 


§94] 


HOPKINS    ON    TK ADKMAUKS. 


220 


Tho   fjooilwill   (if   <i    [laiMmTs 
iug   in    tho   settlcnuMil    nf  p.-ii-t 

There  is  nothin;:  nmrvflniis  or 
mysterious  uKout  it.  Wlien  an  in- 
dividual or  a  lirm  or  a  corporation 
has  ^'one  on  for  an  unlirukcn 
series  of  years  conduct  in;:  «  pur- 
ticuhir  Itusiness.  and  has  lict-n  so 
wrupulous  in  fultilliii;;  every  ol)li- 
^'ation,  so  careful  in  nuiintainin^ 
the  standard  of  ^oods  dealt  in.  so 
alisolutoly  honest  and  fair  in  all 
business  dealin^rs  that  customers 
of  tlie  concern  have  become  con- 
vinced that  their  exi)eri»'nce  in  the 
future  will  be  as  satisfactory  as  it 
has  iM-en  in  the  past,  while  such 
customers'  ;;ood  report  of  their 
own  experience  tends  continually 
to  brinjj  new  customers  to  tlie 
same  concern,  there  has  been  jiro- 
duced  an  element  of  value  quite 
as  imj)ortant — in  some  cases,  per- 
haps, far  more  imjmrtant — than 
tlie  jdant  or  maciiim-ry  witli  which 
the  business  is  carried  on.  That 
it  is  property  is  abundantly 
settled  by  authority,  and,  indeed, 
is  not  disputed.  That  in  some  cases 
it  may  be  very  valualtle  property 
is  manifest."  Lacombe,  J.,  in 
Washburn  v.  National  Wall  Paper 
Co.,  81    Fed.   Rep.    17-20. 

"Goodwill  has  been  (iclined  by 
this  court  to  1k>  'the  favor  which 
the  management  of  a  business 
wins  from  tin*  pul)Iic,  and  the 
proliability  that  old  customers  will 
continue  their  patrona;:e.'  "  Mc- 
CJratli,  .F.,  in  Williams  v.  Farrand, 
88  Mich.  47.'{-477.  Tiiis  is  .ludge 
Cooley's  definition,  whieli  has  beiii 
approved  in  Whit<'  v.  Trowbridge, 
210   Pa.    11;   04    Atl.    Rep.   802. 

"ll\fT<'  is  cfinsiderable  dilTiculty 
in    defining   uccurutcly    what    is    in- 


U\p    ".«;taii(ls   on    tlic   .same    foot- 
iuM-.slii|>    affairs    as    the    laii^'iblc 

<'hi<ied  iinder  this  term  goudicUl : 
it  secnis  to  be  tiuit  species  of  con- 
nection in  trade  which  induces  cus- 
tomers to  deal  with  a  ]mrticular 
firm.  It  varies  almost  in  every 
case,  but  it  is  a  matter  distinctly 
apprecial)le  wiiich  may  be  pre- 
served (at  least  to  some  extent), 
if  the  business  be  sold  as  a  going 
concern,  but  which  is  wholly  lost 
if  the  concern  is  wound  up,  its  lia- 
bilities disdiarged,  and  its  assets 
;,'ot  in  and  distributed."  Sir  John 
Romilly,  M.  R.,  in  Wedderbiirn  v. 
Wedderbiirn.  22    Heavan,  84-104. 

•'.hist  what  ';;oodwiir  includes  is 
not  easy  of  definition.  Nay,  it 
varies  with  tiie  customs  of  the  gen- 
iral  trade  and  tlie  character  or 
methods  of  the  ])articular  business. 
An  early  definition  by  Lord  Kldon 
is  'the  probability  that  tlie  old  cus- 
tomers will  resort  to  the  old  place.' 
Til  is  involved  the  ancient  idea  that 
goodwill  inhered  in  tlie  piemises 
where  the  business  was  conducted, 
which  had  some  justification  when 
considering  an  inn,  tavern,  or 
theater,  as  in  most  of  the  early 
cases.  This,  however,  is  too  limited 
for  modern  kinds  or  methods  of 
business.  Tlie  habit  i)f  j)eople  to 
jiurchase  from  a  certain  dealer  or 
manufacturer,  which  is  the  founda- 
tion for  any  expectation  that  i)ur- 
chases  will  continue,  may  depend  on 
many  things  besides  place.  Con- 
fidence in  tlie  (juality  of  the  goods, 
in  the  faeilitit-s  t>f  the  establish- 
ment to  fill  orders  promjitly,  or 
ill  the  personal  integrity  or  skill 
of  a  dealer  or  manufacturer,  fiimil 
iarity  of  the  public  with  a  desig- 
nating  name   fur   the  product,   and 


221 


GOODWILL. 


[§95 


property;"'  the  name  and  style  under  wliieli  its  business 
lias  been  conducted  is  a  part  of  tlie  {goodwill.'  Cori)oratioii8 
may  acquire  goodwill,  just  as  natural  persons,  and  an  assignee 
of  th(3  corporate  fi:ood\vill  and  business  may  use  the;  old  cor- 
porate name,  either  with  or  without  an  iiicorj)oration." 

That  goodwill  attaches  to  the  capital  stock.  "There  is  no 
goodwill  in  a  share  of  stock  over  and  above  the  goodwill  which 
belongs  to  the  corporation,  and  if  the  corporation  sells  and 
conveys  all  that  it  possesses  'capable  of  private  owTiership,'  it 
sells  and  conveys  Lta  goodwill,  and  there  is  nothing  left  of 
goodwill  or  anything  else  belonging  to  the  stockholders."^ 

Goodwill  which  is  local,  and  not  personal  in  nature,  will 
pass  to  the  /rustee  in  bankruj^tcy.*^ 

§95.  In  particular  cases. — "As  applied  to  a  newspaper,  the 
goodwill  usually  attaches  to  its  name  rather  than  to  the  place 
of  publication.  The  probability  of  the  title  continuing  to 
attract  custom  in  the  way  of  circulation  and  advertising 
pSjTonage,  gives  a  value  which  may  be  protected  and  disposed 
of  and  constitutes  property.  "'^ 


probabh'  many  otlier  oircumatanccs, 
might  1)0  mi'iitionod  as  illustrative. 
The  goodwill  is  a  sort  of  beaten 
pathway  from  the  seller  to  the 
buyer,  usually  established  and  made 
easy  of  passage  by  years  of  effort 
and  expense  in  advertising,  solicita- 
tion, and  recommendation  by  travel- 
ing agents,  exhibition  tests  or  dis- 
plays of  goods,  often  by  acquaint- 
ance with  local  dealers  wlio  enjoy 
confidence  of  tlu'ir  own  neighbors, 
and  the  like."  Rowell  v.  Rowell, 
122  Wis.  1.  17. 

"The  peculiar  right,  or  rather  ex- 
pectancy, called  'goodwill,'  assumes 
tliat  certain  business  has  been  es- 
tablished and  carried  on  at  some 
specific  place.  It  consists  in  the 
probability,  based  upon  the  habits 
of  men,  that  the  persons  who  have 
been  accustomed  to  deal  with  that 
business,  at  that  specific  place,  as 
well  as  others  will  continue  to  go 


to  such  place  and  deal  in  the 
future."  Pomeroy,  Eq.  Juris. 
§  135");  adopted  by  Stewart,  J.,  ilV 
Kaufmann  v.  Kaufmann,  2;J9  Pa. 
42;    86   Atl.    Rep.    634. 

4— Iman  v.  Inkster,  90  Xeb.  704; 
134   X.    W.    Rep.   265. 

5 — James  Van  Dyk  Co.  v.  F.  V. 
Reilly  Co.,  130  N.  Y.  S.  755;  73 
Misc.    Rep.    87. 

0— United  States  L.  &  H.  Co.  v. 
United  States  L.  &  H.  Co.,  181  Fed. 
Rep.   182,  184. 

7 — Mr.  Justice  Brewer,  in  San 
Francisco  Natl.  Bank  v.  Dodge,  197 
U.   S.  70,  93 ;   49  L.  Ed.  669. 

8— Loveland.    Bankrujitcy,    §  390. 

9 — Metropolitan  Bank  v.  St. 
Louis  Dispatch  Co.,  149  U.  S.  436- 
446;  37  L.  Ed.  799;  affirming  s.  c, 
36  Fed.  Rep.  722.  To  the  same  effect 
see  Porter  v.  Gorman.  65  Ga.  11; 
Dayton  v.  Wilkes,  17  How.  Pr.  510. 

The    goodwill    and    name    of    a 


§95] 


IIOI'KINS   ON    TRADKMAKKS. 


Goodwill  is  an  appurtenant  of  ovtM-y  form  of  bnsinoss  wliicli 
relies  diret'tly  upon  pnhlic  favor.  "Hut  tiie  terms  jjoodwill 
and  bnsiness  are  not  synonynions.  (ioodwill,  like  a  trade- 
mark, is  but  an  ineitlent  to.  and  can  have  no  existence  apart 
from,  the  bnsiness  in  which  it  had  its  ori{^in.'"  '"  We  find  in 
the  books  eases  in  which  the  existence  of  a  valwai)le  j^oodwill 
is  found  as  appurtenant  to  a  wide  ranpe  of  mercantile  pur- 
suits; as.  for  example,  in  tlic  business  of  tlonr  and  grain  mer- 
chants." the  manufacture  of  patent  medicines.'-  and  of  ferro 
plates  and  j)icture  frames.'"'  the  business  of  a  sta^'c-line."  a 
livery-stable.'"'  a  milk-route,"'  a  drinking  saloon,'"  or  where 
the  owners  of  the  <roodwill  were  baidvcrs,'^  bakers,'"  glass- 
stainers.-"  haberdashers.^'  plas.s-blowers,--  brewers,--''  hard- 
ware dealers.-'  tailors,-'  cheesemongers.-''  provision  mer- 
chants,-^ manufacturing  chemists,-'*  real  estate  and  fire  in- 
surance agents,--'  commission  agents,-'"  mercers,-"  i)aper-nuik- 
ers,'^-  pencil-makers,^''  hotel  or  |)\il)lie-house  keepers,-'^  whiskey 


ni-wspapiT  may  attucli  to  the  print- 
ing plant,  t*«)  as  to  lu-  vested  in 
the  lessee  of  the  jilant.  Lane  v. 
Smythe,   40   X.   .1.    Kq.   44:{-4r)4. 

10 — Van  ()rsd»l,  .1.,  in  Mayer 
Fertilizer  &  .lunk  ("o.  v.  \'ir;rinia- 
Carolina  C'hem.   Co.,  :}.'>   App.   1).  C. 

42.");   ir.o  o.  ('..  r>:j!). 

11— Menendez  v.  Holt,  128  U.  S. 
-.14 -.522;  32  L.   Ed.   '.20. 

12 — Brown  Cliemical  Co.  v. 
^leyer,  31  Fed.  Rep.  4r.3;  8.  c,  V.W 
r.  S.  .'.40;   3.->  L.  Kd.  247. 

13 — Uean  v.  Knierson,  102  Mass. 
480. 

14_l>i,.ree  V.   Full.r.  H  Mass.  22S. 

15 — HerlM-rt  v.  Diijiaty,  42  La. 
Ann.  343. 

10 — Munsey  v.  Ihitterli.-ld,  i:t:t 
Mbhh.  41)2. 

17— H«.ward  v.  layior.  !>0  Ala. 
241. 

18 — Smith  V.  Kvirt-tt.  27  Heiivan, 
440. 

lJI_C„Htelh.  V.  Kddy,  12  N.  Y. 
Supp.  230. 

2i>_.Kc<.tt  V.  ICnwland.  20  \V.  I{. 
208. 


21— /m    (-r-   Randall's   Kstati-,  S   N. 

V.  Supp.  or>2. 

2-2 — Featherstonliau^h  v.  Fen- 
wick,   17  Ves.  2ns. 

2.*]— Hall  V.  Hall.  -Jo  Reavan.  130. 

24 — Thompson  v.  Andriis,  73 
Mieh.    .-..">  1. 

2") — Parsons  v.  Tlaywanl.  .U  I,. 
.J.  Ch.  000. 

20 — Hudson  v.  Dsl.orn.-.  30  L.  .1. 
Ch.  70. 

27— Seott  V.  Maekintosh.  1  V.  4. 
H.    -.03. 

28— Turner  v.   Major.  3  CilT.  442. 

20— Armstrong  v.  Hitner,  71  Md. 
118;  Tliompson  v.  \Vinn<'hago  Coun- 
ty,  48    Iowa,    1  ").->. 

:tO — Maedonald    v.     Ri(-hardson,    I 

(liir.  SI. 

31  — Morri.s  v.  Moss,  2.">  L.  .1.  Ch. 
1!I4. 

'■i'l-  Potter  V.  Commissioners  of 
Inland   Revenue.   10   Kx.   147. 

3.3 — Hanks  v.  (iihson,  :!  I  Riavan. 
.-|00. 

.34_Spr«itt  V.  .leffery.  lo  R.  &  C. 
249;  T^aslius  v.  Charnlierlain,  0 
I'tah,  38.'-.;    KIliotfH  Aj.peal,  00  Pa. 


223  GOODWIM..  l§9-'> 

merchants,-''^'  dyers,'"'  dealers  in  works  of  art  and  artists'  ma- 
terials,''' dealers  in  boots  and  shoes,''''  tobacco  brokers,''"  hide 
dealers,'"  snuff  makers,"  upholsterers.''-  iron  masters,^''  deal- 
ers in  seeds,  grain  aiui  plants,"  carriers,''  milliners;^"  and 
as  we  "will  see  elsewhere,  physicians,  solicitoi-s  and  attoi-neys 
may  have  a  vendible  goodwill. 

It  is  jiatent  that  a  goodwill  may  be  created  in  cr)nnection 
with  any  business,  enterprise,  oceuj)ation  or  profession.  The 
older  cases  exjires.sly  denied  the  existence  of  a  goodwill  which 
could  be  the  sid)ject  of  sale,  in  connection  with  the  learned 
professions.  Thus,  Lord  Chancellor  riielmsford,  as  recently 
as  1858,  said:  "The  term  goodwill  seems  wholly  inapplicable 
to  the  business  of  a  solicitor,  which  has  no  local  existence, 
but  is  entirely  personal,  depending  upon  the  trust  and  confi- 
dence which  persons  may  repose  in  his  integrity  and  ability 
to  condiu't  their  legal  affairs."  '' 

That  there  is  good  reasoning  in  this  dictum  can  not  be 
denied.  In  a  case  of  later  date,  in  Scotland,  it  was  said :  "There 
is  truly  no  such  thing  as  goodwill  in  the  case  of  a  business 
carried  on  by  a  professional  man,  such  as  a  physician,  surgeon, 
or  law  agent,  whose  success  depends  entirely  upon  his  own 
personal  skill.  It  is  quite  different  in  the  case  of  a  trade  or 
manufacture,  where  the  employer  may  have  the  possession 
of  patents  or  trade  secrets,  or  may,  l)y  long  exercise  of  his 
trade  or  manufacture  in  some  particular  locality,  have  drawn 

St.    Kil  :     ^[ussclnian    &    Clarkson's  42 — Chissum    v.    Dowes,    5    Russ. 

Appeal,  (!2  Pa.  St.  81.  20. 

35— Kidd   V.    Johnson,    100   U.    S.  43— Hall  v.  Barrows,  4  DcO.  J.  & 

617;  25  L.  Ed.  760.  S.    1.50. 

36 — Bryson  v.  Whitohoad,  1   S.  &  44 — Iowa    Sood    Co.    v.    Dorr,    70 

S.  74.  Ta.   481. 

37 — Knoodlcr  v.  Boussod,  47  Fed.  4.") — Cruttwcll  v.  Lvo,  17  Ves.  33/i. 

Rep.  46.");   Knocdier  v.  Glaenzer,  55  46 — Shackle  v.  Baker,  14  Ves.  468. 

Fed.  Rep.  805.  47 — Austen    v.    Boys,    2    DeGex   & 

38— Curtis    V.    Cokey,    68    X.    Y.  Jones,    626-636.      And    to    the    same 

300.  effect    see    Sheldon    v.    Houirhton,    5 

30— Daviea   v.    IIod-,'son,    25    Bea-  Blatchf.    285,    201,    Fed.    Case    No. 

van,   177.  12,748;    Craver  v.    Acme   Harvester 

40— Goodman    v.    Henderson,    58  Co..  200  HI.  483 ;  70  N.  E.  Rep.  1047, 

Ga.  567.  athrminfi    Acme    Harvester    Co.    v. 

41 — Hammond  v.  Douglas,  5  Ves.  Craver,   110   111.   App.   413. 
539. 


95] 


lldPKIN'S    ON    TRAHRMAIIKS. 


224 


topothor  skilled  artisans  and  attracted  the  custom  of  a  district 
to  his  establishment.  In  sueh  a  case  it  is  not  the  individual 
skill  of  the  enii>loyer.  hut  the  reputation  wiiich  his  cstahlish- 
ment  has  ac(juired.  which  creates  lliat  incorporeal,  but 
fre(piently  valuable,  estate  known  as  the  '  j^oodwill "  of  a  trade- 
But  there  is  no  sueii  thinj;  in  the  case  of  a  professional  man. 
His  business  dies  with  him.  and  the  man  who  comes  after  him 
in  the  district  must  depend  for  success  upon  his  own  exertions. 
It  is  quite  true  that  such  businesses  are  occasionally  sold;  but 
wlmt  is  thus  sold  in  case  of  a  living  professional  man  retiring 
from  business  is  tndy  the  personal  recommendation  which 
the  seller  gives  to  his  former  clients  or  patients  in  favor  of 
his  successor,  coupled  with  the  jiredeeessor's  own  retirement 
from  business.  But  where  tjje  physician  oi'  law  agent  is 
dead,  nothing  of  the  kind  can  take  place,  lie  has  been 
removed  by  death  from  all  possibility  of  competing  with  the 
new  doctor  or  the  new  solicitor,  and  his  voice  being  forever 
silenced,  he  can  not  give  any  recommendation  to  his  clients  or 
l)atients."  ^^ 

While  the  courts  have,  for  the  reasons  stated,  looked  with 
disfavor  upon  executory  contracts  for  the  sale  of  the  goodwill 
of  a  i)rofessional  man's  practice,  and  have  refused  to  decree 


48 — Lord  (iirrifliill  in  Rain  v. 
^(unro.  1')  Scot.  L.  Rt-p.  '2i\0.  It 
lias  l)C't*n  lu'ld  that  tlu'  goodwill  of 
an  attorney  was  not  a  subject  of 
administration.  Spice  v.  James, 
Seb.  4fl;  Arundell  v.  Bell,  02  L.  J. 
Ch.   -..37. 

In  an  early  case,  however,  it  was 
held  that  a  contract  entered  into 
by  a  practicing  attorney  to  relin- 
quish practice,  recommend  his 
clients  to  his  successor,  that  he 
would  not  practice  within  certain 
limits,  and  would  permit  the  us*- 
of  his  name  in  the  flrnt  name  of  his 
successor  for  a  certain  period,  was 
gotKl  in  law.  (IHO.'Ji  Hunn  v.  CJuy, 
4  Kast,  Hid.  And  in  a  similar  case, 
where  a  wilicitor  sohl  his  jtractice 
and  agrei-d  not  to  [iraeticc  in  (!reat 


Britain  for  twenty  years.  Lord  Lang- 
dale  lield  the  contract  valid  and 
iiinding  on  the  vendor,  and  he  was 
enjoined  from  attemj.ting  to  re- 
sume his  practice  in  CJreat  Britain 
•luring  the  specified  time.  (I84I) 
Whittaker   v.  Howe,  3   Beavan,  :{S:{. 

Hut  the  courts  have  refused  to 
decree  sp«'cific  jwrformance  of  a 
contract  for  the  sale  of  an  attor- 
ney's practice.  Bo/on  v.  Farlow,  1 
Mer.  4.->!»;  Seb.  22;  Thornl>ury  v. 
Bevill,  1  Y.  A  C".  Ch.  -..'-.4;  (5  .lur. 
407;   Seb.   71. 

And  wliere  a  niemlier  of  a  firm 
of  surgeons  died,  it  was  held  that 
the  survivor  could  not  be  oblig«>d 
to  sell  the  goodwill  of  the  prac- 
tice for  the  joint  benefit  of  him- 
Helf     and      IiIm     deci-ased      |iartner*s 


225 


GOODWILL. 


[§9G 


specific  pcrroniiaiico  under  sudi  contracts,^''  still  wiien  Die 
sale  is  c<)nii)l('ti'  and  tlic  conlract  |)artly  rxccutcd,  its  terms 
will  be  (Miforcecl.""'  flms  wlicre  a  solicitor  ri'tircd,  permitting 
his  partner  to  eontiinie  tiie  use  of  the  firm  luime,  ni  (-(jiisidera- 
tion  of  an  annuity  to  he  paid  him,  an<l  the  continuing'  |)artner 
defaulted  in  the  payment  of  the  annuity,  tlie  contract  was 
specifically  enforced/'' 

In  the  United  States  there  have  ))een  frecpient  instances  of 
the  sale  of  the  f^oodwill  of  a  medical  |)ractitioner,  and  con- 
tracts for  such  sales  have  been  uniforndy  held  f,'ood.'^'- 

There  «iay  be  goodwill  attaching  to  a  remedy  and  a  method 
of  treatment  in  which  it  is  em  ployed. •'^^^ 

§96.  As  a  subject  of  sale.— "The  goodwill  of  a  trade  is 
a  subject  of  value  and  ])riee.     Tt  may  be  sold,  bequeathed,  or 


(•state,  Vici'-ChanccUor  Leach  re- 
markiii},'  tliat  '"sucli  partiiersliips 
are  very  dilfereiit  from  commer- 
cial partnerships."  Farr  v.  Pearcc, 
3   Madd.  74. 

4»— See  hist  note. 

50 — Hanna  v.  Andrews,  oO  la. 
462;   Sraalley  v.  Greene,  52  la.  241. 

51— Auhin  v.  Holt,  2  K.  &  J.  6G. 

52 — Wehster  v.  Williams,  G2 
Ark.  101;  M  S.  W.  Rep.  537; 
Bradhury  v.  Barden,  :i'>  Conn.  577; 
^lartin  v.  Mnrpliy,  12".)  Ind.  464; 
Pickett  V.  Green,  120  Ind.  584; 
Hoyt  V.  Holly,  :5'.)  Conn.  326;  Gil- 
man  V.  I)svi>;ht,  13  Gray,  356; 
Dwiffht  V.  Hamilton,  113  Mass. 
175;  WarfieUl  v.  Booth,  33  Md.  63; 
Miller  V.  KeeU-r,  9  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R. 
274;  Butler  v.  Burleson,  16  Vt. 
176;  Ticiu-nor  v.  Newman,  186  111. 
264;  57  X.  E.  Rep.  826. 

But,  to  the  contrary,  see  Man- 
deville  v.  Harman,  42  X.  J.  Eq.  185. 
In  this  case  the  covenant  was  as 
follows:  "In  consideration  of  this 
contract,  made  with  him  hy  the 
said  Mandoville,  the  said  Harman 
herehy    covenants    and    agrees    not 


to  en{,'a<;e  in  tlie  practice  of  medi- 
cine or  surjjery  in  the  city  of 
Xewark  at  any  time  hereafter." 
The  court  held  that  the  law  was 
unsettled  as  lo  whether  such  a 
contract  was  or  was  not  void  as  in 
restraint  of  trade,  and  therefore 
denied  the  preliminary  injunction 
scught   for. 

"In  the  practice  of  dentistry,  the 
personal  qualities  of  integrity,  pro- 
fessional skill  and  ability  attach 
to  and  follow  the  person,  not  the 
place."  Braley,  .T.,  in  Foss  v.  Roby, 
mi  Mass.  202,  207;  81  X.  E.  Rep. 
100;  10  L.  R.  A.  (N.S.)  1200. 
To  the  same  edect  see  Hutchinson  v. 
Xay,  187  Mass.  262;  72  X.  E.  Rep. 
074;  68  L.  R.  A.  186;  :Moore  v. 
Rawson,  100  Mass.  404;  85  X.  E. 
Rep.  586;  Wightman  v.  Wiglitman 
(^lass.).  Ill  X.  E.  Rep.  881. 

As  to  the  sale  hy  a  physician  of 
his  interest  in  the  goodwill  of  his 
firm,  see  Mills  v.  Ressler,  87  Kan. 
.")40;    125  Pac.   Rep.  58. 

r,.3_Pop,..Turnho  v.  Bedford,  147 
Mo.   App.  602:    127  S.   \V.   Ri-p.  426. 


§  9GJ  HOPKINS   ON    TRADEM AKKS.  226 

become  assets  in  the  hands  of  tlio  |)ers()iuil  representative  of 
a  trailer."'"*  or  it  may  be  niortjra^'cil.'"' 

It  may  he  oi  ;rroater  vahie  than  the  stork  of  <;oo(|s  oi-  j)hint 
of  maehinery  with  whieh  tlie  business  is  eai-ricd  on,'"'  or  it 
nuiy  attai'li  to  the  mere  name  of  a  pnhlication  and  liave  a 
dotinite  value  apart  from  and  in  no  wise  dependent  npoji  any 
tnnpible  property.''" 

It  ean  not  be  sold,  by  a  judicial  decree  or  otherwise,  apart 
from  the  business  with  which  it  is  connected.''** 

It  may  be  jriven,  topethor  with  the  business  with  which  it 
is  connected,  in  payment  for  stock  in  a  corporation,  so  that 
stock  issued  solely  for  such  jroodwill  will,  to  the  extent  of  it.s 
value,  be  issued  for  "property  actually  received"  within  the 
meaninfr  of  section  42  of  the  stock  corporation  law  of  the 
state  of  New  York.''"  The  froodwill  of  a  domestic  corporation 
is  jiroperty  which  is  taxable  as  part  of  its  capital  stock.''''* 
That  of  a  foreijjrn  corporation  is  liahle  to  taxation  "at  the 
place  where  it  has  a  market  value."''* 

A  stockholder  (lu)ldinfr  less  than  all  of  its  stock)  can  not 
transfer  the  goodwill  of  a  corporation.'*- 

It  is  clear  that  the  jroodwill  of  a  jirofessional  man  can  not 
be  made  the  subject  of  involuntary  sale.  In  the  laufrimpre  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Tennessee,  "certainly  there  can  be  no 
forced  sale  or  transfer  in  i}iritii}n  of  such  (professional)  good- 
will so  far  as  it  is  based  upon  professiotial  reputation  and 
standing]:,  such  as  ai'iscs  from  the  skill  of  i)h>sicians,  dentists, 

.')4 — Tindnl.  (".  .).,  in  Hitc'lu-ock  v.  all    of    tlic    ftssots    of    llic    luisiiu-ss. 

("okcr,  0  Ad.  &  K.  •12S-4:)4.  S.  F.  Mvitk  Co.  v.    Inttl.-.   IS.'l   I<Vd. 

.')') — Mctnipdlituii    National    liaiik  Ilt'|).    2.'J."». 
V.    St.   Loiiin  Dispatili    I'n.,   :i(!    I'cd.  "i!) — Washlnini    v.    National    Wall 

P.p.  722,  724.  I'iifMT  Co.,  81   ImmI.  H.p.  17. 

.-,r»_\VasI,l,iirn    v.    National    Wall  CO— Matt. t   of    Ilondaycr,    l.')0   N. 

I'apiT  Co.,  HI  K.-d.  Hi-p.  17-20.  V.  :;7.     Tliat  tii.-  ;:ood\vill  of  n  nowa- 

ri7 — .Mi-trop<ditun      Kaiik      v.      St.  paper    is    not    ta.xaldc    hi-c    Hart    v. 

U>niH  DinpaUh  Co.,    Hit   T.   S.   430-  Smitli.  ITT)  Ind.   1S2;   (i4  N.  K.  Hop. 

44fi;   ;{7  L.   Kd.  7n9:   Boon  v.   Mohh,  (Wtl;    .'iS   L.    1!.    .\     !M!t.    O.".   .\ni.  St. 

70  N.  Y.  4n.">.  l?<p.    2S0. 

.^,8— RolMTtHon       v.       (^liildin;,'!"".  f.l  — Pcopli-   v.    15ol..rtH.    i:>l>    N.  Y. 

28   15<'avan.    r.2n;    M.tn.pcditan    Na  70;    -VT    N.    K.    H.p.    (iS:.;    P.Hipl.-   v. 

tional    Hank    v.    St.    F.<iuiH    DiHpatcli  AIor;.'aM,  0(5  App.    Div.    110. 
Co.,  .'{0  Fed.  Il.-p.  722  724;  h.  <•.,  14n  02— Sprin;;    Valliv    Wat.r    Workn 

V.   S.    430-440.      Iliit    til.-   pnnliaH.r  v.  Schottl<T,  02  Cal.  W,  118. 
of    till'  goodwill    n<M-il    not    piinluiBw 


227 


(JOODWII.L. 


[§96 


attorneys,  etc,  wlialcvcr  iii;iy  Ix-  done  as  to  sueli  goodwill 
as  ai'ises  out  of  local  i<tn. '    '• 

It  must  he  I'eiiieiiihered  tliat  the  ti'adeiuarks  and  tlie  good- 
will of  a  husinoss  arc  inscparahle.  We  liuve  seen  elsewhere 
that  a  ti'adeiuarU  can  lia\('  no  existence  in  gross.  It  is  strictly 
appui'teiiant  to  the  goodwill  of  the  husines.s  in  which  it  is 
used.'''  And  so  it  has  heen  said  of  goodwill  that  "while  it  is 
not  necessarily  local,  it  is  usually  to  a  great  extent,  and  must 
of  necessity.  ])e  incident  to  a  place,  an  established  husiness,  or 
a  name  knov.n  to  the  trade.""-"' 

In  a  eonveyance  of  goodwill,  however,  apt  words  should  he 
cnij)loyed.  Thus  it  lias  heen  held  that  tlie  goodwill  was  not 
covered  l)y  a  clause  in  a  contract  of  partnership  i-elating  to 
the  pai'tnersliip  "property,  credits  and  effects,'*  or  "stock  in 
trade  and  effects. " '"■•  And  a  similar  holding  has  been  made 
in  regard  to  the  words  "premises,  stock  in  trade,  etc.,'""''  as 
well  as  where  the  words  "estate  and  effects"  were  used  in 
])artnership  articles.'""'^ 

On  the  otlier  liajid,  Ijord  Westbury  construed  the  words, 
"stock  belonging  to  tlie  partnership,"  to  include  the  good- 
will,''-' and  other  eminent  judges  have  held  goodwill  to  be 
included  in  the  words  "moneys,  stock  in  trade,  debts,  efTects 
and  things,"'"  and  "jiroperty  and  effects,"^'  ^\hile  \'ice- 
Chancellor  ]\ralins  said:  "The  sale  of  a  business  is  a  sale  of 
the  goodwill.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  W'ord  'goodwill' 
should  be  mentioned.  *  *  *  In  the  sale  of  a  business  a 
trademark  ])asses,  Avhetlier  sjiecially  mentioned  or  not."     He 


(■)3— \VilI<fS,  J.,  in  Slack  v.  Sud- 
dotli,    102    Tcnn.    :57r). 

64 — "Aa  iin  al)stnut  rii^Mit,  apart 
from  tlic  article  niamifacturod,  a 
trademark  can  not  be  sold,  the  rea- 
son beinfj  that  such  transfer  would 
be  a  fraud  upon  the  public."  Colt, 
J.,  in  ^lorfran  v.  Roarers,  10  Fed. 
Rep.  500.  And  to  same  elTect, 
Witthaus  V.  Braun.  44  Md  303; 
Hoxie  V.  Chaney,  143  Mass.  r)02;  10 
N.  E.  Rpp.  713;  Russia  Cement  Co. 
V.  Lepajie,  147  Mass.  206;  17  N, 
E.   Rep.   304. 


6") — Vaiin.  J.,  in  People  v.  Rob- 
erts, ir)0  X.  Y.  70-83;  r)3  N.  E.  Rep. 
(JSf);    4.-.   L.    R.   A.   126. 

66— Hall  V.  Hall.  20  Beavan.  130. 

67 — Burfield  v.  Rouch,  31  Bea- 
van, 241. 

r,S— Rtonart  v.  Gladstone,  L.  R. 
10  Ch.  D.  646. 

60— Hall  V.  Barrows,  4  DeC.  J. 
&   S.    l.-)0. 

70— Rolt  V.  Bulmer,  Seb.  614. 

71— Reynolds  v.  Bullock,  47  L.  J. 
Ch.   773. 


§  96]  norKiNs  on  xRAnEMARKS.  228 

accordiin:ly  held  that  poodwill  was  included  in  an  assignment 
that  conveyed  all  the  assipnor's  interest  in  the  partnership 
premises  and  effects,  without  speciiically  referring  to  tlie  },'ood- 
will."'-  In  a  suit  Idr  the  specific  performance  of  a  contract 
for  the  purchase  of  a  share  in  a  business,  in  which  the  expres- 
sion "goodwill,  etc.,"  was  employed,  Lord  Komilly  was  of 
opinion  that  "these  words  are  connected  to{?ether,  and  unite 
siu'h  other  thinps  as  are  necessarily  connected  with  and  belong 
to  the  goodwill,  many  of  which  are  easily  jiointed  out;  for 
instance,  the  use  of  trademarks.  •  •  •  AH  these  would 
be  included  in  the  words  tt  crtrra,  and  would  be  included  in 
the  conveyance.**  '•'' 

The  words  "business  connections  and  patronage"  have  been 
lield  to  convey  the  goodwill.""* 

In  this  connection  it  is  to  be  noted  that  there  are  two  general 
classes  of  goodwill — general  and  local.  The  distinction  is  well- 
drawn  in  an  English  case,  as  follows:  "In  some  clas.ses  of 
business,  when  the  trade  has  long  been  carried  on  in  a  profit- 
able manner  in  a  jiarticular  house,  and  a  new  tenant  comes  in 
and  continues  to  carry  on  the  same  business  there,  it  is  found 
by  exi)erience  that  many,  if  not  all,  of  the  customers  resort 
there  as  before.  This  is  found  so  regularly  to  happen  that  it 
has  become  usual  to  pay  money  value  for  it,  which  is  commonly 
called  'goodwill.'  It  may  be  that  there  nuiy  be  a  species  of 
goodwill  which  may  be  the  subject  of  bargain  and  sale, 
although  not  dependent  on  the  business  being  carried  on  in 
any  jiarticidar  ])lace;  for  instance,  in  the  case  of  what  are 
called  '(luack-medicines.'  But  when  we  come  to  speak  of  the 
goodwill   of  a    i)ublic-house,   it    is   obvious   that    it    is   a   thing 

72 — .Ship\vrij;lit     v.     Clfincntrt.     IK  in   th.'   liv.ry   luisiiicss  in  opposition 

W.  R.  .')90.     Hut  a  iimrtfia;.'!'  of  tlir  to    tln'    vctuIci',    whs    eonstnu'd    to 

I'litiro  aHM-tH  of  a  huHincsH  dwK  not  coiivry    tin-  ^roodwill;    tlw   oovi-nant 

ncci-KHarily     incliid*-     the     ^'oodwill.  not     to     ri-<-n;.'a;.M'    "would     import, 

Santt-   Vf   Kli-ctric   Co.   v.    Hitclioock  ni-n-ssarily,    tin-    salt-    of    the    pmd- 

Jt  N«'W  M«'X.    l.')«;  r,()  Puc.  Hep.  :V.\2.  will      *      *      *      as  .•fT.ctually  as    if 

7.3 — C'<M>piT    V.    lloo<l,    2(J    Ht-avan,  tliat     t.rin     had     hct-n     incorporated 

2!).l.  in   the   writin-r."     MfClclhin,  J.,   in 

74_K«-no»;     V.     Tottrn.     in     AM..  Smith    v.    WVI.Ii,    170    Ala.    500;    iiS 

I'r.   n.V     A   hill  «)f  wih'  of  a  "livery  S...    Hop.   913. 
outfit"  with  a  covenant  not  to  engage 


229  GOOUWIM-.  [§97 

whieh  is  attached  to  a  locality."'^'  In  accordance  with  this 
rule,  whenever  the  ^roodwill  is  local,  in  the  sense  of  bein^f 
attached  to  a  jiarticular  house  or  store,  it  will  jiass  with  a  sale 
of  the  lease  of  the  Iradint,'  premises,'"  or  the  sale  of  a  public 
house,"  or  even  a  tailoring  establishment."** 

§97.  Goodwill  subject  to  proceedings  in  eminent  domain, 
—Where  the  goodwill  of  a  business  transacted  on  particular 
premises  has  been  injured  by  the  invasion  of  the  realty  in 
eminent  domain  proceedings,  the  Massachusetts  court  has  said 
that  such  goodwill  of  a  lessee  or  owner  "is  not  property  for 
which  damages  can  be  included,  and  is  to  be  considered  only 
so  far  as  it  tends  to  embrace  the  market  value  of  the  estate 
that  is  injured."  '•' 

§  98.  Goodwill  in  its  relation  to  firm  and  other  names. — 
While  the  unity  existing  between  goodwill  and  trademarks 
is  clearly  defined,  the  subject  of  tradenames  or  firm-names  in 
their  relation  to  goodwill  is  attended  with  some  difficulty. 
The  general  rule  has  been  well  stated  by  Vice-Chancellor 
Wood,  as  follows:  "The  name  of  a  firm  is  a  very  important 
part  of  the  goodwill  of  the  business  carried  on  by  the  firm. 
A  person  says:  'I  have  always  bought  good  articles  at  such 
a  house  of  business:  I  know  it  by  that  name,  and  I  send  to 
the  house  of  business  identified  by  that  name  for  that  purpose.' 
There  are  cases  every  day  in  this  court  with  reference  to  the 
use  of  the  name  of  a  particular  firm,  connected  generally,  no 
doubt,  Avith  the  question  of  trademark.  But  the  question  of 
trademark  is  in  fact  the  same  question.  The  firm  stamps 
its  name  on  the  articles.  It  stamps  the  name  of  the  firm 
which  is  carrying  on  the  business  on  each  article,  as  a  proof 
that  they  emanate  from  the  firm;  and  it  becomes  the  known 
firm  to  which  applications  are  made,  just  as  much  as  when 
a  man  enters  a  shop  in  a  particular  locality.     And  when  you 

7->_Ll,.^v,.llyn    V.    Rutherford.    L.  Cli.    D.    220;     Elliott's    Appeal.    On 

R.   10  C.  V.  4M^.  I'a.    St.    101. 

76_Dauj,'1ifrty   v.    Van   Xostrand,  78— Parsons      v.      Haywanl,      31 

1   HofT.    C'li.    (X.   Y.)    08;    Williams  Hcavan,     100;     Chitton(K-n     v.     Wit- 

V.    Wilson,    4    Sandf.    Ch.    379.  luck,   ".0  Mich.  401-421. 

77— Ex  parte  Punnett,  L.   R.    10  70— Edmonds  v.  Boston,  108  Mass. 

549. 


§  99]  IIOPKIN".^   n\    TRADF.MARKS.  2'M 

nro  juirling  witli  tlio  j,'()o(l\vill  of  a  business,  \  uii  mean  to  part 
with  all  that  ^mmuI  disposition  whirh  rustonicrs  onlortain  to- 
wards the  liouso  of  husinrss  iiU'iitilicd  by  the  partii-ular  name 
or  lirni.  and  which  may  indm'C  tht'in  to  continue  ^nvinj;  their 
eustom  to  it.  ^'ou  can  not  put  it  anytliiuj,'  sliort  of  that. 
That  the  name  is  an  imj)ortant  paiM  of  the  jroodwill  of  a 
business  is  obvious,  wiien  we  eonsidei-  that  there  are  at  tlu.s 
moment  lar;re  banking'  finns.  and  brewin<r  firms,  and  others, 
in  this  metropolis,  wliich  do  not  coidain  a  sin«rle  member  of 
the  iiulividual  name  exposed  in  the  firm."**"  This  dietum, 
however,  is  flatly  o]>posed  to  the  rulin<rs  of  the  American 
courts,  that  the  sale  of  the  e'oodwill  of  a  business  earries  with 
it  no  rifrht  to  the  use  of  the  vendor's  name  as  the  name  of  the 
e.stablishment."'  altlumirh  the  purchaser  may  properly  adver- 
tise himself  as  bein<r  "siu'cessor  to"  his  veiulor.''-  And  the 
later  Enfrlish  cases  indicate  that  the  rule  has  been  somewhat 
modified  in  EnplancT.  Justice  Stir1in«2r  sayinpr.  "the  defendant 
is  entitled  to  use  the  plaintiff's  unmo  in  the  business  so  long 
and  so  far  as  he  does  not  by  so  doin<r  expose  him  to  any 
liability,  but  no  further."  «^  The  American  courts  have  very 
properly  pone  to  the  lenptli  of  holding'  that,  upon  the  with- 
drawal of  a  partner,  the  remaijiin«r  partners  will  l)e  enjoined 
from  continuinfr  the  use  of  a  firm  name  which  indicates  that 
the  withdrawinpr  partner  is  still  a  member  of  the  firm.*'* 
Where  the  name  is  not  a  proper  name,  its  subse(pu^nt  use 
by  the  vendor  of  the  jroodwill  will  of  course  be  enjoined.'*'^ 

§99.  Rights  of  vendor.-  The  vendor  of  the  «roodwill  of  a 
business  may.  in  tlw  al><eii<'e  of  any  agreement  to  the  contrary, 
re-enpapf*  iu  a  competitive  business.^'"' 

RO— ("hurtoM    V.    Douplaw,    .Tolins.  8.3— Thynne      v.      Sln)vi«,      L.     R. 

174.  (18i)0|    4."»  ("li.    I).    ")77  r)K2. 

81  — KtH)P<11rr      V.      (;in<-nz<T.      ').-.  84— McCowimi     v.     M. Cowan.     22 

Fid.    K«-i«.    8'».'V;    lUi-v.-H    V.    D.-nickc.  oliii)  Sf.  .17(1. 

12  Alili.    I'r.   \.   S.  02.  ^•'» — Drake   v.    Doilswortli.   •«    Kaa. 

82 — KiKM-dler      V.      (ilacn/iT,      ').">  l.'i!>. 

Fi-d.    lli'p.    8».-);    \VtM(!    V.    IVtrrHon,  8(1— Moxie    v     (linn.y.    \  \-i    Mush. 

12   Al.ti.    Tr.    N.    S.    178;    Smith    v.  .-.H2-r.n(i;     Id    N.    K.    Ke|>     7i:«:    r)8 

David    H.    Hrand    4    Co..    iM    N.     r  Am,    Rep     HH.     Ire-.,    v.    Hm.t.    Or. 

Fj].    r»2«;    /iS    Atl.    Ftefi.    1U20.  I.      '     <  I'     1 


231 


G(X)DWILL. 


§99 


As  said  by  Cliicr  Justice  I'i^'clow  in  llio  Supreme  ('ourt 
of  Massachusetts:  "Wlienever  such  is  the  intent  of  the  parties, 
it  is  carried  into  eilVet  l)y  an  express  stipuhition,  whieh,  if 
not  in  undue  restraint  ol"  trade,  may  be  valid  and  Ijinding, 
But  we  know  of  no  case  where  any  such  agreement  has  been 
raised  by  mere  imjilieation,  arising  from  the  sale  of  tlie  good- 
will of  a  person's  trade,  in  coinieetion  with  a  ])artieular  place 
of  business  where  it   lias  been  carried  on."''" 

In  a  later  case  involving  the  sale  of  the  goodwill  of  a  med- 
ical practice,  the  same  court  distinguished  the  facts  fi-oni  those 
in  the  case  quoted  fi-om.  and  held  that  a  sale  of  this  kind 
of  goodwill  contained  by  im])lication  a  covenant  not  to  re- 
engage in   the  medical   practice   in  the  same  locality. "** 

An  English  wi-i1er  has  said:  "As  the  decisions  at  present 
stand,  the  title  to  this  section  is  to  some  extent  misleading, 
inasmuch  as  the  legal  position  of  the  assignor  of  a  business, 
after  he  has  parted  with  it,  is  in  no  way  different  from  that 
of  any  other  member  of  the  jHiblic,  provided,  of  course,  that 
he  has  not  bound  himself  by  additional  restrictive  cove- 
nants."'*'^ Even  in  the  absence  of  express  stipulation,  good 
faith  requires  of  a  i)arty  who  has  sold  the  goodwill  of  his 
business  that  he  should  do  nothing   which  tends  to  dci)rive 


87 — Basactt  v.  PiTcival,  87  Mass. 
(')  Allen),  345-347;  and  to  the 
same  offoct  soc  I'ortcr  v.  Ciorman, 
65    Ga.    11;    Knocdlcr    v.    Boussod, 

47  Fed.  Rep.  40");  Kiioedler  v. 
Glaenzer,  55  Fed.  Rep.  S^r,;  Ber^'a- 
mini    v.   Bastien,   35    La.    Ann.    60; 

48  Am.  Rep.  216;  White  v.  Jones, 
1  A1)I).  Pr.  N.  S.  337;  Howe  v. 
Searing,  6  Bosw.  354 ;  Cnittwell  v. 
Lye,  17  Ves.  335;  Dayton  v.  Wilkes, 
17  How.  Pr.  516;  Hanna  v.  An- 
drews, 50  la.  462;  Cottnll  v.  Bab- 
cock  Mfg.  Co.,  54  Conn.  138;  Cos- 
tello  V.  Eddy,  128  N.  Y.  650;  Wil- 
liams V.  Farrand,  88  Mich.  473; 
Jackson  v.  Byrnes,  103  Tenn.  608; 
54  S.  W.  Rep.  984 ;  noll)rook  v.  Ncs- 
bit.  163  Mass.  120;  .30  X.  E.  Rep. 
794;    Grimm    v.    Walker,   45    Iowa, 


106;  Smith  v.  Gibbs,  44  N.  H.  335; 
!Moody  V.  Thomas,  1  Disney,  294; 
Wasliburn  v.  Dosch,  68  Wis.  430; 
32  X.  W.  Rep.  551;  Bradford  v. 
r<-ckham,  9  R.  I.  250;  Rupp  v. 
Over,  3  Brewst.  133;  Moreau  v.  Ed- 
wards, 2  Tenn.  Ch.  347;  Palmer  v. 
Graham,  1  Para.  Eq.  Cas.  476; 
Findlay  v.  Carson,  97  Iowa,  537; 
66  X.  W.  Rep.  759;  Drake  v.  Dods- 
worth,  4  Kansas,  135;  Ranft  v. 
Reimers,  200  111.  386;  60  L.  R.  A. 
291;  65  X.  E.  Rep.  720;  Counts  v. 
Medley,  163  Mo.  App.  546;  Wes- 
sell  V.  Havens,  91  X-eb.  426;  136 
X.  W.  Rep.  70. 

88— Dwipht  V.  Hamilton,  113 
Mass.   175. 

89— Allan  on  Goodwill,  p.   32. 


§  99]  nOPKlNS   ON    TRADEMARKS.  232 

\\\o  p\inliasor  of  its  benefits  and  ndvantnpos.  It  is  clear 
that  ho  has  no  ri^'ht  to  hold  liinisolf  out  as  i-ontinuing  the 
business  whieli  lie  sold  to  the  plaint ilT.  or  as  earryintf  on  his 
former  business  at  another  plaee  to  whieh  lie  has  reiiioved."" 
In  other  words,  in  every  ease  of  the  sale  of  a  j^oodwill  the 
vendor  nnist  not  enter  into  an  unfair  (•onip<'tition  with  his 
purehaser.'"  What  will  constitute  such  unfair  competition 
must  be  determined  in  tlie  lifxlit  of  all  the  facts  in  each  par- 
tieular  ease. 

The  Massachusetts  court  has  {rone  far  in  holdinir  the  ven- 
dor liable  to  liis  vendee,  in  the  absence  of  an  a;:reenient  not 
to  engafje  in  competing  business,  wherever  his  conduct  is  found 
to  be  unfair,  as  directly  teluVnif,'  to  destroy  the  vahu'  of  the 
proodwill  conveyed  by  him.  In  the  lan^'ua{;e  of  that  court, 
"in  each  case  where  the  <roodwill  of  a  l)usiness  is  sold  and 
the  vendor  sets  up  a  competing  business  it  is  a  question  of  fact 
whether,  liaving  regard  to  the  character  of  the  business  sold 
and  that  set  up,  the  new  l)usiness  docs  or  docs  not  derogate 
from  the  grant  made  by  that  sale.""^  In  this  regard,  it 
would  seem  clear  that  ccpiity  should,  even  in  the  absence  of 
breach  of  contract,  hold  the  vendor  to  a  high  degree  of  care 
in  the  installation  and  conduct  of  a  business  closely  com- 
petitive with  that  which  he  has  sold. 

As  to  what  length  he  may  go  in  soliciting  his  former  cus- 
tomers, some  courts"''  grant  him  a  much  greater  latitude  than 
others.®* 

00— Iloxir    V.    riian.-y,    14.3    Mush.  I^arhcldcr.  220  Mass.    17.3. 
.'>n2-r>97;    in  N.   K.   H.p.  713;   IlallH  9.3— C'ottnU   v.    Hal.cock    Printin;; 

Appeal,   (1(1    I'a.    4.-.S:    KiO   Am.    Doc.  Press  Co.,  M  Conn.    122;    Willianirt 

.'•.84;    Knocdl.T  v.  r;iacn/.<T.  5  ('.   (".  v.     Fnrrand.    88    Mich.     473;     Finli 

A.  30.1;   .''..-.  Fell.  Pi'i).  H!).-..  Hros.  Wafjcn  Co.  v.   Landl."  Wnpon 

01— S.    F.    Myors    Co.    v.    Tndl.'.  Works,   82   Wis.    r.4(5. 
188  Ffd.  Rep.  .')32.  "4 — Snyder   Pastc\iri/i(l   Milk  Co. 

92— Ix.rinjr.     J.,     in     ()1<1     Corner  v.    Hiirton,    H2    N.    .1.    K<|.    IS'*;    Von 

BcK)k    Store    V.    I'pliam.    194    .Mass.  Krenien    v.    MacMonnies,  200   N.   Y. 

101.    lO.l:    SO   N.   K.    R«'p.   228.      For  41;    Rnnft  v.   Heimers.  200  III.  3S(;; 

other       illuHtrative      MassnehnBottH  Wentzel    v.    Pari. in.     189    Pa.    r)02; 

cawH.     we    Cordon    v.     Knott,     199  Prown    v.    Pen/inp-r.    118    Md.    20; 

MaBH.    173:   Marshall    Kn^'ine  Co.   v.  Zanturjian   v.    po(.rna/.ian,  2.''>   R.   T. 

New  Mar«hall  Kn^'ine  Co..  203  MasH.  l.^^.l.      "Ah   the   continued   patrona^'o 

410,    422;    Fairfield    v.    Lowry.    207  of  thi-  niHtoniers  of  sueli  a  »»isin<'SH 

Mans.     3.-.2;      Pacheld»r     4     Co.     v.  is     what     makes     tlie     f,'«H.d\vill     <.f 


2'V.\  (jorM.wiLL.  [§100 

§100.  Right  of  vendee  to  re-assign,  — While,  as  a  ^^'cm-ral 
rule,  llic  vendee  is  clothed  with  all  of  the  rif^hts  of  his  ven- 
dor as  to  the  subjoet-niatter  conveyed,  an  exception  has  been 
insisted  n\u,u  in  the  ease  of  the  assiffnnient  of  tlie  rif^lit  to 
use  the  vendor's  name,  in  wiiieli  event  the  ri{,'ht  of  the  ven- 
dee to  assi^Mi  that  rij;ht  to  a  third  party  is  denied.  "Where 
the  contract  is  for  the  sale  of  the  right  to  use  a  fictitious 
name  or  a  tradename  or  a  trademark,  or  a  corporate  name 
though  composed  of  individual  names,  or  where  the  good 
will  of  a  business  includes  the  ri^dit  to  use  names  of  that 
character,  tiien  such  right  is  assignable  by  the  ])urchaser  and 
follows  the  business.  But  where  the  contract  merely  gives 
to  one  person  the  right  to  use  the  name  of  another,  such  rip^ht 
is  personal,  and  in  the  absence  of  an  exi)ress  stij)ulation  can 
not  be  assigned  or  transferred  by  tlie  purchase  to  a  third 
party.  "«•"' 

§  101.  Covenants  not  to  re-engage  in  business. — As  ^^  e 
have  seen,  the  mere  sale  of  a  f^oodwill  does  not  carry  Avith 
it  by  implication  a  covenant  that  the  vendor  will  not  re-en- 
gage in  the  same  business.  Tonsequently.  such  covenants 
,must  be  expressed  in  terms,  and  the  construction  of  such 
covenants  is  a  matter  of  law.  "While,  as  we^ave  seen,  the 
goodwill  itself  will  be  jiassed  by  the  conveyance  of  the  busi- 
ness, without  special  mention,  the  agreement  of  the  vendor 
not  to  re-engage  in  the  same  business  should  be  as  explicit,  both 
as  to  time  and  as  to  the  territory,  as  the  circumstances  of  the 
case  will  permit.  A  frequent  defense  to  an  action,  based  upon 
covenants  not  to  re-engage  in  business,  is  that  the  contract 
is  void  at  common  law  as  being  an  unreasonable  restraint 
of  competition   in   trade.     The   general  rule   of  the  common 

value,   and   as  it   is   utterly   repiifr-  think  a  court  of  equity  should   not 

nant    to    the    contract    hy    whicli    it  liesitate   to    <rrant   a   remedy   by    in- 

was  assi^med  tliat  the  vendor  sliould  junction."       Morris,    J.,     in     Acker, 

lie  allowed   to  seek   to   regain    it  by  Mcyall  &  Condit  Co.  v.  McGaw.  144 

Rolicitinp;    the    customers    to    come  Fed.  Rep.  80)4. 

back   to   him.    and   as  the   damages  95 — Bapby  j:  Rivera  Co.  v.  Rivers, 

thus  inflicted   is  irreparable  and  is  87   ^Id.  400;    40  Atl.   Rep.    171;    40 

difficult,   if  not  impossilile,   in   such  L.    R.   A.   0.32;    followed   in    Marcus 

a    business    as    this    to   compute,    I  v.  McFarland,  119  Md.  269;  80  Atl. 

Rep.   337. 


§101]  HOPKINS  ON    TRADEMARKS.  2:U 

law  is  stated  by  Mr.  lUshop  to  Itc  as  follows:  "An  at^rco- 
nuMit,  without  limitation,  not  to  carry  on  a  particular  trade, 
which  is  lawful  and  beneficial  to  the  coninninity  aiul  to  tlie 
individual,   is  void   as  against    public   policy."'"' 

A  covenant  not  to  rc-enjrafre  in  business  will  not  be  im- 
plied from  the  vendor's  eoveiumt  in  the  bill  of  sale  "to  war- 
rant and  defend  the  sale  of  the  said  jiroperty  and  interest, 
a.s  herein  stated.""" 

A  verbal  ajjreement  not  to  enfrape  in  a  rival  business  does 
not  come  within  the  statute  of  frauds.  It  may  be  valid  when 
made  as  collateral  to  and  distinct  from  a  lease  of  premises, 
provided  the  jiarol  ajrreement  is  made  in  consideration  of 
the  execution  of  the  written  lease.'-'^  P»ut  in  an  action  at  law 
upon  a  contract  of  sale,  such  collateral  parol  ajjrcement  can 
not  be  shown  or  recovered  on."® 

A  contract  not  to  re-enprajre  in  business  must,  like  any 
other  contract,  be  founded  on  a  sufficient  consideration  or 
it  will  not  be  enforced.'  And  the  plaintiff  in  an  action  upon 
such  a  contract  must  not  be  fruilty  of  any  breach  on  his  part, 
or  ln'   will   be  denied  relief  in  e(|uity.- 

A  covenant  not  to  re-en{jra<re  in  business  may  not  specify 
the  territory  in  which  the  vendor  is  precluded  from  doing 
busine.ss.  If  from  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  it  appears 
that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  parties  to  limit  the  territory 
to  a  town,  county  or  state,  the  contract  will  be  so  construed, 

OC — Binliop  on   Contniots,   §  ."»1.">.  and   Rivers   was   fiititlfd    to   rcsump 

1*7 — ro8t4'llo    V.    Kddy,    12    N.    Y.  the  furniture  liusiness  if  lie  saw  fit. 

Supji.    2.'{(5.      Aj,'reement.s    upon    dis-  Ba^'liv    &    Rivers    Co.    v.    Rivers,    87 

solution  are  construed  l.y  the  same  IMd.  4(»0;  40  L.  R.  A.  «32. 

rules    as    otluT    contracts,    with    a  OS — Welz  v.    Rliodius,  S7    Ind.    1  ; 

view  of  ascertuinin},'  the  actual  in-  Spier  v.  Lamlidin,  4."»  Cia.  .310. 

t«'nt    ill    tlie    minds    of    the    jiarties.  1)9 — CoBtello    v.    Eddy,    12    X.    V. 

Tlius  in  a  covenant  wliicii  read  "the  Supj).    230;    TTerliert    v.    Du|)aty,    42 

Miid    Rivers   covenants   tliat   he   will  La.  Ann.  343. 

not    I'njja^e    in    the    ?naniifae(ure    of  1 — ()nonda;:a     Co.     Milk     .\ssoeia- 

furniture  bo  Ion;;  as  said  Ha;.'l»y^co!i-  linn  v.  Wall,  17  Ilun,  404. 

tinue    such    husiness,"    it    was    lield  2 — Cnssidy  v.  Metcalf.  1  Mo.  .\pp. 

that     Ba^d.y's     conveyance     of     the  .'.!»3-(»()l  ;   H.  r.  00  Mo.  .'.10;   Ilollis  v. 

buHine.iS  t<»  n  c«>rporation  was  a  dis-  SluifTer,    'M    Kas.    402;    Johnson    v. 

iontinuance  nf  the  husincHs  t>v  him.  Moss,  4.')  Cal.  r>l."». 


235  GOODWILL.  [§  101 

aiul  the  vendor  w  ill  1)0  oiijoiiicd  I'roin  coiitimiin^'  or  re-enter- 
ing business  in  the  territory  so  fixed.'' 

The  courts  of  late  years  have  relaxed  the  old  rules  so  that 
the  restrictive  covenant  may  be  unlimited  as  to  area.  "It 
can  not  be  said  thai  the  early  doctrine  that  contracts  in  gen- 
eral i-estraint  ol"  trade  are  void,  without  regard  to  circum- 
stances, has  been  abrogated,  lint  it  is  manifest  that  it  has 
been  much  weakened,  and  that  the  foundation  ui)on  which 
it  was  originally  i)laeed  has,  to  a  considerable  extent  at  least, 
by  the  change   of  cirenmstances,  been    removed."  ' 

The  subject  of  cotitracts  in  restraint  f)f  trade  is  outside 
of  the  scope  of  this  book,  but  the  ff)]lowing  extract  from 
an  opinion  of  IMr.  Justice  Bradley  concisely  covers  the  prin- 
ciples which  govern  the  construction  of  all  covenants  of  the 
kind  under  consideration:  "There  are  two  principal  grounds 
on  which  the  doctrine  is  founded,  that  a  contract  in  restraint 
of  trade  is  void  as  against  public  policy.  One  is,  the  injury 
to  the  public  by  being  deprived  of  the  restricted  party's 
industry;  the  other  is.  the  injury  to  the  party  himself  by  be- 
ing ])recluded  from  i)ursuing  his  occupation  and  thus  being 
prevented  from  supporting  himself  and  his  family.  It  is 
evident  both  these  evils  occur  when  the  contract  is  general, 
not  to  pursue  one's  trade  at  all,  or  not  to  pursue  it  in  the 
entire  realm  or  country.  The  country  suffers  the  loss  in  both 
cases;  and  the  party  is  deprived  of  liis  occuj)ation,  or  is 
obliged  to  expatriate  himself  in  order  to  follow  it.  A  con- 
tract that  is  ojien  to  such  grave  objection  is  clearly  against 
public  policj-.  But  if  neither  of  the.se  evils  ensue,  and  if  the 
contract  is  founded  on  a  valid  consideration  and  a  reason- 
able ground  of  benefit  to  the  other  party,  it  is  free  from  ob- 
jection and  may  be  enforced. 

"In  accordance  with  these  principles  it  is  well  settled  that 
a  stijiulation  by  a  vendee  of  any  trade,  business  or  estab- 
lishment, that  the  vendor  shall  not  exercise  the  same  trade 
or  business,  or  erect  a  similar  establishment  within  a  reason- 

3 — Ilulitmrd    v.    Miller,    27    Midi.  lon^rth    in   this  o])inion.  and  also   in 

1.').  lliill    yiirr.    Co.   V.   Wcstorn    Steel   * 

4 — Andrews,      .T.,      in       Di.amond  Iron  Works,  227  Fed.  Rep.  588,  .592 

^fatch    Co.    V.    l^oel.or,    IOC    N.    Y.  (C.  C.  A.  7). 
473-484.     The  cases  are  reviewed  at 


§  101]  HOPKINS   ON    TKAhKMAllKS.  236 

abU'  (listniu'o.  so  ns  not  to  iiit(>rf»>ro  with  tlic  value  of  tlio  trade, 
business  or  thiua  purcluisiMl.  is  roasonabU'  and  valid.  lii 
like  maniu'r  a  stipulation  l)y  the  vendor  of  an  article  to  be 
used  in  a  l)usiiu»ss  or  trade,  in  wliieli  he  is  himself  enj,Mf,'ed, 
that  it  shall  not  he  used  within  a  reasonable  re^'ion  or  dis- 
tunec,  so  as  not  to  interfere  with  his  said  business  or  trade, 
is  also  valid  and  biiulinjr.  The  j)()int  of  diflieidty  in  tliese 
cases  is  to  determino  wliat  is  a  rens(ui;ible  distanee  witliin 
wbieh  the  prohibitory  stipidation  may  lawfully  have  eflppct. 
And  it  is  obvious,  at  first  jrlaneo,  tbat  this  must  depend  upon 
the  circuTTistaneea  of  the  partieular  ease;  altboupb.  from  the 
nneortain  ebarneter  of  tlie  subject,  much  latitude  must  be  al- 
lowed to  the  .iudcrment  and  discretion  of  the  parties.  It  is 
clear  tbat  a  stipulation  tbat  another  shall  not  pursue  bis  trade 
or  emplovTnent  at  such  a  distance  from  the  business  of  the 
person  to  be  protected,  as  that  it  could  not  possibly  affect 
or  injure  him,  would  be  unreasonable  and  absiird.  On  the 
other  hand,  a  stipulation  is  unobjectionable  and  binding  which 
imposes  the  restraint  to  only  such  an  extent  of  territory  as 
may  be  necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  party  makinpr  the 
stipulation,  provided  it  does  not  violate  the  two  indispensable 
conditions,  that  the  other  party  be  not  prevented  from  pur- 
suing his  callinpr,  and  th.it  the  country  be  not  deprived  of 
the  benefit  of  his  exertions."'^ 

The  covenant  not  to  re-enprapre  in  business  may  be  entered 
into  by  the  stockholders  of  the  corporation,  whose  capital 
stock  and  goodwill  is  beinpr  conveyed  to  a  purchaser.  The 
sale  of  the  stock  alone  does  not  carry  with  it  by  im]i1ieation 
a  covenant  not  to  re-enpracc;  indeed,  the  California  court 
has  held  in  a  case  where  the  covenant  not  to  re-enpape  was 
su[»i)f>rted  only  by  the  sale  of  stock  in  a  cori^oration.  that  as 
the  sale  of  the  stock  could  not  carry  with  it  the  nroodwill  of  the 
corporation,  the  element  of  goodwill  did  not  enter  into  the 
transactiftn.  and  the  covenant  was  void  as  beinp  in  r(>straint 
of  trade." 

The  following  agreement  of  stockholders  made  collaterally 
with   the  sale  of  the  business  and   poodwill  of  their  eorpora- 

.') — On-jfon     St«'am     \av.     Co.     v.  0— Mcrrlinntw*      Ad-Sijrn      Co.     v. 

Winw)r.  20  Wall.   04-72;   22  L.    VA.       Stirling,',   121  Cnl.  420. 

.n:.. 


237  G()(ji)\vii.L.  [§101 

tioii  contains  a  typical  c((vcnanl  of  tlic  kind  under  considora- 
tion  :  "This  instrnnicnf  witiiesseth,  that  William  N'rr-non  iJocitli 
lias  purcliascd  the  plant,  ])Msincss  and  t^oodwili  of  the  busi- 
ness of  the  Davis  Fresh  &  Salt  Fisii  Co.,  and  has  i)aid  therefor 
the  sum  of  $17,473.14;  that  in  making'  said  transfer,  and  as 
an  indueement  to  said  William  \'ernon  IJooth  to  j)ureliaso  said 
plant,  business  and  <;ood\vill  and  pay  the  sum  aforesaid  for 
the  same,  we  each  have  agreed  that  we  would  not,  and  we 
now  do  agree,  oacdi  for  himself,  jointly  and  severally  with 
him,  the  said  William  Vernon  Booth,  his  heirs  and  assigns, 
forever,  that  we  will  not  during  the  next  ten  years,  in  the 
territory  or  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  territory  dealt  in 
by  our  company,  engage  or  in  any  manner  be  interested  in, 
cither  directly  or  indirectly,  for  ourselves  or  for  others,  the 
same  or  like  kind  or  character  of  business  as  that  hereto- 
fore conducted  and  now  being  carried  on  by  said  company, 
its  officers,  agents,  employes  and  assigns,  and  that  we  will 
not,  during  the  said  period  of  ten  (10)  years,  either  directly 
or  indirectly,  be  guilty  of  any  act  interfering  with  the  busi- 
ness, its  goodwill,  its  trade  or  its  customers,  or  come  in  compe- 
tition with  the  same;  and  we  will  not,  jointly  or  severally 
either  in  firms  or  corporations,  or  as  individuals  or  in  any 
other  way,  directly  or  indirectly  interfere  with  the  said  trade 
or  business,  or  do  any  act  prejudicial  to  the  same  or  any  part 
thereof,  or  interfere  with  the  persons  employed  therein ;  the 
meaning  hereof  being  that  the  said  William  Vernon  Booth 
is  buying  and  paying  for  the  goodwill  of  the  business  in  the 
largest  and  fullest  scope  of  the  term ;  and  that  we  will  not, 
and  each  agrees  that  he  will  not,  do  anything  to  interfere  with 
or  injure  the  said  business,  but  will  during  said  period,  lend 
his  aid  and  best  influence  to  the  promotion  and  advancement 
of  the  same." 

It  was  urged  in  defense  of  a  bill  filed  by  the  purchaser 
to  restrain  the  shareholders  from  the  violation  of  this  agree- 
ment, that  it  was  void  because  in  violation  of  the  Anti-Trust 
Act  of  July  21,  1890.  This  defense  did  not  prevail  because 
the  contract  did  not  have,  upon  its  face,  a  direct  relation  to 
interstate  commerce.  It  was  further  urged  that  the  cove- 
nant  was   void   at   common   law  because   it   was  an   unreason- 


§  10*2]  IIOI-KINS    ON    TKA1»1:M  AKKS.  2'.\S 

able  rostrnint  of  competition  in  tnule.  Tliis  defense  also 
failed,  inasnuieh  as  the  eovenant  was  merely  ancillary  to  the 
conveyance  of  the  jroodwill  of  the  corporation.  The  general 
rule  was  announced  by  the  court  "that  s\ich  stipulation  is 
valid  if  it  poes  no  farther  than  to  sup|»<»rt  and  protect  the 
interests  transferred  by  the  contract  ot"  sale."" 

§102.  Tlie  valuation  of  goodwill.  It  is  manifestly  a  mat- 
ter (»f  jrreat  ditlic-ulty  to  secure  an  accurate  valuation  of 
goodwill.  Like  a  trademark  it  has  no  value  except  as  an  in- 
tegral portion  of  the  ])usiness  with  which  it  is  connected, 
and  of  which  it  is  a  part.  We  have  considered  some  of  the 
things  that  enter  into  goodwill,  and  it  is  obvious  that  its  value 
is  a  thing  entirely  indepeiideiil  of  tlie  ei'sh  value  of  the  i)hysi- 
eal  assets  of  the  business  of  which  it  is  a  i)art.  hi  fact,  good- 
will is  frecpuMitly  sold  at  a  valuation  far  in  excess  of  the  total 
value  of  all  f)f  the  |>bysical  i)ro|)erties  of  the  busiiu>ss.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  value  of  a  goodwill  is  liable  to  sudden 
and  violent  fluctuation  as  is  the  value  of  a  trademark. 

A  single  shijiment  of  inferior  goods  may  reiuler  the  trade- 
mark under  which  they  are  packed,  a- thing  of  no  value,  and 
persoiud  goodwill  depends  for  its  value  upon  the  continued 
activity  and  integrity  of  the  person  or  persons  to  whom  it 
belongs. 

Concerning  the  valuation  of  the  goodwill  of  a  partnership, 
the  Massachusetts  court  has  said:  "While  no  rule  can  be  laid 
down  by  which  the  goodwill  of  a  trading  partuershii>  in  all 
eases  can  be  ascertained  and  its  value  fixed  with  mathematical 
precision  and  accuracy,  yet  if  it  be  assumed  lliat  a  linn  has 
been  in  existence  for  a  time  long  enough  to  establish  a  busi- 
ness sufficiently  permanent  in  character  to  include  not  only 
its  customers,  but  the  incideids  of  locality,  aud  a  distinctive 
name,  these  advaidages  eonstit\ite  a  going  busiiu«ss  enterprise; 
and  it  may  then  be  said  that  the  name  and  what  is  done  iinder 
it  go  together,  and  a  goodwill  exists  which  forms  an  asset 
of  commercial  value  in  a  winding  up  between  |)artners.  The 
fact    that   such    an   asset    may   be   difficult   of   apprais<Mn<-nt    is 

7_.<M.vrr.-n«.    .1..    in    PaviH    v.    A.   U.m.II,    A    Co..    O.'i    V.    V.    A.    2(\U .     l.ll 
jr..,]    H,.j.    Ml.  :is 


239  GooDwiM,.  [§103 

no  lo<,'al  reason  I'or  dciiyiii^j:  lo  flic  r-cticin^  partner  an  ap- 
praisal, if  it  bo  proved  that  lie  is  enlilled  to  it.'"'' 

An  Eiitrlish  text  writer  says:  '"rhe  usual  basis  of  valua- 
tion is  the  Hverat^e  net  profits  made  during'  the  few  years 
j)reee(Un^'  the  sale,""  and  in  aeeoi-danee  with  this  rule,  an 
Enplish  court  lias  assessed  the  value  of  the  goodwill  of  a 
banking  business  at  one  yeai-'s  averajro  net  profits.'" 

The  vahie  of  the  {goodwill  of  a  professional  practice  has 
been  based  n])on  two  years'  net  profits." 

It  is  evident  that  all  the  facts  i-ejatin^'  to  the  cliaracter 
of  the  goodwill,  the  pro])al)ility  of  the  continuance  of  its 
value,  and  any  other  matters  which  render  its  duration  a 
matter  of  doubt  or  uncertainty,  must  be  considered  in  an 
attempt  to  })laco  a  value  upon  it.  Thus,  Avhere  the  goodwill 
was  being  conveyed  in  administration,  the  fact  that  the  brother 
of  the  tcstatoi"  had  been  iiiterested  in  the  business,  and  could 
not  be  prevented  from  carrying  it  on  in  competition  with  a 
purchaser,  rendered  the  goodwill  valueless  as  a  subject  of 
sale  by  the  executor.'^  In  estimating  the  value  of  the  interest 
of  a  deceased  partner  in  tlie  goodwill  of  the  business,  the 
rights  of  the  surviving  pai-tner  must  be  taken  into  account.^^ 

§  103.  Competition  between  vendor  and  vendee. — The  ven- 
dor is  at  liberty  to  lease  or  sell  other  ])roperty  he  may  own 
in  the  neighborhood,  to  another  person  who  may  carry  on 
the  same  business,  provided  there  is  no  collusion,  and  the 
lessor  has  no  interest  in  the  business.'^ 

In  the  absence  of  a  covenant  or  statute  to  the  contrary, 
the  vendor  may  employ  any  fair  method  of  soliciting  trade 
which  does  not  involve  a  false  or  fraudulent  representation.'^ 

R_Moorc    V.    Rawson,    185    ilass.  1.3— Smitli    v.    Everett,    27    Boav. 

264;    70  N.   E.   Rep.  64,  citing  Mc-  440. 

:Murtrie   v.    Guiler.    18.)   Mass.    4r.l,  14— Bradford    v.    Teckham,    0    R. 

454;  67  N.  E.  Rep.  :558.  I.    2.'')n-25.3 ;    Herl)ert   v.    Dupaty,    42 

n— Allan  on  Goodwill,  p.  82.  La.  Ann.  .34.3. 

10— Mcller.^h    v.    Keen,    28    Beav.  1.5— Holhrook      v.      Xeshitt,      16.3 

4.5.3.  :Mass.  120;  .39  X.  E.  Rep.  794;  Col- 
li— F(*atlierstonlian;:h    v.   Turn<r,  trell    v.     Babcock,    .54    Conn.     138; 

25  Beav.  382.  Vonderbank  v.  Rclimitt,  44  La.  Ann. 

12 — Davies  v.  Hodgson,  25  Beav.  204;   Marcus  Ward  &  Co.  v.  Ward, 

177.  40  X.  \'.  State  Rep.  702;  Knocdler 


§lo:{] 


iiorKi.N^  n.N   tkaukm.vkks. 


240 


But  the  English  rule  and  that  in  Hlimlo  Island  is  tliat  he  fan 
not  ilirectly  solicit  from  fonntM*  customors."'  No  form  of 
soliciting  trade  will  In*  itcrmittcd  however,  whieh  tends  di- 
rectly to  deprive  the  vendee  of  the  beiiclit  of  the  reputation 
of  the  business  purehast'd  by  him.  tn  take  away  from  him 
the  patronajje  whieh  appertained  to  it.  or  to  draw  away  the 
business  of  its  habit \ial  customers.'' 

The  goodwill  of  the  business  of  a  decedent  does  not  carry 
with  it  the  right  to  use  the  decedent's  name,"^  Su«'h  good- 
will is  an  asset  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  personal  repre- 
sentative, and  if  that  representative  takes  charge  of  the  busi- 
ness anil  contlucts  it  as  his  own  he  is  chargeable  with  the 
value  of  the  goodwill.*'' 

Equity  looks  with  disfavor  ujion  any  method  of  diverting 
from  the  j)urchaser  of  a  goodwill  the  benefits  which  ought 
to  come  to  him  by  reason  of  his  purchase.  Thus,  where  part- 
ners sold  out  their  interest  in  the  goodwill  of  a  i)artnership 
known  as  the  Kalamazoo  Wagon  Comjjany,  and  then  organ- 
ized a  corporation  under  the  name  of  Kalamazoo  Buggy  Com- 
pany, they  were  enjoined,  at  the  suit  of  their  vendee,  from 
the  use  of  that  name;  and  the  court  held  that  the  writ  of 
injunction  properly  ran  against  all  persons  connected  with 
the  corporation.-'* 

A  statute  of  California  ])rovides  tliat,  "One  who  sells  the 
goodwill  of  a  business  thereby  warrants  that  he  will  not  en- 
deavor to  draw  ofT  any  of  the  customers.  ' -* 

In  a  federal  case  one  Thomson  was  a  partner  of  his  brotlier, 
in    Europe,    and    a    partner   of   other    persons   in    a    separate 


V.  BousBod,  17  Ft<l.  I!»|i.  4(!.'i;  I'losr 
V.  FlcHiior,  r.il  N.  Y.  StaU-  lvc|».  2S:j ; 
Kn«4'<ll«T  V.  (Jhu'ii/.or,  ").'»  l-Vd.  Rep. 
805;  a  C.  C.  A.  30.').     Sof  out, .  §  !(!». 

16— Tnt;o  v.  Hunt,  «.')  L.  .1.  t'li. 
1;  L.  R.  (181KJ)  A.  C.  7;  12  En^ 
Ruling'  C'aiw'H,  442;  Laliom-luTt'  v. 
DawHoii,  L.  H.  I.')  Im|.  :{22;  Ziiiitiir- 
jian  V.  B<M)rna/iati,  2.'i  U.  I.  l.'tl; 
r>r,  Atl.  R<p.    10!i. 

17— Munnay  v.  nutt«rfi«l<l,  i:t.T 
Ma*H.  4U2-4U:,,  filing'  Aii^'i.r  v. 
Wc-libf-r,  U  All.  II,  211. 


IS— M()r<;aii  v.  Silm.\  l.r,  T'.t  N.  Y. 
4!tO;  In  rr  IJandall's  Kstat.-.  S  N.  Y. 
Supp.  Or)2ti.">4. 

l'.\—ln  rr  RandaUH  Katatc,  8  N. 
Y.  Supp.  «{.')2. 

2() — Myrrs  v.  Kalama/.oo  Rii^.'fjy 
Co.,  ri4  Mich.  21;');  UraHH  it  Iron 
WorkH  C...  V.  Payne,  .".()  Ohio  St. 
IIT);   1!)  L.  n.  A.  82. 

21— Cal.  Civ.  Co<l.-.  §  ITT*'.;  Suow 
^.    llnlui.s.  71    Ciil.    1J2. 


241  GOODWILL.  [§  103 

establishiiKMil  in  New  York,  liolh  liouses  were  deulint?  in 
"Thomson's  Glove-fitting"  corsets,  'i'lionison  sold  out  his 
interest  in  the  New  York  house  and  afterward  attempted  to 
sell  the  eorsets  nuide  by  him  in  Euro])e,  in  the  United  States. 
lie  was  enjoined  from  so  doing,  the  court  hohling  that,  when 
he  assigned  his  interest  in  the  goodwill  of  the  New  York 
partnersliip,  the  goodwill  carried  with  it  all  his  right  to  use 
the  tradcinark  "Tlioiusou's  Glove-fitting"  in  the  United 
States.-- 

In  a  sale  of  a  plix'sician's  j)ractice,  whore  the  vendor,  after 
three  months,  returned  to  the  same  city  and  opened  an  office 
fifteen  rods  away  from,  in  the  nearest  house  but  one  to,  his 
former  office,  the  Suiireme  Court  of  Massacliusetts  lield  his 
conduct  to  be  a  l)i-ea('Ii  of  the  imi)li('d  coveiuuit  "that  the 
vendor  will  not  himself  do  anything  to  disturb  or  injure  the 
vendee  in  the  enjoyment  of  that  wliicli  he  has  jMirchased. "  ^•'^ 

When  an  article  of  manufactui-e  has  had  the  manufac- 
turer's name  ai)i)liod  to  it,  and  he  sells  his  ])usiness  and  good- 
will and  "confers  the  authority  to  use  his  name,"  so  applied, 
to  his  vendee,  he  will  1)(>  enjoined  from  again  engaging  in 
a  similar  business  under  his  own  name.-^ 

A  covenant  by  the  vendor  not  to  re-engage  in  business 
may  not  specify  the  territory  in  Avhicli  he  is  precluded  from 
doing  business.  If  from  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  it 
appears  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  parties  to  limit  that 
territory  to  a  town,  county  or  state,  the  contract  will  be  so 
construed,  and  the  vendor  will  be  enjoined  from  continuing 

22 — Datclu'llor     v.     Tliomson,     8G  with  tlio  St.  Louis  Court  of  Appeals 

Fed.  Pvcp.  630.  in  lioldinf,'  that  "tho  jdaintifT's  coii- 

23 — Kndicott,    J.,    in    D\vi<jht    v.  duct  was  not  eharactorizcd  l»y  that 

Hamilton,  113  Mass.  IT")-!??.   Where  <rood     faith     with     which     a     party 

the  vendor  re-engaged   in  the  same  should  always  approach   a  court  of 

(a     mercantile)      husiness     in     the  equity  when  asking  its  assistance." 

same     vicinity,     a     l)ill     in     equity  Cassidy  v.  Metcalf,  65  Mo.  510. 
brought  T)y  him  to  reform  the  con-  24 — Frazer   v.    Frazer   Lubricator 

tract  of  sale  was  dismissed  on  the  Co..  121  111.  147;  13  X.  E.  Rep.  630; 

ground     that     he     had      not     done  Aver  v.    Hall,   3    Brewst.   oOO ;    Fil- 

equity.     Cassidy   v.   Metealf,    1   Mo.  kins    v.    Blackman.    Fed.    Case    No. 

App.    r)03-601.      This    decision    was  4.7S6.    13  Blatch.   440;    Probasco  v. 

reversed   by   tlie   Supreme   Court   of  Bouyon,  1  Mo.  App.  241. 
Missouri,     but    that    court    agreed 


^  103]  IIOI-KINS    t)N    TKADKMARKS.  21- 

or  re-enterinp  business  in  the  Icrrilory  so  (ixcd.'-"'  A  siiijrlc 
act  or  sale  in  the  line  of  the  business  sold  is  not  a  breach  of 
a  covenant  not  to  re-enjrafre  in  a  particular  "business."  as 
business  is  carried  on  by  an  ajr^'ref^ation  of  acts.-" 

A  vendor  of  a  jjroodwill  may  not  do  iiulirectly  what  he  is 
forbidden,  by  the  terms  of  his  contract,  from  doing  directly. 
So  if  he  forms  a  corporation  to  carry  on  his  business,  and  the 
other  incori)orators  have  knowledge  of  his  contract,  the  eor- 
l>oration  will  be  enjoined  from  conductinj;  business  with  or 
for  the  vendor.-'  And  he  is  not  at  liberty  to  take  stock  in 
or  to  help  to  organize  or  manage  a  corporation  formed  to  cora- 
jiete  with  his  vendee,-**  nor  may  he  deliver  poods  within  the 
jirohibited  territory.  alth<Mi<rh  maintaining;  his  store  and  mak- 
ing' the  sales  without    that   territory.-'* 

If  he  re-en^'aj:es  in  business  uiuler  the  pretense  of  acting 
as  a  broker  or  commission  aj^ent  only,  the  same  rule  applies 
and  he  will  ])e  enjoined.'"'  And  again,  the  rule  applies  where 
the  defendant  re-en<ra<res  in  the  i)rohibited  business  as  the 
salaried  emi)l(»ye  of  a  third  ])ersoii.  and  he  will  be  enjoined.-'^ 
In  a  case  where  the  vendor  covenant«Ml  to  make  the  p:ood- 
will  as  valual)le  as  he  could.  Lord  Eldon  held  that  the  vendee 
was  not  bound  to  take  the  actual  i)rofit  made,  but  that  he 
would  "have  an  action  of  cov<Miaiit.  if  he  can  establish  his 
title  to  more  throufrh  the  default  of  the  veiulor."  •'- 

Where  a  limit  of  time  is  fixed  in  the  eoveiuuit  apainst  re- 
enpapinp  in  business,  the  vendor  nuiy  re-engapre  in  the  busi- 

25— Tluhbaril   v.    Mill<r.  27    Miili.  .U   Atl.    H.-p.    KIT:    Mi-yor  v.   Labau, 

15,  .">!  I.a.  Ann.  172(i;  Ht»utt'lle  v.  Smith, 

20_I»Hrkliiirht    v.    iJiock,    \t..    47  1  Ki    Mass.    Ill;    .Icirorson    v.    Mar- 

Atl.   R«-p.    1(K)8;   citin;,'  Hoajiland  v.  kcrt.  112  Ha.  4!)«;  'M  S.  V..  R»'p.  7r»8. 

Si'trur,  .38    N.   .1.    Law,  2:57;    Turner  Opposed   to   these   casoa  we  Ratter- 

V.    Kvans.   2    KI.   &    El.    ')12;    In   re  sliell  v.   Hau.T.  !»1    111.   App.    ISl. 

Ilorton,  4.'»  Law  T.    (N.S. )    r)41.  .•J2— Seott   v.    Ma.kintosli.    1    V.  & 

27_I{,.ul  V.  C'liast".  :U    Mieh.  400.  B.    50:1.       As    a    matter    of    course 

28 — Kramer  v.  Old,   11!»   No.  Car.  such  a  covenant  will  not  bo  created 

1;  .'»0  Am.  St.  U«'p.  Or)0.  liy    implieation.      Where   the  vendor 

2«) — Love  V.   Stidham,    IS  Ajip.    1).  conveyed    the   goodwill    of   a    school. 

('.  300.  it    was    lield    that   the    sale    did    not 

.'JO — UiclinrdHun   v.    INacock.  .'J.J  N.  I'iml    liim    1  y    imjdication    to    exert 

.1.   F>i.  .'■|!I7.  his   elTorls   tliereafter   to   secure   the 

31  —  Kin^'<  r  v     llahn.  42  N.  -h   Ivp  atl>ndance    of    pupils.       McCord    v. 

e.iiC.     Km.rv  N     itradl.v,  HS  Me.  :J.".7  ;  Williams,  t»0  I'a.  St.  78. 


24:} 


(J(J()I)\VII,I,. 


[§104 


ness  u])ou  tlie  ('X])irat ion  of  llic  tiiiio.  But  where  the  cove- 
nant was  made  jointly  witli  a  conveyance  of  the  vendor's 
<,'()0(lwill,  lie  was  restrained  after  he  re-engaj,'ed  in  business 
from  iiuikinj;  i)ersonal  solicitation  of  his  former  customers 
and  usin<j^  extracts  fi-oni  their  hooks  in  I'chition  to  tiic  husi- 
ness.-''' 

The  sale  of  a  business  and  its  j^oodwill  do  not,  in  tlu;  ab- 
sence of  an  express  ap:reement,  entitle  the  purchaser  to  use 
the  vendor's  name,  even  where  he  covenants  not  to  re-en- 
jra<?e  in  the  busiiu'ss  for  a  term  of  years.''"* 

§  104.  Partnership  goodv^oll. — Disputes  as  to  goodwill 
arise  most  fre(iuenlly  Ix^twcen  i)artners.  The  various  text- 
writers  who  have  treated  the  law  of  partnership  have  dwelt 
at  length  upon  the  ])rinciples  of  the  law  of  goodwill  which 
ai-e  ai)p]icable  in  this  connection,  so  that  for  the  purpose 
of  this  book  a  brief  glance  at  the  leading  ])rinciples  will 
suffice. 

As  we  have  seen  elsewhere,  every  man  has  the  right  to 
use  his  own  name  in  Inisiness,  so  long  as  he  does  not  use  it 
in  such  a  way  as  to  establish  an  unfair  competition. 

The  use  of  the  name  of  a  withdrawing  ]iartner,  as  part  of 
the  firm  luime,  in  such  a  way  as  to  expose  him  to  liability 
or  to  the  possibility  of  being  sued,  Avill  be  enjoined  at  his 
suit.'*^  The  better  rule  would  seem  to  ])e  that  in  the  absence 
of  express  agreement  the  firm  name  will  not  pass  to  one  who 
jiurchases  the  assets  of  a  partnership.-"*"' 


.■];5 — Armstronjjj  v.  Bitner.  71  il<l. 
118-127. 

34 — Sclioor  V.  American  Ice  Co., 
(1(5  X.  Y.  Supp.  3. 

3.-)— McGowan  v.  :McGo\van,  22 
Oliio  St.  370;  Peterson  v.  Humph- 
rey, 4  Abb.  Tr.  304. 

30— Williams  v.  Farrand,  88 
Mich.  473;  T.O  X.  W.  Rop.  446;  Hor- 
ton  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Ilorton  Mfg.  Co.,  18 
Fed.  Rop.  816.  This  rule  is  not  yet 
dearly  established.  Thus  the  Su- 
l>remc  Court  of  Ohio  says:  "Upon 
the  dissolution  of  a  trading  co-part- 
nership   its    assets,     including    the 


goodwill  of  the  business,  may  be 
sold  as  a  whole,  either  by  the  part- 
ners directly,  or  through  a  receiver 
xinder  an  order  made  by  a  court  in 
a  case  to  which  they  are  parties; 
and  that  a  purchaser  thereof,  under 
either  method  of  sale,  is  entitled  to 
continue  the  business  as  the  suc- 
cessor of  the  firm,  and  make  use  of 
the  firm  name  for  that  purpose. 
And  further,  that  when  tlie  pur- 
cliaser  transfers  the  property  so  ac- 
quired by  him  to  a  corporation  of 
which  he  is  a  member,  organized  to 
succeed    to    the    business,    it    may 


§  104]  IKU-KINS    ON    TRAOKMAKKS.  244 

\Vhon  oiu'  i)artiicr  has  Ixhmi  cxpfllfd  fmm  tho  partner- 
ship hfcause  (if  his  violation  of  its  artirlos.  ho  will  not,  in 
the  absence  of  eontract  hindinj:  him  not  to  ro-en^M^:o  in  the 
business,  bo  enjoint'd  from  doiii^'  similar  business  in  his  own 
name,  and  soliciting:  patronajrc  from  cnstomors  of  the  old 
firm.-''  A  surviving'  partner  who  has  the  ritjht  to  use  the 
lirm  name  may  enjcdn  his  deceased  partner's  executor  from 
usinj;  the  tirm  nanu^  for  his  own  1)encfit.'''' 

Upon  the  ai)p()intment  of  a  receiver  for  the  firm  assets, 
either  member  of  the  firm  will  1m^  enjoined  from  so  using 
his  own  name  as  to  mislead  the  jmblic  into  the  belief  that  he 
has  acquired  tlie  goodwill,  since  such  injunction  is  necessary 
to  the  preservation  of  the  groodwill  as  part  of  the  firm  assets.'" 

A  retiriuf?  partner  wlio  lias  sokl  the  other  the  firm  prop- 
erty, without  makinpr  mention  of  the  jroodwill,  will  be  granted 
an  injunction  against  any  use  of  the  firm  name  by  the  con- 
tinuing partner  which  would 4rive  the  public  reason  to  believe 
he  was  still  a  member  of  the  firm,  to  the  injury  of  his  new 
business.^" 

ri)on  the  dissohition  of  a  partnership  the  partner  who 
retains  the  use  of  the  old  premises  may  lawfully  advertise 
the  i>rcmises  as  being  "formerly  occupied  by"  tlic  old  firm, 
and  either  partner  may  advertise  himself  as  being  "formerly 
of"  or  "late  of"  the  firm,  using  words  that  convey  only  the 
facts  and  have  no  tendency  to  deceive  or  mislead  the  firm's 
customers  or  the  ])ublic  generallv^^ 

fiirrv    on    tlu"   Imsiju-ss    in    the   samo  niinn'  in  tin-  style  of  the  firm,  it  lia« 

manm-r  under  a  eorporate  name,  in-  l.een    held    that    the    assi^nimcnt    of 

iludin;,'    the    name    whieh    has    l.een  tlie    ri^dit    to    \w   the    name    is   \n'T- 

used  \>y  the  firm."     Williams,  J.,  in  sonal  and  can  not  In-  transferred  hy 

Snyder  Mf;:.  Co.  v.  Snyder.  .'.I   oliio  the   continuin;,'    partner    to    another. 

St.  80-00 ;   4:J  N.  E.  Rep.  .T2.'.,  citing  Horton  Mf^-  Co-  v.  llorton  Mf^'  Co.. 

BraHB   &.   Iron    Works   v.    Payne,    no  IS   F.d.    Rep.   8ir..    Ra-l.y   i    Rivers 

Ohio  St.    11.').                                '  <"•    V.    Rivers,    S7    Md.    400;    40    1,. 

37_l)awson    v.    Beeson,   T>.    R.    24  R.  A.  0.12. 

Ch.  D.  r»04.  40 — MiP.owan     v.     McCowan,     22 

38_I^.wiH  V.  Lan^rdon,  7  Sim.  422.  Ohio  St.  'MO. 

.in— Rinin^rer   v.    (lark,    00    Barh.  41— Morj^an  v.  SHmyler,  70  N.  Y. 

11.3.       Where     a     retiring     partner  400;   Tloll.rook  v.  Neshit,   lO.'l  MaHB. 

Htipulafed  that  the  rontinuin^  part-  120;  .'10  N.  K.  Rep.  704. 
n«*r  might  continue   the    use   of   hin 


24r)  (jooDwii.i,.  [§105 

Wliero  llic  n'tij'iiii^'  paiiinT  permits  tlir  nld  liini  uaiiM'  (of 
which  his  iiaiiir  is  a  |)art)  to  bo  used,  and  makes  no  j)uh- 
lii-atioii  of  the  I'aet  ol"  his  rotiromciit,  he  is  estopped  from 
(U'liyiii^  the  eopartiiei'shij),  as  ajraiiist  a  creditor  of  the  eoii- 
tinuiiij,'  partiiei",  who  has  exteiuh'd  credit  in  the  lielief  that 
he  is  still  a  niemher  of  tlie  firm.'- 

Upon  administration  of  a  partnershij)  estate,  the  goodwill 
shouhl  he  in('ln(h'(i  in  the  appraisement  of  the  partnership 
assets,  and  if  the  survivinf;  j)artner  ai)i)r()pi-iates  it  to  his 
oM'n  use  hy  continninf?  the  jjartnershij)  business,  lie  may  be 
compelled  to  account  for  its  value  to  the  estate  of  the  deceased 
partner.^-' 

Where  a  i)artner  came  iuto  a  partnership  for  a  fixed  i)criod, 
agreeing:,  "to  carry  ou  business  with  the  defendants  for  one 
year,  aiul  then  to  leave  it  in  their  hands,"  he  was  held  to 
have  ac(piired  thereby  no  interest  in  the  goodwill  of  the 
business.^^ 

Upon  the  retirement  of  a  partner,  if  he  i)ermits  the  other 
partners  to  retain  the  old  jiremises  and  continue  the  use  of 
the  firm  name,  tlie  goodwill  remains  with  tlie  continuing 
j)artners.'*"'' 

A  retiring  partner  who  re-engages  in  business  will  be  en- 
joined from  using  the  expressions  "our  firm,"  "our  new 
store,"  and  like  matter  holding  out  his  new  concern  as  con- 
tinuing the  business  of  the  old   firm^'"' 

§  105.  Remedies. — The  purchaser  of  a  goodwill  whose 
enjoyment  of  it  is  interfered  with  may  have  his  remedy 
either  at  law  or  in  equity.  These  remedies  are  administered 
on   the  same    general    jirinciples   Avhich    apply   to    other   cases 

42 — Backus    v.     Tuylor,     84     Ind.  tlicr    provided    for    the    sak*    of    his 

r)03;    Ricliards  v.  Hunt,  fi.l  Ca.  342.  interest    to   his  partner   on    dissohi- 

4.3 — Rammelsherj,'  v.   Mitchell,   20  tion    at    the    price    ascertained    in 

Ohio  St.  22.  determininfj   his   share.      Tlie   court 

44 — Van    Dyke   v.    Jackson,    1    E.  held  that  this  disposed  of  hia  prop- 

1).    Smith     (N.Y.),    410;     Duden    v.  erty  in  the  poodwill. 
>raloy,  0)3  Fed.   Rep.    183;    11   C.   C.  4.-)— Menendez  v.   Holt,    128  U.   S. 

A.     11S1.     In  the  latter  case  the  part-  r)14;   32  L.   Ed.  r>2t\. 
nership    articles    provided    that    the  4G — Fite   v.    Dorman    (Tenn.),   57 

incomiuf^    partner's    interest    should  S.  W.  Rep.  120. 
be    ascertained    annually,    and    fur- 


§  105]  Jlill'KINS    t>N    TKAOKMAKKS.  '2\C, 

of  unfair  i-uniju'titiciii.  and  which  art*  ilis«-u.s.si'il  olsew  hcrf  in 
this    book. 

The  jurisdiction  of  iMiuity  in  tliis  (-lass  of  cases  is  predi- 
rati'd  upon  tho  fact  that  llic  injury  is  cont  inuin;,'.  that  its 
further  (tpcration  can  oidy  be  lestraincd'  by  the  exercise  of 
the  injunctive  jjower  of  the  chancellor,  aiul  that  danux}^cs 
at  law  atTord  no  adeiiuate  compensation  f<»r  lh»»   injury. 

If,  liowever.  tlie  phiintiff  resorts  to  an  action  at  hiw,  th(» 
measure  of  his  (hmuijres  is  well  detined  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  ^lissouri:  "if  plaintiffs  lost  less  than  the  defendant  made, 
they  can  not  recover  the  whole  of  defentlant's  i)rolits;  if 
plaintiffs  lost  more  than  the  defendant  mach'.  they  would 
not  be  limited  to  defeiulant  "s  piolits.  What  the  plaintitTs 
have  lost  by  the  defeiulant 's  breach  of  covenant,  and  not  what 
the  defeiulant  has  {rained  thereby,  is  the  lejjal  measure  of 
dama^res  in  this  case."^^ 

The  ])arties  to  a  contract  for  the  sale  of  a  {roodwill  may 
j)rovide  in  the  contract  for  a  fi.xed  amount  of  damages.  In 
the  absence  of  fiaud,  the  sum  so  fixed  will  be  adopted  as  the 
measure  of  damafres  by  the  court. ^^ 

"Where  the  parties  have  so  a{,'reed  upon  tlie  anujunt  of 
damages,  the  vendee,  in  case  (»f  a  breach  of  covenant,  has 
an   adejpiate    remedy   at    law,    and    injuiu'tion    will    not    lie.^'-* 

47 — H()U<,li,    F.,   in    I'l  It/.   V.    Kicli-  diitrd  (lnma<;;oa  liaa  been  provided  in 

I'lo,    02    Mo.     171-180.      And  ^o    thf  cusc   ho   dot's   the   net,    is   suhjcet   to 

same      effect      see      Biirekliardt      v.  tlii-s    (|uaIificatioii :       "The    question 

Burekhardt,  'M'l  Oliio  St.  2<11.          ,  in    rvi-ry    ease    is,   wliat    is   the    real 

4H — Tixlc    V.     CJrosH,     127     N.     V.  meaning'   of    the   contract?      And    if 

480-487 ;    l.'i  L.   R.  A.  (i:)2;   28  N.   K.  tlie    sul.stanee   of    th.'    agreement    is 

Kep.  4<!n:  40  N.  Y.  S.  R.  IWO;  Dakin  that  the  party   nliall   not  do  a   par- 

V.  Williams,   17  Wendell,  447;   Ha;,'-  tieular  act,  and  that  is  the  evident 

ley   V.    I'eddie,    1(5   \.   Y.   4»in ;   Woos-  ol)ji'ct    and     purpose    of    the    afjree- 

ti-r  V.  Kisch,  2(5  Hun,  ('»1.  ment,    and    it    is    provided    that,    if 

40 — .Martin   v.    Murphy.    129    Ind.  there  is  a  hreaeh  of  this  a;:reenicnt. 

404-4(17.      I'nh'HB    the    defendant    is  tlie   party    shall   pay   a    stated   .^uni, 

insolvent,    which    fact    will    makf    a  wliieh  docs  not  clearly  appear  to  he 

ease    ior    injunctive    relief.       I'ickett  an    alternative    which     he    has    the 

V.  fSreen,  120  Ind.  M\.  ri;;ht   to   adopt    instead    of   perform- 

The  jrenerak  doctrine   that  e<|uity  in;,'  his  e«>ntract,   there   would  seem 

will  not  interfere  to  restrain  a  per-  to    l>e    no    reason    why    a    court    of 

mth    from    doin;^   an    act    which    he  e<piity  should  not  restrain  liini  from 

lias   n;,'reed    not   to   do,    wjien    li<jui-  doiny  the   act,   and    tlius   carry    out 


247 


GOODWILL 


[§106 


Tli(!    i-fiiu'dy     is    foi-    llic     i-rcovcf}-    (if    tlio    sum    so    fixod/*" 

§106.  Breach  of  covenant  not  to  re-engage.— It  is  no 
deiensc  to  s\K'h  an  action  that  tlicrc  was  no  separate  con- 
sideration foi'  tlic  covenant,  il"  it  was  a  |)art  of  a  transaction 
involvinj^'  tiie  sale  of  a  slock  of  Mier(;lian(liso,  without  men- 
tion of  goodwill.'''  The  sale  of  the  stock  of  merchandise 
is  of  itself  a  good  consideration  for  the  covenant  not  to  re- 
engage.''- This  rule  is  based  upon  the  right  of  the  vendor 
to  have  "the  freest  oi)portunity  to  obtain  the  largest  con- 
sideration for  the  sale  of  that  which  is  his  own."''"'  A  valu- 
able considei'ation  must  exist  to  sui)])oil  Ihc  covenant,  but 
where  such  a  consideration  is  shown,  the  (piestion  of  the  ade- 
quacy of  that  consideration  is  foreclosed,  because  of  the 
peculiar  nature  of  the  subject-matter  of  the  contract.^^ 


tlif  intciitioii  of  tin-  jpiirtii's.  •  •  * 
In  otlirr  word?*,  naiiiiii;,'  si  sum  to  Ik- 
paid  us  li(]uidati'd  (ljunaj,'t'S  docs  not 
in  itself  conclusively  cstahlish  tliat 
the   parties  contemplated   tlie   rifjht 


(|ii()ti'd  and    f(dl(i\vc(l    in    Fleischman 
V.    llalimstorf,  stiprn. 

f)-! — "It  is  contended  in  hdialf  of 
defendant  that  the  covenant  to  re- 
frain from  jiractice  is  not  supported 


to  do  the  act  upon  payment  of  the       hy   an   adequate  consideration.      All 


compensation,  and  make  an  alter- 
native a<;re;ment  for  the  benefit  of 
the  party  who  has  done  what  he  l\ad 
apreed  not  to  do."  Kndicott,  .1.,  in 
Ropes  V.  Upton,  I'Z.")  Mass.  2.")8-20I. 
It  has  been  held  in  Canada  that  in 
event  of  a  breach  of  such  a  contract 
the  vendee  has  his  election  to  enjoin 
the  vendor  or  recover  the  amount 
named  as  liquidated  damaf^es.  Sni- 
der V.  McKelvey,  27  Ont.  App.  3.30. 

50 — Martin  v.  Murphy,  120  Ind. 
464. 

.')1— Boirnrg  v.  Friend  (W.  Va.),  87 
8.  E.  Rep.  87.3. 

')2 — Fleischman  v.  Rahmstorf, 
226  Fed.  Rep.  443  (C.  C.  A.  9); 
Nelson  v.  Brassin<,'ton.  64  Wash. 
180;  lie.  Pac.  Rep.  029;  Beard  v. 
Dennis,  0  Ind.  200;  03  Am.  Dee.  380. 

.53 — Mr.  .Justice  Peckham  in 
United  States  v.  Frei<rht  Assn..  166 
U.    S,    290,    329;     41    L.    Ed.     10(t7, 


autiutrities  appear  to  ajjree  tliat  a 
valuable  consideration  must  be  es- 
tal)lished  to  support  a  covenant  of 
til  is  nature,  even  though  the  cove- 
nant be  under  seal ;  but  the  weight 
of  autliority  is  clearly  to  the  effect 
that  if  a  valuable  consideration  is 
found  to  exist,  the  adequacy  of  that 
consideration  will  not  be  inquired 
into.  The  authorities  to  that  effect 
arc  collected  by  Mr.  Freeman  in  his 
note  to  Anpier  v.  Webber,  92  Am. 
Dec.  at  page  7.')4.  The  adjudicated 
cases  invoIvinfT  covenants  of  this  na- 
ture have  almost  uniformly  arisen 
in  connection  with  the  sale  of  a 
business,  and  it  has  been  found  im- 
practicable to  inquire  as  to  the  ex- 
tent to  which  the  purchase  price  en- 
tered into  the  covenant  of  the  vendor 
not  to  engage  in  an  opposition  busi- 
ness. In  the  present  case  no  sale 
occurred.       The    evidence     disclose? 


§106] 


IIOI'KINS    ON    TR.VI)KM.\KK> 


248 


The  JU't  of  a  vtMulor  in  ncct'plinjr  cinployineiit  as  a  clerk, 
agent  or  nuinafrer  for  a  rival  of  his  vendee  is  a  breach  of  his 
eovenant  n(»t  to  re-engape  in  the  trade.''' 

In  actions  for  the  breach  of  such  I'ovenants,  a  provision 
in  the  eontraet  of  sale  for  licpiidated  damages  will  be  enforced 
according  to  its  terms,  uidess  the  amount  so  stipulated  to 
be  paid  as  damages  is  so  unjust,  oppressive  or  disproportionate 
to  the  actual  damages  sustained  as  to  be  abhorrent  to  a  court 
of  equity.'"" 

The  reason  for  tiiis  rule  is  that  this  is  "a  class  of  cases 
where  it  is  next  to  impossil)Ie  to  prove  the  full  extent  of  the 
damages."  °" 

In  the  absence  of  such  a  stipulation,  the  valuation  of  the 
goodwill  will  be  determined  on  a  basis  of  the  average  profits, 
less  interest  on  the  capital  invested.''** 


tliat  when  tho  partnorahip  aj;roc- 
mont  how  in  qufstion  was  made  de- 
fendant was  already  a  partner  of 
complainant.  The  present  af^ree- 
ment  continued  their  partnership 
relation  under  new  terms  and  also 
admitted  to  the  partnersliip  an  ad- 
ditional partner.  So  far  as  the  evi- 
dence discloses,  it  is  indeed  diflicult 
to  discern  wherein  the  new  partner- 
ship agreement  can  he  said  to  have 
been  lienefieial  to  defendant;  hut, 
considered  as  an  en<:a;:ement  involv- 
inj:  the  partnership  relation  of  the 
three  |-artners  for  a  future  period 
of  time,  it  is,  I  think,  impossible  to 
here  determine  that  the  benefits  and 
disadvanta^'es  flowinp  from  its  mu- 
tual covenants  were  inadeipiate  to 
HupfHjrt  the  en;.'a;.'ement  r»f  defend- 
ant to  refrain  from  practice  at  the 
place  and  durinj;  tin-  time  speeifled 
at  the  termination  of  the  partner- 
ship." Leamin;;,  V.  C,  in  Marvel 
V.  Jonah,  81  N.  J.  E(|.  3(10;  H(\  Atl. 
Rep.  9fl8. 

.'i/V— Fleischman  v.  Rahmstorf, 
Mvpra;  Smith  v.  Webb.  170  Ala.  TiOO; 
r,H  So.  Rep.  01.3;  10  T,.  R.  A.  ( N.S. ) 
1I!>1;     Knowl.'s    V.    .btm-H,    182    .Ma 


187;  (52  So.  Rep.  :>14;  Meyers  v. 
Merillion,  118  Cal.  352;  50  Pac. 
Rep.  (!(»2;  McAulilTe  v.  Vau^han, 
135  Ga.  852;  70  S.  E.  Rep.  322;  33 
L.  R.  A.  (N.S.  I  255;  Wilson  v.  De- 
laney,  137  la.  (53t5;  113  N.  W.  Rep. 
842;  Fin<,'er  v.  Hahn,  42  N.  J.  Eq. 
000;  8  Atl.  Rep.  054;  KramtT  v. 
Old,  110  N.  C.  1;  25  S.  E.  Rep.  813; 
34  L.  R.  A.  380;  Gropp  v.  Perkins, 
148  Ky.  183;   140  S.  W.  Rep.  380. 

5f — Fleischman  v.  Rahmstorf, 
supra. 
57 — Per  Curintn,  Kelso  v.  Reid, 
145  Pa.  000;  23  Atl.  Rep.  323;  27 
Am.  St.  Rep.  710.  To  the  same  ef- 
fect an'  McCurry  v.  Gibson,  108 
Ala.  451;  18  So.  Rep.  800;  Streeter 
V.  Rush,  25  Cal.  07 ;  Potter  v.  Ah- 
nns.  110  Cal.  681;  43  Pac.  Rep. 
388;  Newman  v.  Wolfs«)n,  00  Oa. 
704;  Holbrook  v.  Tobey,  00  Me. 
410;  '"usliin^j  V.  Drew,  07  Mass. 
445;  fJeijrer  v.  Cawley,  140  Mich. 
550;  100  N'.  W.  Rep.  1004;  Canady 
V.  Knox,  43  Wash.  507;  80  Pac.  Rep. 
030;  Martin  v.  Murphy,  120  Ind. 
404:   28   X.   E.   Rep,    1118. 

58 — S  e  a  i  c  h     v.     Maw)n  Seaman 
Transp.  Co..  l.')0  N.  Y.  S.  570.    As  to 


249  GOODWILL  [§  106 

III  a  suit,  upon  a  iiolc  {^mvcu  in  j)ayin('iil  fur  a  busiiipss  witli 
its  real  and  i)(.'rs()MaI  projjerty  and  goodwill  llic  dcfi'iidant 
"will  not  be  ])ennitted  to  offer  testimony  as  to  the  vahn;  of 
the  separate  items  of  personalty  aiul  realty;''"  this  for  the 
reason  that  "the  vendor  who  sells  the  •^'oodwill  of  a  business 
guarantees  nothiiifr;  for,  in  the  nature  of  tiiinjxs,  he  can  give 
no  assurance  that  the  patronage  of  the  ])lace  will  continue,"''" 
Of  course  fraudulent  representation  as  to  earning  capacity 
of  the  goodwill  may  be  shown  in  defense  of  such  a  suit.'*' 

In  a  suit  for  damages  for  breach  of  the  covenant  not  to 
re-engage,  it  is  a  defense  that  the  i)laintiff  failed  to  pay  the 
purchase  ])rice  iu  full,  but  the  defense  can  not  be  set  up  with- 
out a  showing  that,  before  re-engaging,  the  vendor  ])ut  the 
plaintiff  in  default  by  tendering  back  that  })art  of  the  jnir- 
chase  money  he  had  received.''- 

Where  there  are  no  damages  stipiilatcd,  and  no  substan- 
tial injury  is  proven,  the  jilaintiff  is  entitled  only  to  nom- 
inal damages."-'  "The  loss  of  profits,  if  there  are  data  from 
which  the  amount  may  be  ascertained  with  reasonable  cer- 
tainty, the  diminution  in  value  of  the  j)roperty  sold,  all  may 
be  regarded  as  elements  of  the  damages  which  go  to  make 
up   the   measure   of  recovery."'"'^ 

Where  the  defendant  has  re-engaged  in  business  in  viola- 
tion of  a  covenant  against  his  so  doing,  the  case  is  one  where 
"the  law  will  not  nicely  attempt  to  limit  the  amount  of  repa- 
ration, but  will  extend  the  line  of  relief  so  as  to  embrace  all 
the  consequences  of  the  w^rongdoer's  act,  although  quite  re- 

thc    mi'thod    of    valuation    of   good-  crson,    131    La.    204;    50    So.    Rep. 

will   of  a   corporation    for  the   pur-  122. 

pose    of    assessing    a    transfer    tax.  G3 — Taylor   v.    IToward,    110    Ala. 

see    In    re    McMullen's    Estate,    l')!  408;    18  So.   Rep.   311;    Breeding   v. 

N.  Y.   S.   6.-).).     That  a  year  of  ah-  Tandy,    148    Ky.    345;     140    S.    W. 

normal     profits     should     be     disre-  Rep.  742. 

garded,  see  In   re  Welch,   137  X.  Y.  04 — Howard    v.    Taylor,    00    Ala. 

S.  941.  241-244;   and  to  the  same  efTect  see 

50 — Harschbargcr  V.  Ehy  (Idaho),  Burckiiardt  v.  Burckhardt,  42  Ohio 

156  Pac.  Rep.  619.  St.  474;   Mitchell  v.  Read,  84  X.  Y. 

60 — Johnson    v.    FriedhofF,    27    X.  556;   Mellersch  v.  Keen,  28  Beavan, 

Y.  Supp.  082.  453;    Rawson    v.    Rratt.   01    Ind.   0; 

(Jl— Butler  V.  Alter,   130  X.  Y.  S.  Lashus    v.     Cliaml.erlain,     6     Utali, 

882.  385;    Gregory   v.    Spieker,    110    Cal. 

G2 — Moorman   &   Givens  v.    Park-  150;   42  Pac.  Rep.  576. 


§  106]  llOl'KINS   ON    TUA1>1:M  VKKS.  250 

nutte  from  the  urifjiiuil  traiisju'titm." '"'  Tlic  nuMsiiro  of  llic 
vendee's  ilamafjes  \\'\\\  be  tin*  amount  of  j)rotits  lost  during 
tlie  term  Ity  reason  of  defeudaiit 's  unlawful  eompetition.  and 
if.  in  atldilion.  the  };oo(hvill  of  llic  business  at  tlu'  <'nd  of  the 
term  is  \v«)rtii  less  tlian  it  would  have  licfii  hut  for  dcfeiul- 
ant  "s  unlawful  aet.  the  vendee  is  entitled  to  rei-Aver  that 
amount.''"  The  vendee  can  not  recover  the  profits  realized 
hy   the  vendoi*  throu)j:h   his  breach   of  the  contract."" 

For  the  jrreater  |)art  the  remedies  oj)en  to  the  owner  of 
a  [Toodwill  whose  ri<rhts  are  invaded  are  administered  hy 
eourts  of  equity.  Hut  injury  to  a  <r<M»(h\i!l  may  be  effected 
in  numy  various  ways,  for  each  of  which  an  appropriate 
remedy  will  be  found  either  at  law  or  in  e(piity.  Thus  where 
a  defendant's  goodwill  has  been  destroyed  l)y  a  wron<jrftd 
attachment,  he  will  be  allowed  compensation  therefor  in  an 
action   for  damaj^es  ay:ainst  the  attachinj;  creditor.'"'^ 

In  an  action  at  law  a  petition  whieli  allepes  that  plaintiff 
has  ])urchased  defeiulant's  business  atul  froodwill.  and  that 
the  defendant  agreed  not  to  re-enframe  in  the  same  line  of 
business  for  two  years,  and  that  in  violation  of  his  apjree- 
ment,  he  has  re-en}jraped  in  the  same  line  of  business  durinp: 
such  period,  and  thereby  damajred  plaintiff,  lias  been  lu'ld 
}rood  on  demurrer.'"''' 

The  action  for  damajres  for  breach  of  contract  involviuf? 
jroodwill  is  jroverned  l)y  the  general  principles  involved  in 
similar  actions  in  trademark  eases,  which  are  considered  else- 
where in  this  book. 

A  contract  for  the  sale  of  a  business  and  goodwill  will  be 
rescinded  if  the  vendor  has  falsely  stated  facts  in  regard 
to  the  value  of  the  goodwill;  as  where  he  has  represented 
that  his  receipts  ov  |)rotits  from  the  business  were  greater 
than  they  actinilly  had  been,"'*  or  that  the  premi.ses  sold  have 

nr, — I)nu     V.    Kl.-ctric    Co..    <>!)    N.  07— f!r.  ..Mry    v.    S|iu'k.r.    llo   Cal. 

II.  312:   -11    .\tl.   H.p.   'JSH;    \-2    I,     i:.  l.iO;  4J   I'm-.    IN-p.   .".TH. 

A.  r»«9.  'W — Miller  V.  Heck   (lowm.  7'2  N. 

00 — Siilinpr  V.  .'^alinpr.  «!•  N.  11.  W.  K.-p.  .">."•:». 

."iSO;  4.'i  Atl.  H<|i.  r>.'iS;    IJucklinnlt  V.  r.O— llrwin     v.     lliiytl.n      (Toxas), 

BiKkliurdt,  30  Ohio  St.  201;   V.tk<>h  43  S.  W.  K.p.  01(». 

V.  ForHluM.,  I)  Ltt.  Ann.  204;  St<-wHrt  70— Di.ImII   v.   .Stiv.iiH,  3   H.   &  C. 

V.    niallnromlw.    11    111.    App.    379;  023;  Crut-BS  v.  Fosslor,  39  Cal.  336. 
M«K)n-li<-H.l    V.    Ilvd.-.   ."8    It.wa,   3S2. 


231  ooonwiM,.  [§  106 

hroii^'ht  Ji  lii^'licr  rental  tliaii  tlic.v  actually  did.''  And  tlie 
iiiisri'prcseiitution  lias  been  held  to  icsciiid  the  contract  wliere 
the  niisstatoiiient  was  not  made  directly  to  the  vendee,  but 
to  a  third  i)arty  who  eommunieated  it,  with  tlie  vendor's 
knowled<;e.  to  the  vendee.^-  On  the  other  hand,  tin*  duty  is 
imposed  upon  tlie  vendee  to  aet  at  once  upon  learning  the 
I'acts  which  justify  a  reseission.  Where  he  fails  to  do  so  he 
will  be  bound  by  his  contract,  and  his  remedy  lies  in  an  action 
for  damages,'^^  as  lie  may  recover  damapres  witliout  r"scind- 
in^'   the   contract."' 

AVhencver  the  false  repres(Mitations  amount  to  a  warranty, 
an  action  for  damau'es  will  lie  even  in  the  absence  of  proof 
(tf  fraud.  Otherwise  the  burden  is  u])on  the  vendee  to  show 
that  the  representation  was  fraudulently  made."'"' 

The  nu'asure  of  damages  in  such  case  is  the  difference 
between  the  actual  value  of  its  ])ro|)erty  at  the  time  of  the 
purchase,  and  its  value  if  the  property  liad  been  what  it  was 
represented  or  wan-anted   to  be.''' 

Covenants  airainst  rc-cTifjaerinf;  in  business  may  be  spe- 
cifically enforced,  as  we  have  seen,  or  the  vendor  may  be  en- 
joined from  their  violation.  It  has  been  held  in  Encrland 
that  with  an  action  for  specific  i)erformance  a  claim  for  dam- 
apres  may  be  made  as  an  alternative.'^ 

It  has  been  held  that  a  debtor's  goodwill  can  not  he  reached 
by  a  creditor's  bill,  because  it  is  not  subject  to  levy,  in  sat- 
isfaction of  their  debts."'^ 

The  application  for  injunctive  relief  is  froverned  by  the 
rules  concerniufr  similar  apjdications  in   trademark  cases. 

A  plaintifV  lu'ed  not  allejje  or  prove  damajre  as  a  pre- 
requisite to  an  injunction  to  restrain  a  defendant  from  re- 
cnjraprinfT  in  business,  in  breach  of  a  covenant  between  the 
l)arties.""     "When  a  vendee  in  a])])lying  for  an  injunction  also 

71 — Lvsiit-y  v.  Sflliy,  2  L<1.  Raym.  7fi — Morse  v.  Hutchins.  102  Mass. 

Ills.  4.39;    Hawson  v.  Pratt,  01    Iiul.  9. 

72— rilmoiv  \.   Hood,   ">  Bing.  X.  77— Hipgiavi-    v.    Case,   L.    R.    28 

C.  97.  CIi.  D.  ^^^,0. 

73— Dolull   V.  Stevens,   3  B.  &   C.  78— Lilioitlial     v.     Druckliib,    84 

(i23.  Fed.  Rep.  918. 

74 — Snow  V.  Tlolnns,  71  Cat.  142-  79 — Anderson      v.      Rowland,     18 

148.  Ttx.  Civ.  App.  460;   44  S.  W.  Rep. 

75— Redgrave   v.   Hurd,   L.   R.    20  Oil. 
Ch.  D.  1. 


§  107]  HOI'KINS    ON    THAKKMAUKS. 


■Sol 


asked  jmlfrnuMit  for  tlu^  possession  of  llic  l)ooks  aiul  papers 
used  by  the  vendor  in  the  business  in  wliieli  it  had  engaged 
in  violation  of  its  eoveiuint  the  order  was  refused  becauso 
tlu-re  was  a   i-eniedy  at   law   foi-  tlieii-  recovery.'"' 

In  eases  wlier*'  the  vendor  of  a  goodwill  is  sought  to  be 
restrained  from  re-engaging  in  business  in  violation  of  his 
covenant,  tlic  amount  in  controversy  is  the  value  of  the  good- 
will, and  the  federal  courts  can  not  ae(|uire  jurisdicticii  unless 
the  value  of  the  goodwill  exceeds  $3,000.''' 

A  violation  of  a  covenant  not  to  re-engage  in  business  is 
a  defense  to  a  suit  by  the  vendor  u|)()n  notes  given  by  the 
vendee  for  the  ])urchase  money. ''- 

AVhcre  the  covenant  not  to  re-engage  is  incorporated  in 
the  bill  of  .sale,  the  consideration  paid  has  been  held  to  be 
not  only  for  the  stock  of  goods,  but  for  the  agreement  not 
to   re-engage.'^'' 

§  107.  Remedy  as  to  infringement  of  tradenames  identified 
with  goodwill. — Many  of  the  actions  for  breach  of  contract 
in  relation  to  the  sale  of  goodwill  have  had  for  their  object 
the  restraint  of  the  vendor  in  the  use  of  the  tradename  under 
which  the  busiiu'ss  had  been  conducted.  Where  the  goodwill 
and  tradename  have  been  sold,  the  suksequcnt  use  of  the  name 
by  the  vendor  will  be  enjoined,  even  where  the  vendor  has 
reserved  the  right  to  rcsunu'  business  under  any  other  than 
the  old   name.'^"' 

The  relief  will  be  granted  wliere  lliei-c  has  ])een  a  con- 
tract to  convey  the  tradciuinic  and  goodwill,  and  the  con- 
sideration has  been  paid,  though  the  vendor  has  not  made 
a   formal   assignment  of  the   goodwill   and   name.'"''* 

The  relief  will  be  granted  where  the  vendee  does  not  con- 
tiinu'  the  use  of  the  old  name,  but  conducts  the  business  under 
his  own  name.'*'' 

80 — Lawrrncc    v.    Times  Printin;;            84 — Riirr'linrdt      v.      Rurckliardt. 

Co..  00  F.-d.  R«'p.  24  20.  42  Ohio  St.  474:    .M   Am.  Rep.  842. 

81  —  I,a\vri'np«'    v.    TimcH  Printin;:            8.'> — t'liiti'd   Stntt'S  C'orda;jc  Co.  v. 

Co.,  00  Fed.  Rpp.  24-20.  Wm.    Wnlln    Sons   Ropt-   Co.,  35   N. 

82— Townwnd  v.   Ifiirst,  "M   MinH.       V.  Supp.  078;  00  Hun.  429. 

670.  SO— fJrow    V.    Sclifrmnn.  47    Mich. 

8.3— Eiw«l   V.    IlnvH.    Ill  Ind.    41;       007;    41    .\m.    H.p,    7M7 :     11    N.    W. 

40  X.  K.  R«'p.  110.  R.p.  404. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
TRADE  SECRETS;  RIGHT  OF  PRIVACY. 

§108.  Trade  secrets— Introductory. — "A  .secret  in  trade  is 
fully  reco^Mii/ed  as  property  in  equity,  the  disclosure  of  wliicii 
will  l)e  restrained  l)y  injunction."  '  A  contract  in  reference  to 
such  a  .secret  can  not  he  in  restraint  of  trade,  "hecause  the  public 
has  no  ri<rhts  in  the  secret.*" - 

When  the  name  applied  to  a  secret  preparation  is  a  trade- 
mark, no  one  but  the  owner  of  the  mark  can  ai)ply  it  to  the 
])reparation.  But  if  it  be  not  a  valid  trademark,  then  the 
manufacture  of  the  secret  preparation,  and  the  placing  of 
it  upon  the  market  under  the  same  name,  is  open  to  any 
one  Avho  can  lawfully  discover  the  secret  process.^     But  "it 


. — Smith,  P.  .1.,  in  Champrm  v. 
Stoddart,  30  Ilun,  300-.302. 

2 — Morso  Machine  Co.  v.  Morse, 
103  Mass.  73-75;  Fowle  v.  Park, 
131  U.  S.  88:  33  L.  Ed.  67;  Vio- 
kery  v.  Welsh,  10  Pick.  523-527. 
"Upon  the  sale  of  a  secret  pro- 
cess, a  covenant,  express  or  im- 
plied, that  the  seller  ■will  not 
use  the  process  himself  or  com- 
municate it  to  any  other  person  is 
lawful,  because  the  process  must  he 
kept  secret  to  be  of  any  value,  and 
the  public  has  no  interest  in  the 
question  by  whom  it  is  used."' 

Gray,  J.,  in  Central  Transporta- 
tion Co.  V.  Pullman's  Palace  Car 
Co.,  130  r.  S.  24;  35  L.  Ed.  60; 
citinj:  Fowle  v.  Park,  131  U.  S.  88, 
07;  Vickery  v.  Welsh,  10  Pick.  523- 
527;  Peabody  v.  Norfolk,  98  Mass. 
452-460. 

3 — Watkins  v.  Landon,  52  Minn. 
380;  54  X.  W.  Rep.  103;  10  L.  R. 
A.  236;  Davis  v.   Kendall,  2  R.   I. 


566;  Siefrert  v.  Findlater,  L.  R.  7 
Ch.  D.  801;  Comstock  v.  White,  18 
IIow.  1  r.  421;  Condy  v.  Mitchell, 
37  L.  T.  N.  S.  268;  James  v. 
James,  L.  R.  13  Eq.  421;  Canham 
v.  Jones,  2  V.  &  B.  218;  J.  R.  Wat- 
kins  Medical  Co.  v.  Sands,  83 
Minn.  320;   86  X.  W.   Rep.  340. 

"It  may  also  be  observed,  in  this 
connection,  that  the  word  'property.' 
as  applied  to  trade  secrets  and  in- 
ventions, has  its  limitations;  for  it 
is  undoubtedly  true  that  when  an 
article  manufactured  by  some  secret 
j)roces3,  which  is  not  the  subject  of 
a  patent,  is  thrown  upon  the  mar- 
ket, the  whole  world  is  at  liberty 
to  discover,  if  it  can  by  any  fair 
means,  what  the  process  is,  and, 
when  discovery  is  thus  made,  to 
employ  it  in  the  manufacture  of 
similar  articles.  In  such  a  case, 
the  inventor's  or  manufacturer's 
jiroperty  in  his  process  is  pone;  but 
the  authorities  all  hold  that,  while 
253 


§  108]  llOI'KINS    ON    TU.VDKM.VHKS.  254 

is  settled  tliat  a  sivivt  art  is  a  U-tral  .sul)j('ci  i»l'  propcrl v,"  ' 
and  its  owner  has  a  vested  rip:lit  lo  the  seereey  of  all  those 
who  oeeupy  a  tidufiary  rehitionshij)  to  his  business.  So  tiiat 
no  one  wlio  obtains  knowled<;e  of  the  secret  by  fraud  or  inifair 
means  will  be  permitted  to  avail  himself  of  the  fruits  of  his 
fraud,  by  disclosiiifj  the  seeret  or  manufaeturiiif;  under  it.'* 
The  assi^Muibiiity  of  seeret  processes  has  been  established 
in  a   nunibri-  of  cases." 

^V)lll^c  KjiiHii  nil!  tiof  intn-frrr. — "Courts  of  ccpiity  will 
not  interfere  by  injunction  in  disputes  between  the  owners 
of  (piack  medicines,  meaning;  thereby  remedies  or  sjiecifics 
whose  eomjiosition  is  kejit  secret,  aiid  which  'are  sold  to  be 
nsed  by  the  imrchasers  without  the  advice  of  rejrular  ur 
licensed  i)hysicians. "  "  And  in  1817  Lord  p]ldon  said:  "1 
do  not  think  that  the  court  oufrht  to  struf^jrle  to  protect  this 
sort   of  secrets   in   medicine."'* 

Broadly  stated,  e(]nity  will  not  interfere  to  jirevent  the 
disclosure  of  secrets  bv  means  of  which  frauds  have  been 
committed.'* 

Then  there  are  limits  to  the  extent  of  the  injunction,  which 
will  be  suiL'"^'estcd  by  the  facts  in  each  particular  case.  For 
example,    in    one   case    which    has   been    fre(iuently    cited,    the 

knowlcd^'c  ol)taiiH-(l    in  tliis  muiinrr  Park,    l;il    l'.   S.  S8;    'V.l  b.   IM.   07; 

ib   perfectly    If^ritiiuatf,    tliat    wliicli  'Ilium   ('<>.    \.   Tloczyiiski,    114   Midi. 

IB   olitaiiH-d    I.y    any    l.rtach    t.f    con-  It'.i;    7i   N.    W.    Ktp.    1J(»;   .*iS   L.    1!. 

fldcncc     can      imt     l>c     sanctioned. "  A.  2(t(l;   tJS  Am.   St.    Kep.  4<i!);   Tode 

Adams.     J,      in      Kahtman     Co.     v.  v.  (Jross,  127  X.  V.  4S(i.  48.">:  28  N. 

Heicln-nl.acli.    2(1    X.    V.    Snpp.     11(1-  I'..    Kep.    4ti!t;    l.J    L.    \\.    A.    (5.')2:    24 

IKi;  amrm.d.  2!t  N.  V.  S!upp.   114:{;  .\m.    St.    Kep.    47:>:    Vulcan    Dotin- 

lU  Hun,  ISS.  iiiii;:    Co.   v.    American    Can   Co.,    tl7 

4 — fJruy,   .1..    in    reui...dy    v.    Nor-  N.  .F.    \:>i.  21.1:    ".8  Atl.  Rep.  200. 
folk,    08    MuHH.    4.')2.      To    tlie    wum-  7 — Sinra-i.      Cireuit      .lusticc,      in 

••(Tc-ct,  wo  Stewart  v.  Ifook.  118  Ca.  Koliler    Mfy     Co.    v.    UiH-alioro    (2i, 

445;  Art  S.  K.   Hep.  :t(l!>;  iV.i  ]..  K.  A.  V.t    Fe.l.    Kep.    .■.72-ri74;    8    C.    C.    A. 

2."i.';:     Dohwin    v.    Craliam.     !!•     I'ed.  21.'i. 
Kep.    17.  S— WillianiH   v.    W  illianis.  :{    Mer. 

r>— Salomon    \.    Tl.rtz.    40    \.    .1.  l.'>7;    Seli.  2tt. 
F>}.  400;    Little  v.  Gallun,  38   N.   V.  0— KoUet    v.   .Mrr.ye^.,    1    Sim.    \ 

Si,pp.  48','  S.   I  ;  Cart.'tide  v.  Outram,  ',1  .lur.  N. 

fl — SlmmonH  Medicine  f'o.  v.  Sim-  ^     '" 
monn,    81    Kid.    Kep.    103;    Fowle   v. 


2j.J  IWVDI      MOCUKTS  :    l;|(illT    <iK    I'KIVACY.  [  §  lO'J 

plaiiitiiT  was  a  laiiiici'  ami  iiiaimracl  iirrr  ot"  Icatln'i',  owniiif^ 
setTot  processes  relatiu}^  to  llir  t  icaliiiciif,  di"  leal  her.  Two 
of  Ills  former  employes  wei'c  ciijoiiicd,  on  liis  application, 
troiii  (lisclosinj;  any  of  his  seci'cl,  processes,  liut,  in  the  aljsciuM; 
of  any  jitoof  of  an  express  atrreement  of  secrecy,  the  court 
i-efusc(l  that  portion  of  his  pi-ayer  for  relief  which  asked  that 
the  deft'iuhmts  he  enjoined  fr-om  (lisclosin<^  "where  or  from 
whom  the  eomphiinant  hnys  his  materials,  and  to  whom  lio 
sells  his  «,'oo(ls,  or  the  jji-ices  at  whii-ii  he  buys  or  sells;"  the 
chancelloi'  remarkinjj:  that  an  a<(reement  in  refercnec  to  such 
mattei-s  " nmy  well  he  regarded,  in  tlie  absence  of  anything 
to  the  conti'ai-y  in  its  terrbs,  as  limited  in  its  obligation  to 
the  time  of  employment.  *  *  *  lie  (the  employe  i,  not- 
\\  itlislanding  such  agreement,  might  himself,  after  leaving 
the  employment,  use  the  knowledge  he  had  obtained,  lie  might 
sell  to  the  customers  of  his  late  em])l()ycr,  and  l)u\-  of  those 
fr.>m  whom  the  laltci-  ])urchased,  ami  clo  both  in  competition 
with  him."  '" 

§  109.  Protection  in  equity. — Equity  will  always  act  to 
protect  trade-seci'cts,  and  this  ])rotecti()n  nmy  be  either  affirm- 
ative or  lu'gative  in  charactei'.  In  its  affirmative  form,  relief 
is  granted  by  injunction  to  restraiii  the  unlawful  use  of  such 
secrets.  In  its  negative  form,  e<iuity  protects  i)arties  and  wit- 
nesses against    the   comjiulsory   disclosure   of   trade   secrets." 

The  plaintiff's  witness  A\ho  testifies  merely  to  the  uses  and 
effects  of  a  secret  ])rocess  is  i)rivileged  from  answering  ques- 
tions on  cross-examiiuition  disclosing  the  ingredients  of  such 
secret  process. '- 

Accordingly  where  tlie  defense  to  an  action  for  trademark 
infringement  is  that  jilaintiff's  goods  are  injurious,  the  defend- 
ant Avas  not  ])ei-mitted  to  examine  him  as  to  the  ingredients 
of  which  his  goods  Avere  composed,  the  court  saying,  "if  these 
questions  must  be  answered,  every  manufacturer  Avill  be  at 
the   mercy    of  any    one   who    desires    to    extort    from    him    an 

in— rviiiiyon,    C,    in     Salomon    v.  v.   IT.llMr.  ."0  Fc<l.   Rep.   207:    Moxi.- 

HtTt/.,  40  X.  J.  Ivj.  400.  Xt-rvo-Koofl    Co.    v.    Biacli,    3.'.    Ft-d. 

11 — Taylor    Iron    &    Stool    Co.    v.  l»cp.  4(».l,  40(5. 
Xicliols.   70   X.   J.  Eq.   r)41;   «}',   Atl.  12 — Moxie      X'.Tv.-Food      Co.      v. 

Rt-p.    (i9.5;    Stokes    Bros.    Mfg.    Co.  Doach,  35  Fed.  lU'p.  4U.J. 


§  109]  UOI'KISS    ON    TUVDKMARKS.  25G 

account  i)f  his  proi-i-ss,  for  an  attt'iiipt  to  restrain  an  infrin^'cr 
would  result  in  tlir  disclosing  of  all  that  makes  the  invention 
valuable."  ' ' 

It  is  not  nuitei'ial.  in  a  suit  to  enjoin  disi-losur*'  nf  a  secret 
process,  whether  that  pnK-ess  is  '*a  proper  sul>jeet  lor  a  i)atent 
or  not."" 

In  one  of  the  early  cases  in  whii-h  a  ])r(tperty  ri^'ht  in  trade 
secrets  was  rccofjnized.  the  proceeding  was  one  l)ro\i«rht  to 
enforce  the  sjieeifie  i)erformanee  of  a  contract  for  the  sale 
of  the  goodwill  of  a  dyer's  business,  with  the  exclusive  use 
of  a  secret  mode  of  dyeinj;.  Vice-Chancellor  Leach  sustained 
the  contract  and  directed  its  specific  performance.  In  the 
course  of  his  opinion  he  said:  "Althoii«.'h  the  policy  of  the 
law  will  not  permit  a  jreneral  restraint  of  trade,  yet  a  trader 
may  sell  a  secret  of  business  and  restrain  himself  generally 
from  usin«;  that  secret.  Let  the  master,  in  settling:  the  deed 
which  is  to  give  effect  to  this  ajrreenient,  introduce  a  general 
covenant  to  restrain  the  use  of  the  secret  for  twenty  years, 
and  a  covenant,  limited  in  point  of  locality,  as  to  carrying  on 
the  ordinary  business  of  a  dyer,  both  j)arties  being  willing 
that  the  agreement  should  be  so  modified,"  '^ 

As  against  employes  who  attempt  to  profit  by  .secrets  of 
which  they  have  obtained  knowledge  by  reason  of  their  em- 
jdoyment,  the  right  to  relief  in  equity  has  always  been  recog- 
nized. h\  one  of  the  early  cases  Tiord  Cranwortii  said:  "There 
is  no  doubt  whatever  that  Avliere  a  i)arty  who  has  a  .secret 
in  trade  employs  persons  inider  contract.  exi)ress  or  implied, 
or  under  duty,  express  or  imjjlied,  those  persons  can  not  gain 
the  knowledge  of  that  secret  and  then  set  it  up  against  their 
employer."  '*' 

13_T»tl(>\v      V.      Savournin,      1.')  4r)2;    WoBton    v.    TTcTnmons,   2   Vict. 

IMiila.   170.  T..   U.  Kq.    121;    Ila-;,'  v.   Darl.y,  47 

14_MonkB,    .T..    in    W<'Ht«'rvcU    v.  T..  .1.  ("h.  r,Cu  ;  Tluim  Co.  v.  Tloczyn- 

National    Paper   Cn..   i:.4    Iiul.    (i7.J;  nki.   114   Mich.   149;   72  X.  W.  Rep. 

.-i7  N.  K.  Up.  '..V2.  140;    Salomon    v.    Hertz,   40    N.    J. 

15— BrvHon  v.   ^«  liit«lHa<l.  1    .'^.   il  V.i\.    400;    Kastniiin    ("o.    v.    Rcichcn- 

S.  74.       "  I'acli.  20  N.  Y.  Suj-p.   110;   29  N.  Y. 

10— Mori^on    v.    Moat.    21     L.    .T.  Snpj..   114.1;   70  Hun.  IHS;   Little  v. 

(Ml    24S;  ami  to  tin-  wime  effect,  we  fialhiH.  .IS  \.  Y.  Snpp.  4S7;   Fralieh 

Annrll  V.  (Hiuhert.  Seton    (4tli  Kd.) ,  v.    Denpar,    1«.">    I'a.    St.  24;    Merry- 

:j.-i;    IV'al>ody   V.   Norfolk,  1)8  MaBs.  u.ii(l..r    v.    M.ic.re,   L.    R.    (1802)    2 


O'l-. 


257 


TRADE   SECRKTS  ;    HKillT    Ol'    l'I£IVAC\' 


§109 


In  order  to  obtain  this  icliri"  it  is  not  necessary  that  the 
employe  should  have  hctii  bound  to  secrecy  by  contract.  In 
an  oi)ini()n  dcalinf,'  with  a  case  of  this  character,  Jud^e  Will- 
iams said:  "Having'  ciiti-red  tiie  service  of  complainants,  and 
having  had  iuij)ai-tcd  to  him  their  secrets,  defendant  was,  in 
equity  aiul  jrood  conscience,  obliged  to  i)reserve  them  as 
sacredly  as  his  own,  and  tliis  as  well   without  a   contract  as 


C'li.  r)lS;  Simmoiirt  Mod.  Co.  v.  Sim- 
mons, 81  F'-d.  Ki'p.  1G3;  Sti'wart  v. 
Hook,  118  (;a.  44.-);  45  S.  E.  Kt-p- 
300;  C.{  L.  R.  A.  2.-)r);  Sniiitus  Nut 
Food  Co.  V.  Cenicr,  l:}4  Miili.  :J7(); 
flO  X.  W.  Rc'p.  4r)4;  Stoiu'  v.  Goss, 
05  N.  J.  Eq.  750;  55  Atl.  Rt'p.  736; 
03  L.  R.  A.  344;  Vulcan  Detinning 
Co.  V.  American  Can  Co.,  72  X.  J. 
Eq.  387;  07  Atl.  Rep.  33!);  revers- 
ing Vulcan  Detinning  Co.  v.  Amer- 
ican Can  Co.,  70  X.  J.  Eq.  588; 
62  Atl.  Rep.  881  (the  same  case, 
upon  application  for  preliminary 
injunction,  <')7  N.  .T.  Eq.  24.!;  58 
Atl.  Rep.  2i)0);  Sterling  Var- 
nish Co  V.  Macon,  217  Pa.  7; 
00  Atl.  Rep.  78;  Taylor  Iron  & 
Steel  Co.  V.  Xicliols,  70  X.  .1.  Eq. 
541;  05  Atl.  Rep.  005;  Tahor  v. 
Hoffmann,  118  X.  Y.  30;  23  X.  E. 
Rep.  12;  10  Am.  St.  Rep.  710;  Wcs- 
tervelt  v.  Xational  Paper  Co.,  154 
Ind.  073;  57  X.  E.  Rep.  5.52;  Phila- 
delphia E.\tracting  Co.  v.  Keystone 
E.vtracting  Co.,  170  Fed.  Rep.  830; 
McCall  V.  Wright.  108  X.  Y.  143; 
vSooy  V.  State,  41  X.  -J.  Law, 
3!)4;  ]\Iacl)eth-Evans  Glass  Co.  v. 
Schnelbach,  230  Pa.  70;  80  Atl. 
Rep.  688;  Applebee  v.  Skiwanek, 
140  X.  Y.  S.  4.-)0;  27  X.  Y.  Cr.  R. 
78  (under  X.  Y.  Penal  Law,  §  430)  ; 
American  Stay  Co.  v.  Delaney,  211 
Mass.  220;  07  X.  E.  Rep.  Oil; 
Pomeroy  Ink  Co.  v.  Pomeroy,  77 
N.   J.   Eq.   203;    78   Atl.    Rep.   608; 


II.  H.  Wiggins  Sons'  Co.  v.  Cott-A- 
Lap  Co.,  109  Fed.  Rep.  150;  Union 
Switch  &  Signal  Co.  v.  Sperry,  100 
Fed.  Rep.  020;  Witkop  &  Holmes 
Co.  V.  Boyce,  112  X.  Y.  S.  874;  61 
Misc.  Rep.  120;  Eastern  Extracting 
Co.  V.  Greater  Xew  York  Extract- 
ing Co.,  110  X.  Y.  S.  738;  120  App. 
Div.  028;  Elaterite  Paint  &  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  S.  E.  Frost  Co.,  105  iMinn. 
230;  117  X.  W.  Rep.  .388;  O'Bear- 
Xester  Glass  Co.  v.  Antiexplo  Co., 
101  Tex.  431;  108  S.  W.  Rep.  007; 
Stevens  &  Co.  v.  Stiles,  20  R.  I. 
.300;  71   Atl.  Rep.  802. 

Tile  following  contract  was  liehl 
valid  and  binding  upon  the  defend- 
ant in  Fralich  v.  Despar,  supra: 

"I,  Andn-w  Despar,  of  the  city 
of  Pittsburg,  state  of  Pennsylvania, 
in  tlie  employ  of  E.  C.  Fralicii,  a 
manufactun-r  of  oils,  etc.,  also  of 
the  said  city  of  Pittsburg,  do  sol- 
emnly swear  that  if  the  said  E.  C. 
F.  makes  known  to  me  the  ways 
and  secrets  of  manufacturing  and 
stilling  of  different  kinds  of  oils, 
and  of  the  different  kinds  of  grease 
manufactured  by  him.  that  I  will 
not  use  such  knowledge  or  secrets 
for  my  own  gain,  nor  will  1  ever, 
so  long  as  I  may  live,  divulge  or 
make  known  in  any  way  the  knowl- 
edge I  may  receive  while  in  his 
employ,  or  any  part  of  said  secret, 
cither  of  mix  in  oils  or  otherwise." 


§  lOD]  HOI'KINS   ON    TR-VDEilARKS.  258 

with  it."  '"  Aiul  another  court  lias  stntod  tin*  riil(>  as  follows: 
"By  a  rart'fwl  n-adiiifr  <'f  the  various  decisions  upon  this  sub- 
ject, it  will  be  seen  that  some  are  made  to  dei)end  upon  a 
breach  of  an  express  contract  between  the  parties,  while  others 
proceed  u|>on  the  theory  that  where  a  eontidential  relation 
exists  between  two  or  more  ]>arties  (Mifratrcd  in  a  business 
venture,  the  law  raises  an  iiuplicd  contract  between  them 
that  the  employe  will  not  divul^g  any  trade  secrets  imi)arted 
to  him.  or  discovered  by  him  in  the  course  of  his  employment, 
and  that  a  disclosure  of  such  secrets,  thus  aecpiired.  is  a  breach 
of  trust  and  a  violation  of  pood  morals,  to  jirevent  which  a 
court  of  ecpiity  should  intervene."  '** 

Where  there  is  such  a  contract  between  employer  and  em- 
j)loye,  it  is  not  objectionable  as  beinp  in  restraint  of  trade."* 

The  oblifjation  of  secrecy  extends  to  every  character  of 
employment.  Thus,  canvassers  who  have  accumulate<l  mater- 
ials in  the  course  of  soliciting  adverti.scments  for  their  em- 
ployer may  be  enjoined  from  using:  such  material  for  a  rival 
l)ublication ; -"  and  an  enp-ine  maker's  clerk  who  had  made 
a  table  of  dimensions  of  his  employer's  engines  was  enjoined 
from  disclosing  the  data  so  obtained.-' 

"If  a  i^eison  enijiloys  another  to  work  for  him  in  a  busi- 
ness in  which  he  makes  nse  of  a  secret  process,  of  of  machinery 
invented  by  himself,  or  by  others  for  him,  but  the  nature 
and  particulars  of  which  he  desires  to  keep  a  secret,  and  of 
which  desire  on  the  part  of  the  employer  the  employe  has 
notice  at  the  time  of  his  emi>loyment.  even  if  there  is  no  express 
contract  on  the  part  of  the  emjiloye  not  to  divulge  said  secret 
process  or  machinery,  the  law  will  imply  a  promi-se  to  keep 
the  employer's  secret  thus  intrusted  to  him."-- 

Where  it  affirmatively  appears  that  the  trade  secret  exists, 
that  it  has  been  imjiarted  in  confidence  to  the  defendant,  and 

17_Simm(>nH    M.-d.    Co.    v.    Sim-  20— T.nmi.  v.  Kvnns.  T-.  R.   (1802) 

monH.  81   KmI.   H.p,    IcrMOO.  n  Cli.  4(;2. 

18 — AdnmK.  .F..  in  KiiHtmnn  Co.  v.  21 — Mcrrx  wt-atluT    v.     Monrc.    L. 

n.'irli.-nl.iiHi     20    N.    Y    Stip.r.    110-  II.    (1H!»2|    2  Ch.  r.22. 

no.  22— Monks.   J.,    in    WcHtrrv.-lt    v. 

in — SimmunH    Med.    Co.    v.    Sim-  Nntionnl    I'liptT    Co..    l.'i-l    hid.    (I7.'l. 

inonM,  81   Fi-<l.   lO.'J;   l'iul>ody  v.  .Nor-  liTS;     .'»7     N.     K.    ."i."»2;     foUowc-d    in 

folk,  08  MaHH.  452.  llnmilfon'  Mf;r.    (<..    v.    TuMw    Mfj;. 

Co.,  210  F.-'l.  Hcii.   Jol.   I(i7. 


259  ■y\i\UK   SKCHKTS;    HIGHT    OV    I'UIVACY.  [§109 

tli.'it  llic  plaiiitilV  will  Im'  iiijiiiTd  ]>y  tlir  (iis.-losurc.  if  one  is 
made,  111.'  dcfeiiso  that  (Icfciidants  do  not  intend  to  >jso  or 
divtil^'c  tlio  Kocrot  will  not  1)0  {^ivcn  much  wci^'ht.  for  the  rea- 
son that  under  tlie  eircumstances  an  injunction  can  not  harm 
the  defendant,  and  if  the  injunction  was  withheld,  arul  the 
secret  disclosed,  the  injury  lo  tl./'  Mlaintiff  would  Ix-  one  which 
the  hnv  is  practically  ,io;\erh'ss  to  remedy.-"' 

Wliere  a  desigriier,  emi-loyed  for  his  special  skiH  hy  a  manu- 
facturer, makes  the  entries  of  formulas  invented  by  him  in 
the  course  of  his  employment  in  books  of  his  OAvn  instead  of 
books  furnished  ])y  his  employer  for  tlie  |)urpose,  the  employer 
is  entitled  to  the  knowled}]rf  of  the  formulas.-^ 

The  ])i-in<'iples  under  consideratioTi  extend  beyond  the  re- 
lationship of  master  and  servant.  In  faet,  throup:hout  all  of 
this  book  that  relates  to  ecpiitahh^  remedies  we  are  but  deal- 
in<r  with  the  aindication  of  those  riunedies  which  has  been 
made  upon  s]iecific  forms  of  fraud.  The  eases  analoprous  to 
trade  secrets  are  many,  and  the  lanjruafre  of  Viee-rhancellor 
Turner  in  the  leadinjr  case  of  Morns;on  v.  Mont  is  applicable 
to  all  of  them:  "Different  frrounds  have  been  assigned  for 
the  exercise  of  the  iurisdiction.  In  some  cases  it  has  been 
referred  to  )u*o]ierty,  in  others  to  contract,  and  in  others,  apram. 
it  has  been  treated  as  founded  upon  trust  or  confidence,  mean- 
iujr.  as  T  conceive,  that  the  court  fastens  the  oblicration  on  the 
conscience  of  the  ]iarty,  and  enforces  it  njrainst  him  in  the  same 
manner  as  it  enforces,  aprainst  a  party  to  wl.om  a  benefit  is 
griven,  the  ol)H<ration  of  jierformiufr  a  promise,  on  the  faith 
of  which  the  benefit  has  been  conferred.''-^' 

So  a  photogrrapher  has  been  restrained  from  making  prints 
from  a  nefrative  bearinjx  the  plaintiff's  portrait :  -'''  a  litho- 
grapher,   from    makinpr    co])ies    of   the    plaintiffs'    pictures    in 

2.3— ruisscll    V.    Luiul.'on,    72    OlT.  W\\<:)r.  44  Minn.  28:   9  L.  R.  A.  58; 

Gaz.  420.  A(\   X.   W.   Rop.    141.     The  npjjative 

24 — Dompsov   v.   Dolison.   174   Pa.  may    bi'lon^r    to    the    photographer, 

122;   34  Atl.  Rop.  4.")!);   32  L.  R.  A.  hut  ho  haa  no  ripht  of  reproduction 

7fil.  willtoiit     the     purchaser's     consent. 

2.->— Alorison    v.    Moat,    20    L.    J.  Corliss    v.    F.    W.    Walker    Co..    64 

Ch.  248.  Fed.    R.-p.    280;    Press    Pe.l..    Co.    v. 

2(>— I'.dlard   V.    Photoj^raphic  Co.,  Falk,  50  Fed.  Rep.  324. 
40    C.    1).     (Eng.)     34.5;    Moore    v. 


§101)]  IKM'KINS    UN    TU\I)I:M  AUKS.  260 

exooss  of  tlif  nuinluT  ordoroil  liy  the  plaiiitilTs ; -'  ami  tlu* 
oxhihition  of  oti'hin^'s  obtuinrd  by  tlir  ilofoiulaiit  tliroutrh  u 
hrcai'li  of  trust,  luis  hcon  rest  mined,-"  as  lias  tlu'  juiMication 
of  kH'tures.  not  puMishod  or  authorized  to  be  i)ul)lisliod  by  the 
leeturer-"  and  the  jmblieation  of  private  letters,-"'  and  the 
use  of  a   eard   index.-" 

The  pro\ind  for  enjoining  the  publication  of  private  letters 
has  sometimes  been  based  upon  a  i)roperty  rijrht  in  them.-'''- 
and  sometimes  upon  the  frnnind  tluit  their  publieation  would 
be  i)ainftU   to  the  uriter.-""-' 

A  peculiar  state  of  facts  develojied  in  a  recent  <'ase  is  worthy 
of  notice.  The  jilaintiff.  a  hardware  dealer,  had  published 
and  distril)utcd  to  the  trade  calalo^nies  in  which  the  i)riees 
were  marked  in  li^rures,  letters  and  characters,  aecordinp  to 
a  secret  code  devised  by  plaintiff.  The  defendant,  who  owned 
a  eopy  of  tiu'  catalogue,  so  marked  with  prices  in  secret  char- 
acters, obtained  a  coi)y  of  the  key  to  the  code  from  on6  of  the 
plaintiff's  employes,  and  incorporated  the  secret  code  from  the 
key  into  the  catalogue.  Upon  this  state  of  facts  the  defendant 
was  enjoined  from  disclosing  the  information  thus  obtained, 
and  a  receiver  was  api)ointed  to  take  cliariL'e  of  the  defendant's 
copy  of  tlie  catalogiu\'"  This  case  ai)pears  to  lie  in  conflict, 
with  tlic  Englisji  case  of  R(  idrr's  Telrc/rani  Co.  r.  Hiiron,  where 
tlu'  i)laintiffs  devised  a  cypher  code  containing  cypher  w-ords 
indicating  the  names  of  their  cu.stomers.  Tiiis  cypher  was  com- 
municated to  the  defendant  while  he  was  in  the  employnuMit 
of  the  i)laintiffs.  After  he  left  the  plaint  ill's  and  started  a 
rival  business,  he  sent  advertiscnients  to  their  cu.stomers 
stating  that  he  had  tlu'ir  cyplicrs.  and  sdliriting  their  custom. 

27— Tuck   &    Sons   v.    rri<-Ht<T.   10  Cn.  v.   l'i<t..ri:il    Il.vi.w  C...,  U'2  X. 

Q.  H.  I).  «29;   Lvvvraii  v.  Cli-mtiits,  Y.  S.  :;?. 
17r.  MiiHH.  370;  r.O  L.  U.  A.  :{!»7.  :{-2— I*..)..'    V.    (  url.    '2    .\tk.    ^4-2; 

28 AllM-rt  V.    Striin;.'!',   2    l)i'<!.    vt  Woolscy   v.  .luild.  4    Dm-r.  :570. 

Sm.  052.  .1.1— Occ   V.    Pritolinrd.   2    Swanrtt. 

2n_AlK'rncthy    v.    lliitcliiiisoii.    W  402:    W.tni..r.'    v.    Scov.-ll.    '^    K<!w. 

L.  J.  C\\.  214.    '  (■'•    •'•!'' 

30 — Karl   of  T.ytton   v.   Dcvi-y.   r>4  34— Simmons     Tlardwarf    Co.    v. 

L.   .T.    Cli.   '203:    I'.rcrvHl    v.    IMiippn.  WuHmI,    1    So    Dak.    488:    47   N.   W. 

2  VfH.  4  n.  10.  n.p.  S11.  II  r..  h.  .\.  2r.7. 

31 — Oxypatlior  t'o.  \.  !)<•  I'ordiTo, 
149  N.  Y.  K.  r.1.3;  PecrlcBH  TatUTn 


•2i)]  TKADK    SKCKETS;    HIUUT    OF    I'HIVACY.  [§1'^-' 

Tho  foiirt  lield  tliiit  the  delViuIaiit  was  ^Miilly  of  no  hreacli 
of  trust  l)0('aiise  the  eypliers  were  known  to  the  eustomcrs, 
and  the  (h'fendaiit  eould  liave  ohlained  the  eypliers  from  any 
of  them  who  mijrht  ehoosc  to  do  business  with  him.'-'  The 
deeision  of  the  Ameriean  eourt  seems  to  be  correet  in  i»riniiple. 

A  wide  range  has  been  allowed  the  defendants^ in  unfair 
eompetition  eases  in  the  appropriation  and  use  of  the  uneopy- 
righted  eatalofrue  matter,  ])i('torial  as  well  as  text,  of  the  i)lain- 
tiff.  as  will  apix'ar  in  the  illustrative  eases  eited  in  the  foot 
note.'"'  Nor  does  injuiu-tion  lie  ajrainst  a  defendant  whose 
salesmen  use  plaiiitifT's  eataloprue  in  solieitiiifr  orders,  in  the 
absenee  of  any  evidence  that  such  use  was  fraudulent. •''^ 

In  every  ease  where  the  plaintiff  seeks  i)rotection  for  a 
trade  seeret,  it  must  ai>pear  that  it  really  is  a  seeret.''**  If 
a  so-ealled  seeret  ])roeess  is  lawfully  known  to  others  in  the 
trade,  no  one  will  be  enjoined  from  diselosinj;  or  using  it.-'-' 
But  the  faet  that  the  seeret  has  been  the  subjeet  of  a  patent, 
sinee  expired,  which  remained  a  mere  paper  patent,  aiul  dor- 
mant, does  not  negative  the  fact  that  it  is  or  may  be  still  a 
secret.  "INFany  an  invention  aiul  many  an  idea  of  value  are 
doubtless  to  be  found  in  the  records  of  the  Patent  Office,  but 
so  far  as  pnblic  actual  knowledge  thereof  is  concerned,  they 
might  as  well  be  non-existent."""* 

Contracts  relating  to  trade  secrets  are,  of  course,  subject 
to  the  same  rules  of  construction  as  other  contracts.  So  in 
a  case  where  the  defendant  sold  a  formula  for  making  cer- 
tain soap  and  "agreed  to  file  and  surrender  his   right  and 

3r,_R,.ut..r'9     Tflcfrram      Co.      v.  Co.    v.    Tul)l)s    Mfj:.    Co.,    21(5    Fi-d. 

Byron,  4.3  L.  J.  Cli.  (HJl.  Rep.  401,  411. 

3G— Van    Kann.'l   Revolving,'   Door  38— Macbeth-Evans    Glass    Co.    v. 

Co     V.    American    Revolving    Door  Sclinelliach,    239    Pa.    70;     8G    Atl. 

Co.,  135  C.  C.  A.  439;  21.-)  Fed.  Rep.  Rep.   G8S. 

582;    Hamilton    Mfjr.   Co.    v.    Tubhs  30— Bell    &.    Bopart    Soap    Co.    v. 

Mfjr.   Co.,  21f)   Fed.   Rop.   401,  411;  P.trolia   Mfg.   Co..   .^)4  N.   Y.    Supp. 

Jewelers'  Mercantile  Agency  v.  .Tew-  f)f)3-t)()0;    Bristol   v.    Equitable   Lif<i 

piers'  Pub.   Co.,   1.5.">  X.  Y.  241;   40  Assurance   Society,   132   X.  Y.   2r.4; 

N.   E.  Rep.   872;    41  L.   R.   A.   846;  30  N.  E.   Rop.   506;   Hamilton  Mfg. 

03  Am.  St.  Rep.  666.  Co.    v.    Tubbs    Mfg.    Co.,    216    Fed. 

37— Lamb  v.  Evans.  L.  R.   (lS02i  Rep.  401.  407. 

3  Cli.  462,  460,  470;   Hamilton  Mfg.  40— Shiras,     .T.,     in      Benton      v. 

Ward,  59  Fed.  Rep.  411-413. 


^  101)]  IIOI'KINS    ON     TKVDIMAKKS.  262 

claims  ill  the  process  and  f(>i-iiiul;i'  ami  iiiaUiii^,'  of  said  soup," 
aiul  that  lit'  "wttuld  imt  sell  any  plants  in  tlif  Tnitcd  States 
for  the  inanufactiiiv  of  that  |)arti('ular  kind  of  soap,  during 
the  tonii  of  twenty  years."'  it  was  very  pro|)rrly  decided  that 
the  conti-act  did  not  pi-eclude  him  from  selling'  oi-  pultin;,'  uj) 
any  other  kind  of  a  soap  plant  to  or  for  anybody  else;  and 
wliere  lie  jiut  np  a  s<)a|)  plant  for  niakinjr  soaps  in  jjencral, 
and  the  owner  of  the  plant  then  beuMii  the  mannfactiire  of 
the  particular  soap  in  (piestion,  there  was  no  cause  of  action 
either  as  ajrainst   him  or  the  owners  of  the  ])lant." 

P^niployes  may  be  enjoined  ftom  disclosing'  trade  secrets 
even  in  the  absence  of  an  express  ajrveement  of  secrecy,  as 
we  have  seen,  and  it  is  no  defense  that  the  em])loye  was  a 
minor  at   the  time  he  entered  the  employment. '-* 

A  defendant  iiad  agreed  upon  enterin<r  the  employment  of 
the  plaintiff  as  a  woikman.  on  a  salary,  to  disclose  certain 
secret  processes  known  only  to  him.  He  failed  to  make  the 
disclosure  and  left  the  jilaintiff's  employment.  In  defense  to 
an  application  for  an  injunction  restraining  liim  from  impart- 
iii},'  the  secret  processes  to  others,  he  urfred  that  his  employ- 
ment had  been  for  no  definite  teiiii.  This  defense  did  not 
avail  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  plaintiff  had  invested  in 
material  it  expected  to  use  in  connection  with  the  secret  pro- 
cesses. The  court  observed  that  "althou<;h  tlie  jiroeesses  were 
not  patented,  yet,  as  tliey  were  secret,  and  as  their  .secrecy 
was  protected  by  the  contract  between  the  defendant  and  the 
])laintiff,  the  i)laintiff  is  in  a  situation  to  insist  that  the  defend- 
ant, who  a«rreed  to  jirotect  the  secrecy  of  these  i)rocesses,  and 
thus  jireserve  their  value,  should  not  lie  jiermitted  to  disclose 
them,  and  thus  dcj.rive  the  plaintiff  of  the  valuable  j.roperty 
which  he  had   inducM-d   it   to  jmrchase. "  '• 

AVhere  an  emi)loye  of  a  partnership  invents  a  secret  pro- 
cess f(»r  the  use  of  the  firm,  either  membi'r  of  the  firm  nuiy 
after  dis.s()lution  use  the  .secret  process,  and  either  member 
will,  on   the  comi>laint   of  another  memb«'r.   be  enj(»ined   from 

41  — r.cU    &    Bdnnrt    Soaj*    Cn.    \.  -i:!-  IJiinisry.  .1..  in   Nntimuil  diim 

r.ln.lia   MfK-    Co.,    '.t    N.    Y.    Sii|.|..       A    Mini   Co.   \.    Hni.n.ll.v.   .M    N.    Y. 
r,(]:j,  Supp.  '.K\'.)l. 

42— Littl.-    v.    fialhiH,    :iS    N.    Y. 
Supp.  487. 


263  TKADK    SKCKKTS;    UHillT    OK    I'ICIVACn'r  [  §  1 OJ) 


represenliii^'  liiinsclf  as  hciiij^  tlic  sole  owin-r  of  sudi  secret 
process." 

Trade  secrets  or  processes,  ii'  reduced  to  writing,  are  sub- 
ject to  levy  and  sale  under  a  common  law  writ  of  execution. ■♦•''' 
Where  one  not  a  i)arty  to  the  suit  had  machinery  of  his  own, 
used  in  connection  with  a  secret  process  belonging  to  him, 
on  premises  belonging  to  a  corporation  for  which  a  receiver 
was  appointed,  on  the  facts  being  ])resented  to  the  court  the 
order  appointing  tiie  receiver  was  so  modified  as  to  permit 
the  third  party  to  remove  his  machinery  from  the  premises, 
and  without  the  receiver  being  given  the  opportunity  to  inspect 
the  machinery,  as  such  insjiection  would  lead  to  the  discovery 
of  the  process.-*'"'  Trade  secrets,  such  as  recipes  or  processes, 
are  proper  subjects  of  taxation.^"  A  false  representation  as 
to  the  efficiency  of  a  secret  process  is  ground  for  rescinding 
a  contract  for  its  sale.^'^ 

It  would  seem  clear,  on  principle,  that  a  witness  not  a  party 
to  a  suit  would  be  fully  protected  against  any  attempt  to  com- 
pel him  to  disclose  his  trade  secrets,  yet  avc  find  a  case  hold- 
ing that  a  suhpoota  duces  tecum  calling  for  the  production 
of  drawings  by  such  a  witness  Avas  enforced,  notwithstanding 
his  objection  that  the  drawings  related  to  a  secret  process 
used  by  him.'"  Tliis  decision  is  unsupported  by  any  authority. 
On  the  other  hand,  a  defendant  in  an  action  for  infringement 
of  a  process  patent  will  not  be  compelled  to  submit  to  an  in- 
spection of  his  factoi-y  where  his  answer  avers  that  his  i)ro- 
cess  is  not  that  of  the  patent,  and  is  his  own  secret.  uni)atented 
process,  used  from  a  period  antedating  the  patent  in  suit.*'''^ 
Sec.  4908,  United  States  Revised  Statutes,  a  provision  relat- 
ing to  the  taking  of  testimony  in  ir.terference  cases  jiending 
in  the  Patent  Office.  ])r()vides  that  no  witness  shall  be  guilty 

44 — Baldwin    v.    Von    ^riclicroiix.  4S — Fitiicy       Ruhbcr-Varnish       & 

2")    X.    Y.    Supj).    8G7;    affirmi'd,    83  Enajnu'l  Co.  v.  Finley,  N.  J.  Ch.,  32 

Hun,  4.};  .31  N.  Y.  Supp.  8.-)7.  Atl.     Rep.    740,    (not    officially    re- 

4r)— HaiiU'v  V.   Fidelity   Ins.  T.  &  ported). 

S.  Co.,  8  Pa.  Dist.  R.  207.  40 — lolinson     Steel     Street     Rail 

46_Witt    V.     Reed    Flectrie    Co..  Co.    v.   North    Branch   Steel   Co.,   48 

187  Ra.  424;  41  Atl.  Rep.  317.  Fed.  Rep.   101. 

47_/„    ,v    Brandreth.    .")0    X.    Y.  oO — Stokes  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hel- 

Supj).   1002;   28  Misc.   Rep.  4(18.  ler,  .')()  Fed.  Rep.  207. 


§  100]  UOPKINS   ON    TRADEMARKS.  -04 

of  i'()ntoini>t    for   disobcyiiiK   a   subpot'im    IssiumI  by    the   tlork 
of  any  court   •>f  tlio  United   States,  as  provided   for  by  sec. 
4900.   "for   refusiiijx  to   disclose   any   secret    invention   or  dis- 
eovery  made  or  owned  by  himself.  '     In  an  interference  pro- 
cecdintr.    one    of    the    parties    to    the    interference    refused    to 
answer  an  interro^'atory  i)ropounded  to  him.  plaeinj;  his  refusal 
upon  the  jrround  that  the  (juestion  sou«rht  to  diselo.se  a  secret 
discovery  or  invention,  such  as  is  i>roteeted  by  sec.  4908.     It 
was  lield   that   the  witness  was  not  entitled  to  the  protection 
of  the  section   for  the  rea.s<tn  that   the  allejied  secret   passessed 
so  intimate  a  connection  with  the  subject-matter  of  the  patent, 
that  he  had  no  ri^'ht  to  withhold  it  from  the  public.    The  court 
said:    "In  apjilyint?  for  the  patent  it  was  his  duty  to  disclose 
the  most  available  method  known  to  him  of  earryin*?  the  dis- 
covery into  effect — in  other  words,  of  manufacturiufr  his  new 
fabric.     This  information,  which  may  be  used  by  others  after 
his  patent  has  expired,  is  an  important  iiart  of  the  compen- 
sation which  the  public  obtains  for  the  temjiorary  monopoly 
^'ranted  him.     If  he  could  withhold  it,  diselosin<?  an  inferior 
metiiod  simply,  which  he  does  not  employ,  the  discovery  would 
never  become  available  public  property,  as  the  patent  laws  con- 
temi)late  it  shall.     He  would  have  a  monopoly  after  his  pat- 
ent liad  expired,  which  would  continue  as  lonj?  as  he  could 
conceal  this  material  i)art  of  his  discovery.     1  do  not  .say  that 
such  disclosure  was  essential  to  the  validity  of  his  patent,  (that 
(piestion  is  not  before  me,)  but  the  information  withheld  does 
not  constitute   such    a    secret    as   the   section,   or   e«iuity,   pro- 
tects."'"' 

It  is  no  defense  to  an  action  for  royalties  (ui  the  maiui- 
facture  of  articles  invented  by  the  plaintiff  ami  nuide  uiuler 
his  direction  and  from  dies  furnished  by  him.  that  the  article 
was  iu)t  i)atented;  "so  lonp  as  the  inventor  holds  the  secret 

r,l_I)„niun    V.    K.rf.r.     10     Fed.  2S  ( Miio  Cir.  ft.  H.'p.  IT.').     That  tho 

Tt«p,  4('.'2;    .■>S  on.  Claz.    Ktn.'l.     Tliat  proprirfor   t.f    n    8<'on't    preparation 

a  witn-HH  may  in>t,  in  n  j»r<>Hi-cution  who    iian    made    public    rcpn-Htnta- 

»in<l<r    an    antitniHt    law,    n-ftiw   to  lionK    ph    to    liis    |. reparation    mnHt 

<liwl<m-    nam<H    of    dealerH.    oiitHidc  (lirielone  liin  formula,   npon  an   isnne 

the  all -(red  combination,  from  whom  raiwd  aH  to  the  truth  of  hin  npre- 

he  haH  iMHijrht  >;oodH.  on  the  ^'round  Hentati->nH.    Hee    Moxie    Nerve    Food 

of  trade  wcret,  wo  .loneH   v.   Coode,  Co.  v.  Modox  Co.,  I.'i2  Fed.  Rep.  40.3. 


265  TKADK   SECRETS;    HKJIIT    OK    I'KIVACV.  [§11<^ 

in  his  own  posscssiitii,  it  is  property,  or  a  tiling,'  of  value, 
for  the  transfer  of  whieh  he  may  demand  a  price;  and,  if  Jie 
passes  it  over  to  a  purchaser  on  an  af^reement  to  pay,  it  is  no 
defense  1o  the  hiltcr  to  say  that  there  is  no  i)atcnt."''-  One 
who  luis  become  liound  as  an  employe  not  to  divul|;?e  a  tra(h' 
secret,  can  not  (U-fend  on  the  grouiul  that  the  secret  was  dishon- 
estly jirocui-cd  hy  <'(>iiipl;iinant's  assignee/'-''  The  general  nd<'. 
however,  is  well  setlh'd,  that  "if  tlie  jrivinjr  of  the  testimony 
sought,  or  the  production  of  the  documents  called  for  will 
disclose  what  are  characterized  as  'trade-secrets,'  the  witness 
has  a  lejral  privilege  to  M-ithhold  it,"''^  Tn  a  bill  to  enjoin 
the  disclosure  of  a  secret  process,  it  is  not  necessary  to  state 
what  the  ]irocess  is,-'^"'  nor  need  it  be  set  out  in  the  decree/'" 
It  has  been  held,  \uuler  sees.  888  and  894  of  the  New  York 
Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  that  a  commission  to  take  testimony 
on  written  interrogatories  will  issue,  although  the  interroga- 
tories apparently  call  for  the  disclosure  of  a  secret  process; 
Defendorf,  J.,  holding  that  "the  fact  that  the  defendants  say 
or  show  that  the  evidence  sought  from  these  witnesses  is  priv- 
ileged should  not  ])revent  the  granting  of  a  commission."'''^ 

§  110.  Trademarks  on  products  of  secret  processes. — In 
1874,  Sir  George  Jessel,  then  Master  of  the  Rolls,  announced 
the  very  fundamental  rule  that  a  party  would  not  be  per- 
mitted to  apply  to  an  article  of  his  own  invention  the  name 
of  an  article  made  by  a  secret  recipe."^  In  a  later  English 
case  Lord  Ilersehell  disposed  of  the  defense  made  in  a  similar 
case,  that  the  purchaser  did  not  know  the  name  of  the  manu- 
facture of  the  original  product  by  saying  "one  man  may 
quite  well  pass  off  his  goods  as  the  goods  of  another  if  he 

i'y'2 — Mitclicll,    J.,    ill    Kr^oj^hor    v.  .'>;") — S.       Jarvia      Adams      Co.      v. 

McConway    &    Fork-y   Co.,    14!)    Ta.  Knapp,  58  C   C.  A.  1;  121  Fed.  R.-p. 

St.   444-4r)7;    23   Atl.    Rep.   341.  34,  40. 

.'J3 — Vulcan      Detinninf;      Co.      v.  fifi — Pomcroy  Ink  Co.  v.  Pomoroy, 

American    Can    Co.,    67    X.    J.    Eq.  77  X.  J.  Eq.  203;  78  Atl.  Rep.  698. 

243;   58  Atl.  Rep.  290;   Vulcan  Do-  57— Cullinan    v.    Dwipht,    100    X. 

tinninj,'   Co.    v.    American    Can    Co.,  Y.  Supp.  896. 

72  X.  J.  Eq.  387;  67  Atl.  Rep.  339;  58— Cotton   v.    Gillard,    44    L.    J. 

12  L.  R.  A.   (X.S.)    102.  Ch.  90. 

54 — Cochran,  J..  in  Crocker- 
Wheeler  Co.  V.  BulU)ck,  134  Fed. 
Rep.  241,  245. 


§111]  IIOl'KINS   ON    TRADKMARKS,  2G6 

pusses  tlu'in  o(T  to  pcopU'  who  will  ac-i-cpt  them  as  the  inami- 
fai-ture  of  anotluT.  al(liou}:li  tlifv  do  not  know  that  other  by 
naino  at  all.'"  '" 

Tlio  orifrinatum  of  a  secrot  process  by  an  cinploye,  followed 
by  the  adoption  l)y  tlie  cnii)b)yer  of  a  tradcMiiark  for  the  jiro- 
dnct  of  that  proeess,  leaves  in  tlie  employe  no  personal  right 
to  the  nse  of  that  trademark  when  he  leaves  the  employment 
of  its  owner.''"  Hut  eirenmstanees  may  arise  where  an  aban- 
doned formula  which  has  not  lost  its  secret  character,  may 
be  lawfully  adoi)te(l  with  tlie  trademark  identifying  it8  pro- 
duct."-» 

§  111.  Actions  and  defenses. — A  controlling  element  in 
denying:  relief  i)i  eases  of  alle^'ed  trade  secret  may  be  the  fact 
that  the  ideas  communicated  to  the  employe  were  not  known 
to  him  to  be  secret ;  and  the  existence  of  the  alleged  secret 
may  be  negatived  by  evidence  that  visitors  were  freely  admitted 
to  the  ]iremises  where  the  alleged  trade  secret  was  practiced."- 
Where  the  defendant  denies  all  intention  to  make  the  use  of 
a  secret  alleged  to  be  threatened  by  the  bill,  the  preliminary 
iiijunction  may  be  denied  without  jjrejudice  to  the  right  to 
renew   the   ai)plication."'* 

At  law,  an  action  of  tort  in  the  nature  of  trespass  on  the 
ease  lies  against  a  defendant  for  the  betrayal  of  a  trade  secret, 
but  if  actual  damage  is  not  proven  the  recovery  will  be  nom- 
iiud."' 

A  bill  is  not  multifarious  which  coujiles  a  change  of  mis- 
use of  trade  secret  with  a  charge  of  unfair  competition.''"'* 

It  is  no  defense  to  an  actioTi  to  enjoin  the  use  of  a  trade 
secret  by  a  former  emi)loye  that  the  nuiiuifacture  of  goods 
by  that  process  by  the  eor|)orali(iii  plaint ilT  was  iillni  riVtw."" 

r,n— Birmin^'hani     \iii..;ar    Brew-  (i:i— Dii    Pont-Df    Nomoiirs    Pow- 

«Ty  Co.  V.   Pow.ll,   I,.    K.    (1807)    A.  (l<r    Co.   v.   Miistaiid.   21fi    F.d.   R<'p. 

C.  710.  271. 

(H) — laofiuay   v.    'N'ouri;,',   '22S    F.d.  (U — T\oyHton<'    v.    Woodl.iiry    n<r- 

T{«p.  0.30.  niatoloj.'i<al    Institute,    122   \.    V.    S. 

(51_\V.   A.   flain.'H  4   Co.  v.    Rock  •H4 ;  07  Misc.  Hep.  20".. 

Spring  DiHtillin^'  Co.,  220  Fed.  K«p.  0."> — 'amcs  B.   Sipc  Co.   v.  Coliim- 

.'■.31,  r)36;    141   C.   C.   A.  2H7    (C.   C.  Ida  Hcnniiii,'  Co..   171   Fed.  Hep.  29.'.. 

A.,  6th  Circuit).  00— S.  S.  Wliit.-  Dental   Mfp.  Co. 

02— TiBmilton    Mf^'.    Co.   v.   Tuhl.H  v.   Mitcholl,   188  Fed.  Rep.    1017. 
Mfjr.  Co.,  210  Fed.  Bep.    101,  401. 


207  TRADE    SKCKKTS;    UIOIIT    OF    PRlVArV.  [§112 

AVIicrc  a  ])IaiiitilV  sues  fof  ton  allies  I'm-  tlic  use  of  the  jtro- 
(luft  of  a  secret  pi-ocess  under  contract,  it  is  no  dclcnse  that 
the  defendant  lias,  hy  independent  c\[)eriinent,  discovered  the 
process,  theretofore  only  partially  coinniunicafed  to  it  Ity  tlu; 
j)laintifT."'' 

Ladies  is  not  a  defense  to  the  prayer  for  an  injunction 
against  misuse  of  a  trade  secret.  The  plaintiff,  even  when 
laches  is  present,  "should  not  be  estopped  from  enjoining  the 
use  of  its  secret  jirocess  in  the  future."''^ 

As  to  the  decree,  in  cases  of  trade  secret,  it  has  Ix-en  lie]<l 
in  some  eases  that  it  should  specify  definitely  the  information 
or  secrets  the  defendant  is  to  be  restrained  from  using  ;"'^  in 
others,  that  it  may  be  general  in  terms — "to  insert  the  for- 
nndt     *     *     *     would  destroy  its  secrecj'."  "'^ 

Upon  accounting  the  defendant  ordered  to  account  for  profits 
is  treated  as  a  quatfi  trustee,  the  measure  of  recovery  is  his 
net  profit,  and  he  is  to  be  credited  with  all  the  expenditures 
made  in  carrying  on  the  business  and  for  the  benefit  of  the 
business,  including  repairs  to  plant  and  machinery,  deprecia- 
tion (no  matter  what  causes  it),  insurance  and  taxes;  but 
charged  Avith  interest  on  the  net  profits  from  the  time  they 
were  realized.'' 

§112.  The  right  of  privacy. — Judge  Cooley  said,  "the 
right  of  one's  person  may  be  said  to  be  a  right  of  complete 
immunity;  to  be  let  alone." '-  This  "right  to  be  let  alone," 
if  extended  to  the  unauthorized  ])nblication  of  the  portrait 
of  an  individual,  would  constitute  tho  right  of  ])rivacy  con- 
cerning which  there  has  been  considerable  discussion  of  late 
years.  To  say  -whether  that  right  will  ever  be  generally  recog- 
nized, would  be  merely  a  guess  in  the  present  state  of  the 
adjudications,    and    the   guess   would   be  much  more   hazard- 

07 — Stuckcs    V.    National    Candy  opinion,    sfo    Macboth-Evans    Class 

Co.,   l.-)8  Mo.   App.   342;    1.38   S.   W.  Co.   v.    Schnoll)ach,   230   Pa.    76;    86 

Tvop.   3.V2.  Atl.  Kcp.  688. 

68— Mc-riicrson,    J.,    in    Philackl-  70— Pomcroy  Tnk  Co.  v.  PomiToy, 

l>liia    Extracting    Co.    v.    Koystono  77  X.  J.  E(|.  293;   78  Atl.  Rep.  698. 

Extractinfi  Co.,   176   Ft-d.   Rep.   830.  71— Vulcan      Dctinning      Co.      v. 

00— Oxypatlior    Co.     v.     De    Cor-  American    Can    Co.,    80    X.    J.    Eq. 

(^•ro.   149  X    Y.  S.  513.     For  an  il-  443;  85  Atl.  Rep.  318. 

I'lstrativc    decree,    set    out    in    the  72 — Cooley  on  Torts,  139. 


S   \\2\  IIOI'KINS    (IN     Tli  \I>1. MARKS.  268 

(.US.  if  t)iu^  wtMo  t(»  say  whotlier  or  not  the  rij,'lit  of  privacy 
oouki  evor  bo  fxti'iuliHl  lo  the  protection  of  anytliiii^'  more  than 
the  reproduction  of  tlio  portrait  of  an  individinil.  As  yet, 
there  are  hut  few  decisions  upon  the  sid)ject.  altliou^'h  it  has 
lu'cn  consi(h«riihly  discussed  in  Icfjal  aiul  other  i)eriodicals."-' 
Tlie  diflicidly  att.Mulant  upon  the  assertion  of  this  ripht 
appears  to  resi(h'  principally  in  tlie  apparent  impossihility  of 
extendinj:  tlu'  jirotection  of  ecpiity  to  this  "ri<rht  to  l)e  let 
alone."  to  anythinjr  beyond  the  nuM-e  unauthorized  reproduc- 
tion of  the  likeness  of  an  individual,  w  illiout  creating  a  species 
of  Use  vKijfstr,  and  establishing;  a  judicial  censorship  of  all 
critical  matter  relatin*;  to  aji  individual,  which  hai)pens  to 
disi>lease  him. 

Thus.  Jud^rc  Parker  has  stated,  in  his  recent  opinion  deny- 
in};  the  existence  of  the  rif;lit  of  privacy,  that  "the  so-called 
'ri{;ht  of  privacy'  is,  as  the  phrase  suggests,  founded  u|)on  the 
claim  that  a  man  has  a  right  to  i)ass  through  this  world,  if 
he   wills,   without   having   liis  i)icture   i)ublished,   his  business 
enterprises  discussed,  his  successfid   exi)eriments  written  up 
for  the  benefit  of  others,  or  his  eccentricities  commented  upon, 
either  in  hand-bills,  circulars,  catalogues,  i)eriodicals,  or  news- 
liapers;   and   necessarily,  that  the  things  which   may   not  be 
written  and  publi.shed  of  him  must  not  be  spoken  of  him  by 
his   neighbors,   whether  the   comment   be   favorable   or   other- 
wise." ''*    This  dictum  calls  attention  to  the  rrductio  ad  ahsur- 
dum  which  woidd  result  if  the  "right  to  be  let  alone"  were  to 
be  literally  asserted.     And  at  the   threshold  of  the   incpiiry, 
it   is  obvioiis  that  this  "right  to  be   let  alone"  nuist  be  so 
limited  as  not  to  interfere  with  freedom  of  sjx'cch.     The  right 
of  the  individmil  to  be  protected  against  i)nblication  of  fal.se 
and   defamatory   matter   is   fully   established,   and   ade(piately 
protected    by   the   law.      In    going  beyond   the   law   of  slander 
and   libel,   in  recognition   of  the   iiulividual's   right   not   to  be 
even  criticised,  or  commented  upon,  a  task  is  being  undertaken 
which  is  both  delicate  and  diflieult,  if  it   is  not.  indeed  impos- 

73_'<Th<-     Ri;jlit    nf     Privacy."    4  .\m.    Law    tJ.v.    014;    \1    Yah-    L.   J. 

Ilarv.    Law    n<v.    1!).1.      Other    arti  .'i:.;  24  Nat.  Corp.  H.p.  700;  2.-)  Nat. 

<l.-n,  :{2  CVnt.  L.  .F.  (V.);   40  Cont.  L.  Corp.  Rep.   183,  41.'). 

.T.   .I.l;    40  C«-nt.  I>.  .1.  370;    r..'i  CVnt.  74— HolMTHon    v.    RoclicBtiT    KoM- 

L.    .7.    123;    r>7    CVnt.    L.   J.    301;    30  in;,'  Ko.x  Co.,  171  N.  Y.  540. 


269  TKADE    l^ECFETR;    RKJllT    OK    PHIVAfY.  [§^1'' 

sible.  That  any  such  right  existed  in  the  (Muniiion  law  has 
been  asserted,  but  searcely  proven.  Again  quoting  from  Judge 
Parker,  "mention  of  such  a  rif^lit  is  not  to  be  found  in  lilaek- 
stoue,  Kent,  or  any  other  of  the  great  eommentators  upon  the 
law,  nor  •  •  •  does  its  existence  seem  to  have  been  as- 
scrted  prior  to  about  the  year  1890.""'^ 

Of  course,  the  absence  of  precedent  does  not  negative  the 
existence  of  a  right  and  its  corresponding  remedy,  but  the 
right,  about  which  so  much  lias  boon  written  with  the  result 
that  the  only  definition  of  it  Avhich  has  been  formulated  is 
contained  in  tlie  Avords  "the  right  to  be  let  alone."  a  defini- 
tion which,  on  its  face,  can  not  be  literally  construed,  and 
Avhoso  necessary  limitation  seems  to  be  incapable  of  definition, 
must  be  closely  scrutinized,  and  carefully  weighed  before  it 
can  secure  a  place  in  our  jurisprudence. 

Tn  1892  this  right  Avas  distinctly  affirmed  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  NcAv  York  in  a  case'^>  in  Avhich  an  injunction  issued 
against  the  execution  and  display  at  the  Chicago  World's  Fair 
of  a  statue  of  Mrs.  ?>ebuylcr.  which  statue  Ava.s  to  be  desig- 
nated "The  Typical  Philanthropist. "  The  proceeding  Avas 
brought  by  a  relative  of  Mrs.  Schuyler,  and  the  injunction 
issued  asrainst  the  members  of  an  unincorporated  association 
under  whose  auspices  the  display  Avas  to  be  made.  The  motion 
for  injunction  peiulcnte  life  Avas  granted  upon  the  ground 
that  Mrs.  Schuyler  Avas  not  a  public  character  because  she 
had  not  placed  herself  before  the  public,  either  in  accepting 
])ub]ic  oflRce  or  in  becoming  a  candidate  for  office,  or  as  an 
arfi<if€  or  lifprafeurr.  This  order  beiner  appealed  from.  Van 
Brunt.  P.  J.,  said:  "Wliile  concurring  Avith  the  conclusion 
arrived  at  by  the  learned  justice  below,  T  can  not  subscribe 
to  the  doctrine  Avhich  seems  to  pervade  the  opinion  rendered 
upon  the  decision  of  the  motion,  that  if  Mrs.  Schuyler  had 
been  a  public  character,  as  defined  by  him.  this  motion  should 
have  been  denied.  The  claim  that  a  person  Avho  voluntarily 
places  himself  before  the  public,  either  by  accepting  public 
office  or  becoming  a  candidate  for  oflRce.  or  as  an  artist  or 
literary  man,  thereby  surrenders  his  personality  Avhile  living 

75— RobcTSon    v.   'Rochester    Fold-  70— Schuyler  v.  Curtis,   19  X.  Y. 

ing  Box  Co.    171  N.  Y.  540.  Supp.  2(34. 


§  112)  II(»I'K1NS    ON    TKADK.M  AKKS.  270 

aiul  his  intMiKtry  wIkmi  dead  to  the  piihlic.  to  Ix"  used  oi-  altiised, 
as  any  ono  of  tliat  irresponsible  body  may  see  lit.  can  not  for 
a  moment  be  entertained.  *  *  •  It  is  nr;;ed  npon  the  part 
of  the  appeUants  that  even  if  Mrs.  Schnyh-r  were  alive,  and 
had  the  saint^  objection  to  the  (h-fciuhnits"  projioscd  action 
that  the  i)hiintifr  now  lias,  she  would  be  remeililess  and  power- 
less. If  such  were  the  faet,  it  would  eertaiidy  be  a  blot  upon 
our  boasted  system  of  jurisprudenee  that  the  courts  were 
powerle.ss  to  ]irevent  the  unwarranted  doinjir  of  thinps  by 
jiersons  who  are  mere  volunteers,  which  would  wound  in  the 
most  cruel  manner  the  feelinprs  of  many  a  sensitive  nature. 
It  is  further  urped  that  the  plaintiff  has  no  standing  in  court 
and  that  the  fancied  injury  to  the  plaintiff  complained  of. 
if  any  such  injury  can  be  in  any  way  discovered,  is  certainly 
not  such  an  injury  as  the  court  will  <rrant  an  injunction  to 
prevent,  because  it  is  not  an  injury  to  his  ]ierson.  to  his  estate, 
or  to  his  pood  name,  and  is  not  a  violation  of  his  privacy  or 
sechision,  and  because  the  plaintiff  stands  in  the  same  relation 
to  the  defendants  and  to  their  project  as  does  all  the  rest  of 
the  world,  and  in  no  other  relation.  The  result  of  this  claim 
is  that  when  a  jierson  is  dead  there  is  no  power  in  any  court 
to  protect  his  memory,  no  matter  how  outrapeously  it  may 
be  insulted.  The  feeliufrs  of  relatives  and  friends  may  be  out- 
raped,  and  the  memory  of  the  deceased  degraded  with  im- 
punity, by  any  person  who  may  desire  thus  to  affect  the  liv- 
ing. It  seems  to  us  that  such  a  i)roposition  carries  its  own 
refutation  with  its  statement.  It  can  not  l)c  that  by  death 
all  protection  to  the  reputation  of  the  dead  and  the  feelings 
of  the  living,  in  connection  with  the  dead,  has  absolutely  been 
lo.st.  The  memory  of  tiie  deceased  belongs  to  the  surviving 
relatives  and  friends,  and  siieh  relatives  have  a  right  to  .see 
that  tlnit  which  would  not  have  been  permitted  in  resjiect  to 
the  deceased  when  living  shall  not  be  done  with  impunity  when 
the  subject  has  become  incapable  of  |)roteeting  liimself.  It 
is  undoubtedly  true  that  eases  of  the  character  now  l)efore  the 
court  are  not  to  be  fomid  in  tlie  books.  I'.iit  it  is  probably 
the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  world  that  the  audacious 
claim  which  is  here  presented  has  ever  been  advanced.  If 
it  had,  wc  have  no  doubt  the  books  wt.uid  have  contained  a 


271  TRAOK    SKCKKTS;    UKUIT    OK    I'ltlVACY.  [§113 

re(*()f(l  ill  I'OMiioc'tion  with  the  same.  The  fact  that  the  plaiii- 
tilT  lias  siiiTcrcd  no  pecuniary  daniaf^o,  redress  for  wliicli  is 
sought  in  this  action,  is  no  answer  to  tlie  aj)plication,  b<'cause 
one  of  tlie  most  important  departments  in  the  jurisprudence 
of  courts  of  equity  is  the  jjrevention  of  \vron{:^s  wliich  would 
be  otherwise  irreparable  because  courts  of  law  can  ?iot  afford 
any  remedy  in  damatjes, "  "^ 

Upon  entering:  judj.'^ment  in  the  same  case,  In^^raham,  J., 
calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  action  of  the  defendants 
•was  not  a  libel  nor  within  the  provisiotis  of  the  New  York 
constitution  securing  to  each  citizen  tiie  right  to  freely  speak, 
write  and  ))ublish  his  sentiments  on  all  subjects."^ 

In  a  sul)s('(|nent  case  (1S9.'^)  the  Sujierior  Court  of  New  York 
City  reaffirmed  the  doctrine  of  Schuyler  v.  Curtis  in  the  case 
of  an  actor  wliose  portrait  was  to  be  ]iul)lished  in  connection 
with  that  of  another  member  of  his  profession  as  the  subjects 
of  a  voting  contest  to  ascertain  which  was  the  more  popular, 
and  such  ])ublication  was  enjoined;  the  court  remarking  that 
"the  courts  will  in  such  cases  seciire  to  the  individual  what 
has  been  aptly  termed  the  right  to  be  let  alone. "^^ 

In  1895,  ScJiuijIcr  v.  Curlis  reached  the  New  York  Conrt  of 
Appeals,  and  in  an  elaborate  opinion  delivered  by  Judge  Peck- 
ham  the  judgment  of  the  lower  court  was  reversed.  In  the 
course  of  his  opinion,  however,  he  says:  "For  the  purpose 
we  have  in  view  it  is  unnecessary  to  wholly  deny  the  existence 
of  the  right  of  privacy  to  which  the  plaintiff  appeals  as  the 
foundation  of  his  cause  of  action.  It  may  be  admitted  that 
courts  have  ])ower  in  some  cases  to  enjoin  the  doing  of  an 
act  where  the  nature  or  character  of  the  act  itself  is  well  cal- 
culated to  wound  the  sensibilities  of  an  individual,  and  where 
the  doing  of  the  act  is  wholly  unjustifiable,  and  is,  in  legal 
contemplation,  a  wrong,  even  though  the  existence  of  no 
'property,'  as  that  term  is  generally  used,  is  involved  in  the 
subject. 

"If  the  defendant  had  projected  such  a  work  in  tlie  life- 
time of  Mrs.  Schuyler,  it  Avould  perhaps  have  been  a  viola- 

77— Scliuvlcr  v.    Curtis,   04    Tlim,  7'.>— Marks     v.     JalTa,    -'(i     X.     Y. 

r.04.  Sr.pp.  908;   G  Misc.  Kop.  21)0. 

78— Sclniylcr  v.  Curtis,  24   X.   Y. 
Supp.   509-511. 


§  112]  IIOI'KINS    OX    TILVOKMARKS.  272 

tiim  of  her  in(li\  iiliial  rijrlit  of  itriva<'\,  luH-ausf  it  mi^'lit  be 
contendetl  that  she  hud  never  oeeupied  siieh  a  position  towards 
the  pnblie  as  woulil  have  authorized  sueli  aetion  by  any  one 
as  b)nj;  as  it  was  in  op|)osition  to  her  wishes."  .hidj^e  (Jray 
in  a  dissenting:  opinion,  stated.  "I  ean  not  see  why  the  ri^'ht 
of  privacy  is  not  a  form  of  property,  as  much  as  the  rijrht  of 
eoinj)Iete  immunity  of  one's  |)erson."'"^  r'oneernin{x  tliis  ease, 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  has  stated  that  it  "settles  noth- 
in«r  as  to  tlie  existence  of  a  rijrht  of  |)rivacy,  l)ut  merely  rules 
that  if  it  exists  at  all.  it  is  a  jx'rsonal  riL'-lit.  and  dies  with  the 
person."  *** 

Judfre  Parker  has  said  of  this  decision  that  "It  is  not  autiior- 
ity  for  the  existence  of  a  ri<rht  to  privacy  which  entitles  a 
party  to  restrain  another  from  doiii^'  an  act  which,  though 
not  actionable  at  law.  occasions  the  i)laintilT  mental  dis- 
tress." **- 

Pending  this  ajipeal  another  New  York  court  had  held  that 
"a  parent  can  not  maintain  an  action  to  enjoin  the  unauthor- 
ized j)id)lication  of  the  portrait  of  an  infant  child,  and  for 
damajres  for  injury  tf)  his  sensibilities  caused  by  the  invasion 
of  his  child's  privacy,  f<ir  the  law  takes  no  cofrnizanee  of  a 
sentinu'utal  injury,  indcpcndtiil  ol"  a  wi'oiifr  to  person  or 
property."  ^''' 

In  1902  the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  finally  held  that 
there  was  no  ripht  of  privacy  at  law  or  enforceal)le  in  cfiuity.**^ 

The  Supreme  Court  of  Michifran  in  1899  held  that  it  had 
no  jurisdiction  to  enjoin  the  use  of  the  name  and  likeness 
of  a  deceased  person  used  ujion  a  label  applied  to  a  eifjar 
named  after  him,  so  lon^r  as  such  jjublication  did  not  amount 
to  a  libel.  At  the  conelusidu  of  an  exhaustive  review 
of  the  cases.  Hooker,  J.,  said:  "This  'law  of  privacy'  .seems 
to  Imve  obtained  a  foothold  at   one  time  in  the  history  of  our 

80 — Scliuvlcr   V.   ("iirtiw.  42   N.   V..  82— Hi>l><Tf*nri    v.    Ueclii-ster    FoUl- 

n<'j».  22-24;    147  N.   Y.  4:{4 ;   4!l   Am.  in^'  Ho.x  Co..   171   N.  Y.  MO. 

St.   U«'p.  07';  31    L.   H.  A.  2«(t.  S.l— Murray  v.   Knyruviti},'  Co.,  2R 

Si  —  Pavi»ich      V.     New      Kn^land  N.  Y.  Siipp.  271. 

\.\fv  InB.  Co..  no  S.   K.   Hep.  «m;    122  84— Uolnrs<>n    v.    HochoBtor    Fold- 

Ch.    1{»0;   fiO  L.   H.  A.    lUl ;    UlO  Am.  in;;   H«>x  Co      171    N.  Y.   r.38;    r.4   X. 

St.   H<p.   104.  K.    Kt'p.   442;    rcv.THin^  K.   c.   71   X. 

Y.  Supp.  870. 


27;{  'rUADK    SKCMtKTS ;    KKIIIT    or    I'KIVACY.  [§  112 

jui'isin'iult'iicc,  not  1)\  thai  iiaiiir.  it  is  truf,  hut  in  efl't'ct.  It 
is  evidenced  hy  the  <»l(l  maxim,  tlic  {greater  the  truth  tin; 
greater  tlie  libel;  and  the  rcswlt  has  been  tlic  emphatic  exj)res- 
sion  of  i)Ml)lic  disapproval,  hy  llic  emancipation  of  the  press 
and  the  establishment  of  fi-eedom  of  si)ee('li.  and  the  aboli- 
tion ill  most  of  oui"  states  of  the  maxim  (pioted,  by  eon.stitu- 
tional   provisions." 

"The  limitation  upon  the  exercise  of  these  i-i;rli1s  bein^; 
the  law  of  slander  and  libel,  M'hereby  the  jjublication  of  an 
untruth  that  can  be  presumed  or  shown  to  the  satisfaction, 
not  of  the  plaintiff,  but  of  others  (/.  c,  an  impartial  jury),  to 
be  injurious,  not  alone  to  the  feelinj?s  but  to  the  reputation, 
is  actionable'.  Should  it  be  thou^dit  that  it  is  a  hard  rule 
that  is  applied  in  lliis  case,  it  is  only  necessary  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  a  ready  remedy  is  to  be  found  in  le{?is- 
lation.  We  are  not  satisfied,  however,  that  the  rule  is  a  hard 
one,  and  think  tliat  the  consensus  of  o|)inion  must  be  that 
the  complainants  contend  for  a  much  harder  one.  "^^ 

The  only  case  in  which  the  question  of  the  existence  of 
the  rifrht  of  ])rivacy  has  been  brouprht  before  the  federal  courts 
is  one  which  the  widow  and  children  of  Cieorjre  II.  Corliss,  an 
inventor,  brou<rht  to  enjoin  the  jiublication  of  a  l)iofrrai)hieal 
sketch  and  ])ortrait  of  Mr.  Corliss.  The  ])laintiffs  put  their 
case  s(pKn'el\'  ujion  the  jirojiosition  that  the  ]:)roposed  ])ub- 
licatioii  would  be  an  invasion  of  the  rijrht  of  privacy  Avhich 
a  court  of  ecpiity  should  jirotect.  There  was  some  discussion 
npon  the  (piestion  whether  ^Mr.  Coi-liss  was  a  ])ublic  or  a  \)r\- 
vate  character.  The  court  distinctly  denied  the  existence  of 
any  rijrht  of  jirivacy  which  it  could  reco<rnize.  saying?  that 
nnder  the  law  "one  can  s])eak  and  ])ublish  ^vhat  lie  desires, 
provided  he  commits  no  offense  ajrainst  jiublic  morals  or  pri- 
vate reputation."  ^'''  The  oj)inion  jiroceeds  flatly  on  the  theory 
that  a  court  of  equity  has  no  power  to  restrain  a  libelous  pub- 
lication.'*" At  the  same  time  the  jiublication  of  the  portrait 
was  enjoined  because  the  original  had  been  obtained  by  the 

8") — Atkinson  v.  John  E.  Doliorty  87 — Boston    Diatito    Co.    v.    Flor- 

k  Co.,  121  Mich.  :572;  80  X.  W.  Rep.  cnco  :Mffr.  Co..   114  Mass.  09;   Bran- 

28.-,.28n.  (Ir.-th   v.   Lance,  8    Paigo,   24;    Kidd 

8G— Corliss  v.  K.  \\'.  Walker  Co.,  v.  Horry,  28  Fed.  Rep.  773. 
67  Fed.  Ren   434. 


§  112]  IKH'KINS   ON    TKAOKMAKKS.  274 

dofondant  from  tin'  plaint iffs  on  certain  conditions  which  it 
had  not  complied  with. 

rpon  the  motion  t«»  disKolve  tlw  injunction  certain  addi- 
tional evidence  had  been  adduced,  and  the  (•••iirt  in  its  opinion 
finds  the  fact  to  he  that  the  defendant  had  obtained  the  por- 
trait from  a  plutto^rraph  ;  and  that  Mr.  Corliss  was  in  fact  a 
public  character.  The  court  says:  "The  di.stinction  in  the 
ease  of  a  picture  or  pliotojrraph  lies,  it  seems  to  me,  l)etween 
public  and  private  character.  A  private  individual  shouhl 
be  protected  a^'ainst  the  publication  of  any  portraiturp  of  him- 
self, but  where  an  individual  becomes  a  public  character  the 
case  is  different.  A  statesman,  a>ithf)r,  artist,  or  inventor, 
who  asks  for  and  desires  public  recopnition,  may  be  said  to 
have  surrendered  this  ri«rht  t<»  the  public."^'* 

The  rifrht  of  privacy  has  been  reco^rnized  by  the  Patent 
Office,  and,  as  to  portraits  of  living  individuals,  the  Act  of 
1905  prohibits  their  rej;i.stratioii  without  the  consent  of  the 
jterson."'' 

In  a  recent  o|»inion.  the  Supreme  Court  of  (Jeorpia,  per 
Cobb,  J.,  has  sjistained  the  ripht  of  privacy  as  (.f  common 
law  origin,   in   the   following  language: 

"The  right  of  privacy  has  its  foundation  in  the  instincts 
of  nature.  It  is  recoRni/.c<l  intuitively,  con8ciousnes.s  being 
the  witness  that  can  be  called  to  establish  its  exi.stcnce.  Any 
person  whose  intellect  is  in  a  normal  condition  recognizes  at 
once  that,  as  t(t  ea<h  individual  nicjubcr  of  society,  there  are 
matters  jjrivate.  and  there  are  matters  |Mdilic,  so  far  as  the 
iiidividiial   is  concerin-d.     Each   iiwlividual   as  instinctively  re- 

HS— (  (.rlihrt  V.    K.  \V.   Walk.T  C...  D.w.y.  t..  rjiprnpriat.-  it  an  a  tradi- 

«4  F«*d.  Hep.  2K0-2H2.  mark.     A  liviiiK  c<l«l.rity  in  ontitlrd 

80 — TlitjH  in   a   cam-    prcwntiMl    t«i  t'»     proteiticm     from     tin-     ordinary 

tlu-   I'at.iit  <»m<<',   wlien-   tin-   appli-  trad.r."       Dii.U,    C.mniiMHif.nir,    in 

cant    w.n^lit    to    rc;.'iHt«r    tlic    mark  r.r  parte   Mclnnc-rnty.   «.'•   « >|T.   Caz. 

'•1  .wiyn    (  li.wi.'M."    for    c-onf.-c-tion-  !»!•.      Tlic    Act    of    l!Mi.-,    in    |  '»   con 

ery,   the;  cwmminHioncr    »aid.    in    re-  Uiinn    tlic    provinion    "tliat    no    por 

K|M.nHC'  to  the  applicant'H  Hii;;K.'Htion  trait  of  a  living  individual  may  !.<• 

tliut   "Dew.yw"   in   not  an   ordinary  nuiMterrd    an    a    trademark,    exci-i.t 

Hiirname:     "I   can    not    nfrain    from  liy    tin-   conBent    of    huch    individual. 

expreHHin^  the  opinion   tiiat  even   if  evidenced      hy     nn      inHtrum.nt      in 

it    \f'    n-Kintralde,    no    one    lian    tlie  writing." 
right,      without      the      conm-nt      of 


275  TUAUK    SECRETS;    HKJIIT    OF    PRIVACY.  [§  112 

sents  any  encroachment  by  the  j)ublic  upon  his  rights  which 
are  of  a  private  nature  as  he  does  tlie  witiidrawal  of  those 
of  his  rights  which  arc  of  a  public  nature.  A  rigiit  of  privacy 
in  matters  purely  private  is  therefore  derived  from  natural 
hiw." 

"Tlie  injuria  of  tiie  llonian  law,  sometimes  translated  'in- 
jury' and  at  other  times  'outrage,'  and  whicii,''  says  the  court, 
"is  generally  understood  at  this  time  to  convey  the  idea  of 
legal  wron^',  w;is  comiiiitted,  not  only  by  striking  with  the 
lists  or  with  the  cluh  or  la.sh,  but  also  by  shouting  until 
a  crowd  gathered  around  one,  and  it  was  an  outrage  or  legal 
wrong  to  merely  follow  an  honest  woman  or  young  boy  or 
irirl ;  and  it  was  declared  in  unequivocal  terms  that  these 
illustrations  were  not  exhaustive,  but  that  an  injury  or  legal 
wrong  was  committed  'by  numberless  other  acts.'  Sandar, 
Just.  Ilammond's  ed.  499;  Poste,  Inst,  of  Gains,  3d  ed.  449. 
The  punishment  of  one  who  had  not  committed  any  as.sault 
uj)on  another,  or  impeded  in  any  way  his  right  of  locomo- 
tion, but  who  merely  attracted  public  attention  to  the  other 
as  lie  Avas  passing  along  a  ])ublie  highway  or  standing  upon 
his  private  grounds,  evidences  the  fact  that  the  ancient  law 
I'ccognized  that  a  ])erson  had  a  legal  right  'to  be  let  alone,' 
so  long  as  he  was  not  interfering  with  the  rights  of  other  in- 
dividuals or  of  the  iiublic."'"' 

The  decision  of  the  Georgia  court  was  unanimous.  Judge 
Parker's  opinion  in  the  ease  of  Rohcrson  v.  Rochester  Folding- 
Box  Co.  was  concurred  in  by  three,  and  dissented  from  by 
the  three  other  judges.  A  comparison  of  the  opinions  of  Judge 
Parker  and  Judge  Cobb  discloses  the  best  arguments  for  and 
against  the  existence  of  the  right  of  jjrivacy;  that  of  Judge 
Cobb  is  well  reasoned,  and  admirably  stated;  that  of  Judge 
Parker  is  more  concisely  expressed,  and  certainly  as  well 
grounded  in  reason.  The  conservative  views  of  Judge  Par- 
ker are  summed  up  in  the  following  words:  "The  legislative 
body  could  very  well  interfere  and  arbitrarily  provide  that 
110  one  should  be  j^ermitted  for  his  own  selfish  purpose  to  use 
the  ]ucture  or  the  name  of  another  for  advertising  purposes 

no— Pavc.^idi  V.  New  Eii^'laiul  Pv.  p.  CH;  CO  L.  U.  A.  101;  100  Am. 
Life  Ins.  Co,  122  Ga.   100;   .'iO  S.  E.       St.   Rep.   101. 


^IIJ]  imi-KINS    ON    TK ADKMAKKS.  L'TG 

uithout  liis  (.-oiisiMit.  Ill  sm-h  ovciit  no  cmljan-assmciit  would 
result  to  the  ^'eiuTal  ItDily  of  the  law.  for  tlie  i-ulc  would  bo 
appiii'ablo  only  to  cases  provitled  for  by  the  statute.  The 
courts,  however,  being  without  authority  to  lejjislate.  are  re- 
quired to  deeide  cases  upon  itriuciple.  and  so  ai-e  necessarily 
embarrassed  by  precedents  created  by  an  extreme,  and  there- 
fore unjustifiable,   application    of  an   old  principle.""* 

Since  the  forcfroing  was  written,  the  New  Jersey  Court  of 
Ajipeals  has  disai^jiroved  the  doctrine  of  Rohrriion  v.  Rorhcst(  r 
Folding  Box  Co.,'*'^  and  Stevens,  V.  C,  following  the  latter  de- 
cision, has  said  of  the  Roberson  ease,  "This  case  can  not  be 
sustained  on  principle;"''''  Avhile  the  American  Law  Review 
has  .s<iid  editorially:  "From  first  to  last  there  is  a  decisive 
majority  of  the  judges  who  have  dealt  with  the  case  again.st 
the  final  conclusion  announced  by  the  court  of  appeals.  It 
can  not  therefore  be  regarded  as  settling  anything  except  for 
the  guidance  of  inferior  judicatories  within  the  State  of  New 
York.  It  should  not  be  followed  as  authority  in  other  juris- 
dictions." -'^ 

The  same  right  is  invaded  Avhen  tlie  plaintiff's  portrait  is 
published  in  connection  with  defamatory  matter  concerning 
a  third  ])erson  ;  although  in  these  cases  the  right  of  recovery 
has  been  grounded  solely  upon  the  theory  of  libel. ''^ 

The  Supreme  Court  of  Washington  has  declined  to  protect 
the  right  of  privacy,  "not  so  much  because  a  primary  right 
may  not  exist,  but  because  in  the  absence  of  a  statute,  no 
fixed  line  between  jiublic  and  i)rivate  character  can  be 
drawn."'-"'  In  ^Missouri,  the  right  of  an  infant  five  years  of 
age  to  recover  danuiges  for  "disturbing  his  i)rivaey  by  pub- 
lishing his  picture  without  his  consent"  has  been  sustained.**^ 

91— RolHTSon   V.   Rochester    VoU-  It.'.— Furl- y    v.   Eveninj,'   Chronicle 

in;;   Box   Co.,    171   X.   Y.    540.      For  Pnl..   Co.,   113  Mo.  App.  210;   87   S. 

tlie   opiniom    of    the    courts    b.l..\v.  W.    Rep.    r^fif);    De  Snndfl    v.    N.    Y. 

Boc  8.   C.   0.1   X.    Y.    Supp.    ll(l!l;    71  Heriihl,  8S  X.  Y.   App.   Div.  492;   S.l 

X.  Y.  Supp.  87<l.  X.  Y.  Supp.  Ill;   Wiiiidt  v.  Hearst's 

92— Van<lerl)llt     v.     Mitch. 11,     72  Cliica;;o    .\mericiui,    129    Wis.    419; 

X.  J.  Eq.  niO;   07  Atl.  Kep.  97.  9  Am.  &   Fii;,'.  Aiui.  Cas.  804. 

93— Edirton    v.    Edison    Polyform  90— Hillman  v.  Star  Puh.  Co..  04 

MfR.    Co..   07   Atl.    Hep.    392;    73    N.  Wash.  091;    117    I'ac   Rep.   r)94. 

J.  Eq.   130.  07 — Munden    v.    Harris,    ir)3    Mo. 

94—30   Am.    Law    U.vi.w,  p.    034.  App.   0.V2;    134    S.   \V.    Kep.   1076. 


277  TRADE   PECRETR;    RIGHT    OF    PRIVACY.  [§11- 

In  elaborately  arguing'  the  iioii-existeiice  of  the  right  of  pri- 
vacy the  Rliode  Island  court  has  said:  "it  is  obvious  tiiat 
a  right  can  not  be  one  of  i)erson  and  of  ijroperty  at  the  same 
time.  The  conclusion  would  seem  to  be  that,  if  the  right  of 
privacy  exists  and  has  been  recognized  by  the  law,  it  must 
be  as  a  personal  tort  right.  It  can  not  be  a  right  of  property. 
The  (jravdnieii  of  the  offense  in  a  violation  of  the  right  of 
privacy  is  the  interference  with  the  seclusion  of  the  individual, 
and  not  of  the  i)ublication." »«  The  Kentucky  court  has 
broadly  held  that  the  i)ublication  of  a  person's  portrait  with- 
out his  consent  as  an  advertisement,  "is  a  violation  of  the 
right  of  privacy  and  entitles  him  to  recover  without  proof 
of  special  damages.""^  Tn  a  later  case  the  Kentucky  court 
affirmed  a  judgment  for  damages  against  a  photographer,  for 
circulating,  without  the  plaintiff  parents'  permission,  a  photo- 
graph of  the  corpse  of  a  child,  tlie  court  observing  "the  most 
tender  affections  of  the  human  heart  cluster  about  the.  body 
of  one's  dead  child.  A  man  may  recover  for  any  injury  or 
indignity  done  the  body,  and  it  would  be  a  reproach  to  the 
law  if  physical  injuries  might  be  recovered  for,  and  not  those 
incorporeal  injuries  which  would  cause  much  greater  suffer- 
ing and  humiliation."  ^ 

An  action  by  a  consul  of  Austria-Hungary  to  enjoin  the 
fraudulent  commercial  use  of  the  name  or  portrait  of  the 
Emperor  of  Austria-Hungary  was  sustained  under  our  treaty 
of  June  27,  1871,  giving  the  right  to  consuls  of  that  country 
to  sue  "for  the  purpose  of  protecting  the  rights  of  their 
countrymen. ' '  - 

The  federal  supreme  court  has  expressly  refused  to  decide 
whether  the  unauthorized  publication  of  a  person's  portrait 
is  a  tort  per  sc.^ 

That  the  demarcation  between  the  law  of  libel  and  the  law 
of  privacy  is  very  shadowy,  and  that  equity  is  not,  in  general, 

98_l)„l,ris,    C.    J.,    in    Henry    v.  Stokes,    14.1    Ky.    50G;    149    S.    W. 

Cherry  &  Webb,  30  R.  I.  13;  73  Atl.  Rep.  849. 

Rep.  9V,  102.  2 — Von  Thodorovich  v.   Beneficial 

99_Foster-Milburn  Co.  v.  Chinn,  Assn.,  154  Fed.  Rep.  911. 

134  Ky.  824;   120  S.  W.  Rep.  364.  .3— Peck  v.  Tribune  Co.,  214  U.  S. 

l_Hobson,   C.   J.,   in  Douglas   v.  18."),   190;    53   L.   Ed.   960;    29   Sup. 

Ct.  554. 


^  ll-JJ 


llOI'Kl.NS   ON    TRADEMARKS. 


J7S 


disposed  to  civalo  a  ri^rlit  w  hero  none  exists  at  law.  ai«'  rt'tlee- 
tions  that    must   oci-ur  to  tlif  .stiuieiit   of  this  topic' 


4 — SiH-  I'll-  \«rv  nlili-  opinion  of 
Jiid^H-  Van  \"nlk(nliur>ili,  in  \  iiHsar 
(.'iiUi'f;*'  V.  IaH)>i«'-\ViK's  Hisinit  Co., 
I'M  Ftd.  Ktp.  J»S2.  Foll<)\vin;,'  Holi- 
oriMin  V.  HiK'lii'strr  Fol«lin;j  Box  Co., 
Now  York  lias  t'naoU-d  an  act  to 
pr«'Vont  tin*  iinauthorizfd  nsv  of  tin' 
iiami'  or  ji'itun'  of  any  jx-rson  for 
the  itur|io.s«-  of  tradi'. 

"Strtion  1.  A  j»orftoii,  firm  or 
corporation  tliat  iiws,  for  advcrtis- 
iufi  j>iirpo>-(S  or  for  piiri)oHOfl  of 
trade,  till-  name,  portrait  or  pict»in' 
of  any  livinj.'  person  witliout  havin;: 
first  ol)tained  the  written  consent 
of  sucli  person,  or,  if  a  minor,  of 
his  or  lier  parent  or  jriiardian,  is 
piilty  of  a  misdemeanor. 

"Sec.  2.  Any  j)erson  whose  name, 
portrait  or  picture  is  used  witliiii 
tliis  state  for  advertising,'  purposes 
or  for  the  purposes  of  trade  with- 
out   the    written    consent    first    ob- 


taiiii'il  lis  alxiM-  pro\  i(U-d,  may 
maintain  an  e<|uitalde  action  in  tlie 
su|>r('me  court  of  this  state  against 
the  |ierson,  firm  or  c<irporation  ho 
usinj;  liis  name  or  portrait  or  pic- 
ture, to  prevent  and  n-strain  the 
use  thereof ;  and  may  also  sue  and 
recover  damajjes  for  any  injurie» 
sustained  l-y  reason  of  such  use, 
and  if  the  ch-feiuhmt  sluill  have 
knowin;;ly  used  such  person's  name, 
portrait  or  picture  in  such  manner 
as  is  foriil<hlen  or  dechired  to  Ih' 
uiihiwful  i>y  this  act,  the  jury,  in 
its  discretion,  may  award  exera- 
phiry  danuifies."  Tliis  act  has 
twH-n  hehl  (••)nstitutioiuil  in  Rhodes 
V.  Sperry  &  Ilutdiinson  Co.,  85  N. 
K.  ]U']>.  10)7;  VXi  N.  Y.  223.  For 
an  ilhistrative  statement  of  facts 
sujjportin}^  a  jud;,'ment  in  a  suit 
under  the  act,  see  Binns  v.  \'ita- 
graph  Co.,   132  N.  Y.  S.  237. 


CHART KR  VIII. 

INFRINGEMENT. 

§113.  Of  infringement  generally.— The  word  "infriiige- 
mcuf  is  dillieult  of  exact  d.-liiiit ion.  For  tlic  purpf.scs  of 
the  present  discussion,  its  broadest  meaning,  that  of  tin;  infrac- 
tion or  invasion  of  another's  trade  riglits,  by  passing,'  off,  or 
attempting  to  pass  off,  upon  tiie  jjublie  one's  own  goods  as  liis, 
may  suffice.  As  to  technical  trademark  infringement,  it  should 
be  more  narrowly  defined  as  tlie  infraction  or  invasion  of  any 
portion  of  the  mark,  symbol  or  device  in  which  one  has 
acquired  a  right  of  in-operty,  either  by  way  of  reproduction 
in  fac-simile,  or  imitation.  An  English  text-writer  has  thus 
defined  it:  "Infringement  is  the  use  by  the  defendant,  for 
trading  purposes,  in  connection  with  goods  of  the  kind  for 
which  the  plaintiff's  right  to  exclusive  use  exists,  not  being 
the  goods  of  the  jdaintiff,  of  a  mark  identical  with  the  i)lain- 
tiff's  mark,  or  eitlier  comprising  .some  of  its  essential  features 
or  colourably  resembling  it,  so  as  to  be  calculated  to  cause 
the  goods  to  be  taken  by  ordinary  purchasers  for  the  goods 
of  the  plaintiff."'  Vicc-Chancellor  Shadwell  stated  the  rule 
to  be  that,  if  a  mark  contains  twenty-five  parts  and  but  one 
is  laken  {i.  c,  imitated  or  copied),  liability  has  been  created 
thereby,  and  there  has  been  a  technical  infringement. - 

The  same  rule  applies  to  cases  of  unfair  competition,  in 
which  no  technical  trademark  is  involved.  In  such  a  ca.se, 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Wisconsin  has  said  "whether  there  is 
an  imitation  in  fact  *  *  *  must  be  determined  by  insi)ec- 
tion  of  the  rival  symbols  or  devices.     It  is  not  to  be  expected, 

1— Kerly  on  Trademarks  (2d  E(L,  pirated."    Filley  v.  Fassett.  44  Mo. 

London,  1001),  p.  .^ti:^.  173;   Cox,   5.30;    Seb.    313.      And   to 

2 — Guinness  v.   Ullmcr.   10  L.   T.  the    same    effect,    Braliam    v.    Bus- 

127:   Seb.  80.     "The  imitation  need  tard.  0  L.  T.  N.  S.   100;    1   Hem.  & 

not  tie  exact  or  perfect.     It  may  tie  M.    447:    11    W.    R.    lOCl ;    2   X.    R. 

limited  or  partial;   nor  is  it  reqni-  572;   Seb.  2J6. 
site     that     tlie     wliole     should     be 

279 


§114]  lIorKIN"^    UN     TIC  \1)|M  \KK>.  280 

of  foiirso.  that  tliorc  will  ever  be  an  exaet  eopy.  The  imitator 
will  always  seek  to  introduee  enoiiph  difTerenees  to  justify  a 
elaim  that  there  has  been  no  imitation,  while  incorjjoratinjf 
enou}>:h  similarities  to  carry  tlie  peneral  effeet  of  the  original 
design  to  the  mind  of  the  unwary  purchaser."  ' 

In  a  similar  ease  .Judge  Laeombe  has  said:  "On  the  papers 
and  exhil)its  ni\\\-  before  the  court,  tiiere  is  apparently  an 
effort  still  to  simulate  complainant's  distinguishing  jjackages, 
and  at  the  same  time  i>res(>iit  a  number  of  jioints  of  difTcrence 
to  argue  ui»()ii  when  charged  with  infringement.  It  is  appar- 
ently so  easy  for  one  who  honestly  seeks  to  .sell  his  own  goods 
as  his  own  to  dress  them  up  in  such  a  way  tiuit  they  may  be 
recognized  as  his  own.  that,  when  he  offers  them  to  the  publie 
in  a  dre.ss  sufficiently  like  his  neighbor's  to  deceive  the  average 
consumer,  courts  naturally  suspect  his  motives  to  be  such  as 
his  actions  indicate."^ 

* 

§114.     No  trademark  in  form,  size,  material  or  color. —It  is 

a  well  settled  rule  tiuit  there  can  be  no  trademark  right  in 
the  mere  form,  size  or  color^'  of  an  article  used  commercially, 
or  the  form,  size  or  color  of  the  jiackage  containing  it.'-     It  is 

:[ Winslow,     .T..      in     Manitowoc  St.    127:    In    rr  Whitakor,  Xowton's 

Malting  Co.    v.   Milwaukee   Malting  Dig.   130;   Adams  v.  HiMsel,  31   Fed. 

Co..    lin   Wis.   r)43;   97   X.   W.    Rep.  Rep.    270;     Lorillard    v.    Pride,    28 

389.  Fed.    R.p.    134;    Davis   v.    Davis,   27 

4 — Cuervo   v.    Owl    Cigar    Co.,    68  Fed.   Rep.    490;    Nutliall    v.    Vining, 

F<d.  Rep.  7>\\,  ')42.  2S  W.    R.   330;  Van  Camp   Packing 

-) — Victor    Talking     Macliine     Co.  Co.    v.    Criiikshanks    Rros.    Co..    90 

V.   Armstrong,   132   Fed.   Rep.  711.  Fed.     Rep.     814;      Von     Miimm     v. 

0 — Moorman    v.    Iloge,    2    Sawyer,  Witteman,    «.">    Fed.    Rep.    9(i(5;    Von 

7S;       Harrington       v.      I.il.l.v.       U  Mumm    v.   ^\■itteman    (2),  33   C.  C. 

RIatchf.   12S:   Ball  v.  Siege],  lUJ  111.  A.   404;    91    PVd.    Rep.    12«;    Fleisch- 

143;     Fnoe»'    Morgan's    Sons    Co.    v.  niann  v.  Starkey.  2.">  Fed.  Rep.   127; 

Troxell,    89    N.    Y.    292;    Sawyer    v.  Rrown    v.    Dosdur,    147    N.   Y.    047- 

llorn,   4    Hiigiies,  239;    1    Fed.    Rep.  <"..")  1  ;    Charl- s    K.    Hires  Co.   v.    Con- 

24;      Manliattan     Medicine     Co.     v.  Humi-rs'    Co.,    41    C.    C.    .\.    71;     100 

Wood,    lOS   r.    S.    21S:    hi    rr   Kane  Fed.    R.-p.   R09-S11;    Flagg   Mfg.   Co. 

&    Co.,   9    OfT.   (in/..    10.->;    Liggett   4.  v.   Hohvay,    178   Mass.  83;    flO  N.   E. 

Myer    Tol).    Co.    v.    Hynes.    20    Fed.  \\r]>.  Ml;    K.   Regenslmrg  4  Sons  v. 

Hep.  883;    Fairbanks  v.  .lacohus.   14  liiaii    K.    I'nrtuondo  Cigar  Mfg.  Co., 

HInUlif.   33.;    Fed.   Case-  No.   4,008;  130   Fed.    i{ep.   800.  809;    K.    Regeis- 

Wikox     4     fliltl.s     Sewing    Macliine  Imrg  A    Sons   v.   Juan    F.    Portimndo 

Co.    V.    Cil.tK.nH.    21     HIatclif.    431;  Cigar  Mfg.  Co.,  73  C.  C.  A.  378 ;   142 

IJrill   V.    Singer    Mfg.    Co.,    41    Ohio  F«h1.  Rep.   100. 


281  INFKLNGEMENT.  [§  Hi 

also  an  ('stal)lisli(Ml  piincii)l('  lliat  llioro  can  bo  no  trademark 
ri<;lit  in  tlic  directions,  noficcs  or  usual  advertising  matter 
nscd  upon  or  in  description  of  nicrcliandisc'  There  lias  never 
been  a  (b'vialion  from  this  rnic  in  tlie  adjndication  of  the  conrts 
of  this  country.  AVlicncvcr  rdicF  lias  liccn  «rrantcd  against  an 
imitator  or  connterfcitcr  of  cither  the  form,  size,  color,  mctliod 
of  i)aeking,  advertising,  or  directions  nsed  by  a  legitimate 
dealer,  it  has  been  granted  upon  the  broad  theory  of  regulating 
fraud,  and  not  upon  the  narrower  ground  of  technical  trade- 
mark infringement. 

There  can  be  no  technical  tradcmai-k  in  a  well  known  ma- 
terial substance,  such  as  a  tin  tag  impressed  upon  plug  to- 
bacco;** nor  in  a  method  of  packing  merchandise;"  or  a  display 
card,  with  horizontal  lettering,  for  hooks  and  eyes;^"  but  a 
fraudulent  imitation  of  another's  tin  tag  has  been  restrained  ;" 
and  injunctions  against  the  fraudulent  use  of  another's  style 
of  ])ackage  and  method  of  packing' 2  are  frequent,  in  the 
absence  of  any  claim  to  a  technical  trademark  right  in  the 
complainant. 

The  courts  have  been  averse  to  recognizing  a  trademark 
right  in  anything  calculated  to  be  useful,  aside  from  indicating 
origin  or  ownership.  So,  in  holding  that  there  was  no  trade- 
mark right  in  a  series  of  indentations  in  plug  tobacco,  so 
arranged  as  to  serve  as  guides  in  cutting  the  plug  into  pieces 
of  one  ounce  each.  Judge  Blodgett  said  :  "One  of  the  principles 
running  through  the  law  of  trademarks  is  that  there  need  be 
no  utility  attached  to  the  trademark  itself — that  is,  it  shall 
have  no  useful  purpose  in  connection  Avith  the  goods  further 
than  to  show  the  origin  or  manufacture."'^ 

There  may  be  combinations  of  form  and  color  with  other 
things,  which  will  entitle  the  owner  to  relief  against  one  dupli- 

7_Can(lcc   v.   Deere,    'A   111.    462;  11— LorilVrd  v.   \Vrij:lit.    M   Fed. 

Ball  V.  SiejTil,  116  111.   143.  Rep.  383. 

8 — Lorillard     v.     Pride,    28     Fed.  12 — W  asliinfrton     Medallion     Pen 

Rep.   434.  f'r>-    v.    Easterbrook,    Fed.    Case    No. 

9 — Davis  V.   Davis,   27   Fed.   Rep.  I7,24fia. 

400.  13 — Dau?man    t*>;    Drummond    To- 

10— De  Lon<,'  Hook  &  Eye  Co.  v.  l-aceo  CO.  v.  RulTner,  Fed.  Case  No. 

Francis  Rook  &   Eye  Co.,   118   Fed.  3,585;    15  Off.  Gaz.  559. 
Rep.  93S. 


^114]  IIOl'KINS    ON    TKADKM  AKKS.  282 

I'utin^'  liis  artu'lc.  Tims  in  a  case  wlu-ri'  tlu'  ilofoiulaiit  clu|ili- 
cated  the  plaintiff's  talking  machine  records,  injunction  issued 
at:ainst  the  "manufacture  and  side  of  disk  records,  black  or 
nearly  black  in  color,  with  a  red  seal  center  inscribed  with 
decoration  and  letters  in  {jilt,  when  such  records  contain  the 
sliop  numbers  or  catalopue  numbers  of  complainant's  disk 
records,  or  when  the  sound  recordinpr  prooves  thereon  are 
copies  of  the  prooves  on  complainant's  disk  records."" 

Judpe  J.  "R.  ^McPlierson  has  well  said  "the  .superficial  details 
of  construction  certainly  need  not  be  identical  in  nearly  every 
particular;"  and  hence  enjoined  tlie  defendant  from  imitating 
the  plaintiff's  miner's  lamp.'"'"' 

Finally,  it  is  obvious,  that  where  the  resemblance  resides 
in  particulars  of  packapes  which  have  become  common  to  the 
trade,  no  relief  can  be  pranted."''  A  mark,  eonsistinp  of  a 
brown-colored-paper  cipar-band  of  peculiar  shape,  has  been 
held  to  he  invalid,  Judge  ^IcPherson  saying:  "Certainly  the 
color  alone  could  not  be  appropriated  by  the  ('f)mi>lainant  as 
a  trademark,  nor  the  shape  alone,  nor  the  material  alone;  and 
even  the  combination  of  these  three  elements  could  not  make 
a  valid  trademark,  because  neither  singly  nor  in  combination 
do  they  point  to  the  complainant  as  the  source  from  whidi  the 
poods  are  derived."'" 

In  a  later  case,  the  doctrine  of  color  as  trademark  was  thus 
aptly  expressed  by  Judge  (later  Mr.  Justice)  Lurton:  "Color 
except  in  connection  with  some  definite,  arbitrary  design,  such 
as  when  impressed  upon  a  circle,  star,  cross,  or  other  figure, 
or  emjiloyed  in  definite  association  with  some  characteristics 
whieh  serve  to  distinguish  the  article  as  made  or  sold  by  a 
particular  person,  is  not  the  subject  of  monopoly  as  a  trade- 
mark."'^ 

14— Victor    Talking'    ^fachin(•    Co.  VM\    Fed.    Rop-    «"^'.    ^^'^'    »<1'""<'«1. 

V.  Armhtroi.;r.  i:J2  Fed.  Rop.  711.  73  C.  C.  A.  378;   142  Fed.  Rep.  ICO. 

jr, — (;ri«r    BroH.    Co.    v.    Riildwin.  1 8— Npwoomcr   &    Lowia  v.   J.   A. 

l.l.'i    C.    C.    A.    4.'i3;    2\'J    K«(i.    I^tp.  S.rivon  Co..   108  Fed.   Rep.   021;   04 

7;{.-,    710  C.  C.  A.  77;  ritin^'  Hinmond  Matcli 

10 — Srhenk.r  v.   Awerl)U«h.  S'>  N.  Co.  v.  Sn^jinnw  Mutch  Co..  142  Fed. 

Y.  Siipp.   120.  R<p   727;  74  C.  C.  A.  .'iO ;  A.  LeHohen 

17_1.;      HcpnHl.iirK     i     Sonn     v.  A    Soph    Rope    Co.    v.    Rroclerick    A 

.Fiiaii    r.    I'..rtuondo  Ciyar  Mfj,'.  Co.,  RnHeom    R-pe    Co..    201    1'.    S.    1(56; 

.V)  L.  VA.   710. 


2,S;}  lNKI{|N(;i;.MKiNT.  [§11-'' 

So  Ji  iiictal  \n<i:  ;i|)|)lit'(l  1<»  Hu'  sIm'II  of  iui  ovsttT  as  <iii  iflfuli- 
fieation  of  i)laintiff's  oysters  in  tlie  trade,  gav(^  IIm-  j)Iaintifi'  no 
monopoly  in  tlie  nse  of  such  taprs.'" 

§  115.  The  early  adjudications.— The  endeavor  of  the  dis- 
]M)n('st  iiicrchaiit  to  yvry  u|)ou  and  jjrofit  by  tlie  reputation 
of  his  lioiH'st  coiiipctitor  is  always  hami)ercd  by  fear  of  detec- 
tion, if  a  Iradcnnirk  is  counterfeited  the  counterfeit  product 
is  i)laccd  ui)on  the  market  stealthily;  where  the  offender  lacks 
the  coura^a'  1o  count crfcil  lie  resorts  to  colorable  imitatioijs, 
not  of  his  competitor  s  trademark,  but  of  his  methods  of  pack- 
inj?  and  jireparinj;  ^'oods  for  sale,  thus  simulatiufr  a  resem- 
blance, in  the  words  of  Jud{?e  Lacombe,  "sufficiently  strong 
to  mislead  the  consumer,  although  eontaininf?  variations  suffi- 
cient to  ar<::ue  about,  should  the  designer  be  brouglit  into 
court.  "2" 

The  earliest  leading  case  involving  this  form  of  fraudulent 
comj)etition  arose  between  rival  soap  manufacturers.  The 
])laintiffs  made  and  sold  an  article  styled  "Genuine  Yankee 
Soap."  The  defendant  jMit  up  a  soap  under  the  same  style, 
imitating  the  size  and  shajie  of  the  cake,  the  color  and  material 
of  the  wrapper,  and  a  liand-bill.  as  used  by  the  plaintiffs.  There 
Mas  disinclination  on  the  ]iart  of  the  court  to  decide  whether 
the  words  "Genuine  Yankee"  were  a  valid  trademark,  and  its 
decision  was  put  solely  upon  the  ground  of  unfair  trade,  the 
court  saying:  "The  defendant  is  engaged  in  a  gross  and  pal- 
liable  endeavor,  by  imitating  the  marks  and  labels  used  by 
])laintiffs,  to  deceive  the  public  and  obtain  patronage  which 
would  in  all  jirobability  be  attracted  to  the  jilaintiffs.  *  *  * 
They  have  adopted,  in  reference  to  their  manufacture  (of  an 
article  which  any  and  every  one  may  manufacture  and  sell, 
if  he  please),  a  form  and  size  of  cake,  a  particular  mode  of 
covering  ana  packing,  a  combination  of  three  labels  on  each 
cake,  an  exterior  hand-bill  upon  the  box,  and  have  so  arranged 
the  whole  as  to  suggest  to  any  one  desiring  to  ])urchase  their 
soap,  upon  an  inspection,  that  the  article  is  theirs,  and  made 
by  them,  like  that  heretofore  made,  sold  and  known  as  their 

m — ArmsitroTifr     Seataj?     Co.      v.  20 — Collinsplatt  v.   Finlayson,  88 

Smith's    Island    Oyster    Co.,    139   C.       Fed.  R-p.  60:?. 
C.  A.  er^G;  224  Fed.  Rep.  100. 


§110]  IKil'KINS    ON    TUADKM  VUKS.  284 

maiiufarturc.  All  this  tlu-  (h'fciulimt  has  copied,  with  an 
exactness  wliii'li  is  ealriilatiMl  to  ilrceivo  I'ven  the  wary,  mmli 
more  to  entrap  those  who  are  n(»t  in  the  exereise  of  a  ri^iid 
serutiny.  •  •  •  Without  deeidint,'  wlietlier  the  defendant 
may  or  may  not  nse  either  of  tiie  words  'Genuine'  or  'Yankee.' 
in  any  possible  eomhination.  we  think  it  snflicient  to  say  that 
he  may  not  use  the  lahels,  or  devices,  or  hand-hills  wliich  he  is 
usin^;,  nor  any  other  like  labels,  hand  itiils,  or  devices,  in 
imitation  of,  or  sinudatiii}^  the  lahels.  devii'cs.  or  hand-bills 
ult'd  by  the  jjlaintifTs.  as  set  forth  in  the  bill  of  complaint,  or 
any  other  similar  labels,  devices,  or  hand-bills  calculated  to 
deceive  the  jiublic,  or  create  the  ])elief  that  the  soap  he  sells 
is  the  soap  made  or  sold  by  the  plaint iffs  uiKb'r  the  name  of 
Genuine  Yankee  Soap."-' 

^Ir.  Rowland  Cox  has  said,--  however,  that  the  ride  "that 
where  the  appearance  of  a  peculiar  and  ori<,'inal  package  lias 
acquired  through  use  an  understood  reference  to  the  goods  of 
a  manufacturer,  and  a  comj^eting  manufacturer  knowingly 
imitates  the  jieculiar  characteristics  of  the  i)ackage.  with  intent 
to  deceive  the  public,  such  imitations  will  be  held  to  be  an 
infringement  of  the  rights  of  the  person  lirst  using  the  \nntk- 
age,"  can  liardly  be  said  to  have  found  distinct  ex|)ression 
prior  to  1878,  where  it  occurs  in  the  opinion  of  Judge  Wheeler 
in  Frrse  v.  Bachof.-^  And,  indeed,  that  decision,  if  not  the 
earliest,  is  still  one  of  the  clearest  in  its  enunciation  of  the 
rule. 

§  il6.  Infringement  of  color. — The  cases  in  which  an  ujifair 
competition  is  effected  ])y  means  of  infringement  of  color  alone 
are  naturally  very  few  in  number.  Where  the  color  involved 
is  common  to  the  trade,  it  will  be  disregarded  in  determining 
the  issue  of  infringement.'-'  Indeed,  the  case  nearest  approxi- 
mating such  an  itifringemcnt  is  one  in  which  the  comidainant 
and  defendant  mainifa<'tured  stoves  of  similar  external  appear- 

21— WilliamH  V.  .lolmsoii    (1H.-.7).  24— PoHt.im    Cinal    Co.   v.    .Am.T- 

2  Bon.   1;  Cox,  214.  i<nn    llcaltli    Food    Co..   r>(i  C.   C.    A. 

22— Cox,   Mamial,  p.   80;    irnt.'  to  HftO;    110   Fed.    Rep.   84S.  8.-)2:    Con- 

WillinmH   v.    .lolinw>n.   Ktiprn.  tinriital     Tolmrco    Co.     v.     Laruw    A 

2,'J— S.'1),    00.3;    13    Off.    (in/..    03.-);  Bro.  Co..  M  C.  C.   A.  ftr^l ;    133  Fod. 

Fed.  Caw  No.  6,110.  Rip.  727. 


283 


INFKINUK-.IKNT.  [§116 


auce,  eiiainoliiif?  llic  inside  faces  of  their  stoves  with  wliite 
enamel.  On  (lemurrer  to  the  bill  Judge  liaker  said:  "If  the 
(luestion  for  deeision  ^vcre  simply  whether  the  jjlaintiff  could 
ae(iuir(!  the  sole  li^ilit  to  use  white  enamel  for  the  lining  of 
llie  doors  of  its  stoves  and  ranges,  it  would  present  a  (juestion 
whose  solution  would  i)rove  eml)arrassing.  P>ut  the  case  made 
upon  the  l)ill  and  admitted  by  tiie  demurrer  is  that  the  defend- 
ants are  numufaetui-ing  stoves  and  ranges  having  white 
enamel  doors  in  the  similitude  of  those  numufaetured  by  eom- 
])lainant.  and  with  the  fi-auduleiit  purpose  of  palming  them 
off  upon  the  ti-ade  and  the  i)ul)lic  as  the  stoves  and  ranges 
nuunifaetured  by  the  eom])lainant.  Tt  is  not  necessary  to  deter- 
mine whether  the  white  enamel  lining,  which  has  been  long 
and  exclusively  used  by  the  comi)lainant  for  the  iinier  lining 
of  the  doors  of  its  stoves  and  ranges,  constitutes  a  trade- 
mark, or  wlu^tlier  it  does  not.  Tt  is  sufficient  to  justify  the 
interjiosition  of  a  court  of  equity  if  the  stoves  and  ranges 
numufaetured  by  the  defendants  are  i)uri)osely  constructed  in 
the  similitude  of  those  manufactured  by  the  complainant,  with 
the  intention  and  result  of  deceiving  the  trade  and  public, 
and  inducing  them  to  purchase  the  stoves  and  ranges  of  the 
defendants  in  the  belief  that  they  are  iMirehasing  the  stoves 
and  ranges  of  the  complainant's  manufacture.  The  imitative 
devices  used  upon  the  stoves  and  ranges  manufactured  by  the 
defendants  are  alleged  to  be  employed  by  them  for  the  purpose 
and  with  the  result  of  deceiving  the  public,  and  thereby  divert- 
ing the  trade  of  the  complainant  to  the  defendants.  This 
they  have  neither  the  moral  nor  the  legal  right  to  do."^^ 

The  question  of  its  collocation  must  always  be  considered  in 
connection  -with  the  question  of  infringement  by  the  use  of 
color.  Announcing  the  opinion  of  tlie  Federal  Circuit  Court  of 
Appeals  of  the  Second  Circuit,  Judge  Lacombe  has  said : 
"Color,  undoubtedly,  is  a  most  important  element  in  all  pack- 
age combinations;  but  there  are  other  elements  as  well,  which 
go  to  make  np  the  entire  combination.  Because  a  total  change 
of  color  would  so  change  the  general  appearance  as  to  destroy 
resemblance  to  another  package,  it  by  no  means  follows  tiiat 
color  alone  would  be  sufficient  to  produce  a  general  ajipear- 

25— Buck"?  Rtovo  &   Ranjie  Co.  v.  Kicclil.\  70  Fed.  Rop.  7ri8 


§11GJ 


lUM'KINS    tt.N     l-K  \l>i;.M  \KKS. 


'286 


anco,  ri'S('iiil)liiij;  amitlici"  piu-kapt'.  Il  wuiild  not  Ix'  p^iviii-/^ 
the  coinpluinant  a  monopoly  of  yellow  to  restrain  the  sale  of 
a  partieular  yellow  paekap:e,  where,  in  addition  to  the  eolor, 
a  nmnber  of  other  eleinejits.  each  dilTerinj,'  more  or  less  from 
its  analo|_Mie  in  <'omplain<int  "s  paekape,  had  hccn  so  collated 
to^'ftlier  as  to  produce  a  ^'eneral  aitpearancc  calculalccl  t<» 
di'liide  the  unwary   ]>urchaser. "-'' 

So  that  we  find  many  cases  in  wliicli  the  imitation  of  color 
has  been  a  material  element  in  d(>terminin<r  the  cjuestion  of 
infrin};ement.-"  In  a  prf)per  case  the  court  will  enjoin  the 
defendant  fr-om  usinjj  the  coloi*  used  by  the  plaintilT.  upon 
the  theory  that  the  defendant  must  be  allowed  no  advanta^'c 
out  of  the  trade  thus  obtaiiu'd  wronprfully.  but  must  establish 
the  reputation  of  his  <;oods  ujx)!!  merit,  and  without  benefit 
of  the   imitation.-"' 


'2r.— X.  K.  Fnirl.ank  Co.  v.  R.  W. 
B.'ll  Mfjj.  Co.,  77  Fed.  l{cp.  8(ii);  2:\ 
C.  C.  A.  554;  revorsin^  s.  c.  71 
Fed.  Rop.  205.  To  the  same  clTcct 
soe  Allen  B.  Wrisley  Co.  v.  Geo.  E. 
l{uueo   Soap  Co..    S7    Fi-d.    R«'p.    58!». 

27 — Kerry  v.  Toupin,  tiO  Fed. 
Rep.  272;  Burt  v.  Smith,  71  Fed. 
Rep.  1(U;  Carbolic  Soap  Co.  v. 
TlionipBon,  25  Fed.  Rep.  (525; 
Cleveland  Stone  Co.  v.  Wallace,  52 
Fed.  Rep.  431-438;  Anheuser-Buscli 
Brewing,'  Co.  v.  Clarke,  2(i  Fed.  Rep. 
410;  Landietli  v.  l.andretli.  22  F<-d. 
Rep.  41;  Lorillard  v.  Wrifiht.  15 
Fid.  Reji.  38:{;  HoHt<'tter  v.  Atlanifl, 
10  Fed.  Rtp.  838;  Voii  Miinini  v. 
Frash,  5<1  Fed.  Rep.  830;  W.llman 
&.  Uwire  Tobacco  Co.  v.  Wdre  To- 
baero  WorkB,  4(\  Fed.  Rep.  280; 
fJail  V.  Uackerbarth,  28  Fed.  Rep. 
280;  HireH  V.  TTireH.  «5  Pa.  Dis.  R. 
285;  MyerH  v.  Thelh-r.  38  F.d.  Rep. 
007;  Amerionn  Brewin;;  Cn.  v.  St. 
Ix'uiH  BreMinj;  Co.,  47  Mo.  App. 
14;  Sperrv  v.  Percival  Millinff  Co., 
81  Cal.  252;  Royal  Baking  Powder 
Co.  V.  DaviH.  20  Fed.  I{ep.  2!t3; 
FleiHchmann  v.  Starkey,  25  Fed. 
liep.  127;  C.  F.  .Simmonu  Med.  Co. 


V.  Simmons,  81  Fed.  Rep.  1«3: 
.Johnson  &  Johnson  v.  Bauer  & 
Black,  27  C.  C.  A.  374;  82  Fed.  Rep. 
(>(i2;  reversing,'  s.  c,  7!)  Fed.  Rep. 
!):.4;  Fisclcr  v.  Blank,  1.38  N.  Y. 
251:  Cox,  .'lanual.  731;  ^IcCann  v. 
Anthony.  21  Mo.  App.  83;  38  OtT. 
C!az.  333;  Von  Mumm  v.  Kirk.  40 
Fed.  Rep.  580;  Coats  v.  Merrick 
Tliread  Co..  3(1  Fed.  R.-p.  .324;  Phil- 
udelj)lua  Xo..  Co.  v.  Blakesley  Nov. 
Co.,  40  Fed.  Rep.  588;  Procter  &. 
Gamble  Co.  v.  Globe  Refininfj  Co., 
34  C.  C.  A.  405;  02  Fed.  Rep.  .357; 
Johnson  v.  Brunor,  107  Fed.  Rep. 
4(lt>;  Lalance  &  Grosjean  Mf^-  Go. 
V.  X'atinnal  F.namelin^'  &  Stam|iin'_' 
Co..  1(10  Fed.  Rep.  317;  National 
Biscuit  Co.  v.  Swick,  121  Fed.  Rep. 
1007:  Rains  v.  White.  21  Ky.  L.  R. 
742:  52  S.  W.  Rep.  070;  Kassol  v. 
Jeu<ia.  70  N.   Y.   Supp.  480. 

lllustral:<iv :  The  use  of  a  strip 
of  Idiie  pafer  in  imitation  of  a 
Canadian  excise  sfiitnp.  Hrram 
Walker  &  Sons  v.  llockHtaeder,  85 
Fed.  Rep.  77<i. 

28— Framk  \.  Frutick  Chicory 
Co.,  05   F<(1.   Keji.  sis  S21. 


287 


INFHINGLAILNT 


l§117 


It  may  be  said  that  in  issues  of  teclinical  trach-iiiiuk  iiifrin^c- 
niciit  tlie  color  of  the  respective  marks  is  frcqucMitly  of  con- 
trolling importance.  Any  system  of  registration,  to  be  effec- 
tive, ought  to  ])rovide  for  the  registration  of  marks  in  the 
exact  coloring  wliidi  it  is  intended  to  apply  to  the  mark  in 
use.  After  the  English  Court  of  Appeal  had  discu.ssed  this 
question,-"  it  was  enacted  by  Parliament  that  registration 
might  be  in  color.'"' 

In  the  consideration  of  cases  of  alleged  unfair  comjjetition 
involving  the  color  of  a  j)roduet,  the  fact  that  the  color  is 
decorative  and  fanciful,  and  "non-functional,"  may  ])e  a 
weighty  elomcTit  in  restraining  alleged  imitation.'" 

§  117.     Infringement  of  size  and  form — Distinctive  dress. — 

The  decision  of  the  leading  ease,  Cool;  ((•  HrrnJifimcr  Co.  v. 
Ross,^-  by  Judge  Lacombe  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  the  Southern  District  of  New  York,  marked  a  dis- 
tinct advance  in  the  scientific  development  of  the  law  of  un- 
fair competition.  The  complainant  was  a  corporation  which 
had  acquired  the  sole  right  to  bottle,  at  the  distillery,  the 
"Mount  Vernon  Rye"  Avhisky  distilled  by  the  Ilannis  Dis- 
tilling Company,  in  wliich  bottling  the  complainant  used  a 
])ottle  of  distinctive  form.  The  facts  more  fully  appear  in  the 
opinion,  a  portion  of  which  is  as  follows : 

"Complainant,  of  course,  has  no  exclusive  right  to  the  name 
'Mount  Vernon,'  and  the  labels  of  defendant  are  in  no  sense 


20 — In  re  Worthington  &  Co.'s 
Trademark,  L.  R.  14  Ch.  D.  8-18. 
See  also  Xuthall  v.  Vining,  28  W. 
R.  330;   Cartmell,  248. 

30 — Tlio  Patents,  Designs  and 
Trademarks  Act,  1883,  §  67.  It 
lias  been  lield,  under  this  section, 
tliat  the  mark  rejjistered  in  color 
must  be  distinctive  apart  from  its 
color ;  and  as  said  by  Kay,  J. : 
"You  may  register  a  mark,  which 
is  otherwise  distinctive  in  color, 
and  that  ^'ives  you  tiie  ri^dit  to  use 
it  in  any  cclnr  you  like;  but  you 
can  not  re<rister  a  mark  of  which 
the   only   distinction   is   the    use   of 


a  color,  because,  practically,  under 
the  terms  of  the  act,  that  would 
give  you  a  monopoly  of  all  the 
colors  of  the  rainbow."  In  re  Han- 
son's Trademark,  "i  R.  P.  C.  130; 
L.  R.  37  Ch.  D.  112;  .57  L.  J.  Ch. 
173;  -u  L.  T.  N.  S.  850;  3(5  W.  R. 
134:    Cartmell,   14(5. 

31— Coca-Cola  Co.  v.  Gay-Ola  Co.. 
200  Fed.  Rop.  720;  110  C.  C.  A. 
ir>4:  Same  v.  Same,  211  Fed.  Rep. 
042:  128  C.  C.  A.  440;  Hiram 
Walker  &  Sons  v.  Grubman,  222 
F<"d.   Rep.  478,  470. 

32—73  Fed.  Rep.  203. 


J   llTj  HOPKINS   ON    TR.VDEMARKS.  288 

ail  imitntiuii  of  tho  labi'ls  of  tlu*  t-ompluinunt.  Complainant's 
case  rests  solely  on  tiie  form  of  package,  which  it  claims  has 
been  so  imitated  as  to  make  out  a  ease  of  unfair  competition. 

"Undoubtedly,  a  larjre  j)art  of  the  consiuiiption  of  whisky 
is  in  public  (Irinkiiijj:  places,  wliere  it  is  dispensed  to  the  con- 
sumer from  the  opened  bottle.  It  is  always  desirable,  there- 
fore, for  a  dealer  who  wishes  to  push  the  sale  of  his  own  goods 
on  their  own  merits  to  devise,  if  he  can.  some  earmark  more 
permanent  tlmn  a  pasted  label  to  distinguish  them.  Com- 
plainant's predecessors  accordingly,  in  March,  1890,  adopted 
a  brown  glass  bottle  of  a  ]ieculiar  square  sha])e,  unlike  any 
that  had  theretofore  been  used  for  bottling  whisky,  or,  indeed, 
so  far  as  the  evidence  shows,  for  any  other  purpose.  It  is  a 
form  of  jiackage  well  calculated  by  its  novelty  to  catch  the 
eye,  and  be  retained  in  the  remembrance  of  any  one  who  has 
once  seen  it.  In  order  to  develop  and  extend  the  business 
they  expected  to  control  under  their  agreement  with  the  Ilan- 
nis  Distilling  Company,  complainant  and  its  predecessors  have 
expended  more  than  ^ilO.OOO  in  advertising  its  said  bottling. 
In  all  these  advertisements  the  peculiar  square-shaped  bottle 
is  the  chief  and  most  prominent  feature.  It  is  not  suri)rising, 
therefore,  to  find  it  stated  in  the  moving  affidavits  that  the 
shape  and  general  appearance  of  the  bottle  has  become  to  be 
principally,  if  not  exclusively,  relied  on  by  ordinary  purchasers 
as  the  means  of  identifying  this  bottling  of  Blount  Vernon 
whisky  from  all  other  bottlings,  the  purity  of  which  is  not 
guaranteed  by  the  distillers,  but  only  by  the  bottler.  Com- 
j)lainant's  bottling  seems  to  have  acquired  a  high  reputation, 
large  afid  increasing  quantities  of  it  being  yearly  sold,  at  a 
price  in  excess  of  that  obtaiiiod  by  other  bottlers  of  Mount 
Vernon  whisky. 

"About  December,  1895,  defendants,  wlio  luid  been  dealing 
in  Mount  Vernon  whisky  for  many  years,  began  first  to  put 
it  up  in  bottles,  which  are  Chinese  copies  of  the  peculiar  s(puire- 
shaped.  bulging-necked  bottles  of  the  coinplMJiiant.  Of  course 
they  aver  that  this  was  without  any  intention  'to  deceive  the 
])ublie,  or  to  palm  off  d(>fendants'  goods  for  complaiiumt's,' 
They  account  for  the  sudden  appearance  of  their  output  of 
Mount  Vernon  whisk v  in  this  form  as  follows:    'There  was  a 


26i)  INFltlNOEMKNT.  [§117 

(leiuaiul  i'or  i\Iuuiit  Wmiioii  whisky  aloiif,'  in  NovciiiIm-T  lust, 
and  clefenclaiits  soiij^lit  a  eonveiiiciit  and  useful  packa^^o  hi 
which  to  phiee  their  i)ruduet  ui)on  the  market,  and  ])urehased 
a  stuck  of  buttles  of  tlie  square  furm  for  that  ])uri)ose,  without 
making  a  special  design  thercfoi-,  aiid  in  tlie  open  market;' 
and  alk'ji:o  that  'such  bottles  can  be  j)urchased  of  reputable 
bottle  numufacturers  from  molds  used  for  some  time  last  i)ast.' 
This  last  averment  may  avcII  Ix-  true.  The  industry  of  defend- 
ants' counsel  has  marshaled  here  an  array  of  square-shaped 
bottles  filled  with  whisky,  wliich  shows  that  for  some  time 
imitations  of  complainant's  botth'  have  been  on  the  market. 
Hut  thei-e  is  not  a  Avord  of  ])r()()f  to  trace  back  any  one  of 
tiiese  bottles  to  a  period  anterior  to  the  adoption  of  the  S(piare 
sliajx'  by  c()mi)lainant 's  itredecessor  as  a  distinctive  form  of 
])acka<>re.  Despite  defendants'  denials, — and  they  only  deny 
intent  to  deceive  the  i)ul)lic,  not  intent  to  use  a  form  of  pack- 
age just  like  complainant's, — the  court  can  not  escape  the 
conviction  that  they  found  the  S(puire-shaped  bottle  'con- 
venient and  useful,'  because  it  was  calculated  to  increase  the 
sale  of  their  jroods ;  and  that  such  increase,  if  increase  there 
be.  is  due  to  the  circumstances  that  the  j)urchasers  from  de- 
fendants have  a  reasonable  expectation  that  the  ultimate  con- 
sumer, deceived  by  the  sha]ie.  Avill  mistake  tlie  bottle  for  one 
of  complainant's.  This  is  unfair  competition  within  the  author- 
ities, and  should  be  restrained.  Injunction  pendente  lite  is 
granted  against  the  further  use  of  the  square-shaped,  bulging- 
necked  bottle  as  a  package  for  IMount  Vernon  whisky." 

There  never  existed  a  valid  reason  -why  a  manufacturer 
should  not  be  protected  in  the  use  of  a  package  so  peculiar 
and  distinctive  in  size  and  .shape  as  not  to  interfere  with  the 
packing  methods  of  the  trade  generally.  Tn  this  respect  the 
law  of  trademarks  fell  short  in  the  recognition  it  should  have 
extended  to  tradesmen.  Avho.  like  the  Cook  &  Beridieiiuer  Com- 
pany in  the  ease  last  mentioned,  chose  to  distinguish  their 
M'ares  by  distinctive  riackincr.  On  account  of  this  deficiency 
in  the  law.  occasional  hardships  were  inflicted  upon  honest 
tradesmen  and  the  dishonest  competitor  went  unwhipped  of 
justice.33     But  the  amount  of  fraudulent  trading  effected  by 

33— Enoch   Morgan's  Sons  Co.  v.  TroAcll,  89  X.  Y.  Supp.  292. 


§   117]  IIOIKINS    ON    TUA1>I:M  AUKS.  290 

nuMiiis  of  this  fiinii  of  iiiiitatinii  was  sure  to  evoke  tlif  niliii;,' 
of  the  leadiiif;  ease  in  time,  and  tliere  are  niiinliers  of  other 
eases  in  whieh  an  imitation  of  si/.e  and  form  has  been  a  movinjf 
frroiuul  <»f  injnnetion."  'Hit'  icm»'(l\'  lias  in  sonu'  eases  been 
held  to  be  depeiuh'nt  npon  proof  tluit  tlie  public  has-  actually 
been  deeeived  by  the  defendant's  paeUajre.'"'  It  has  been  ex- 
pressly held,  indeed,  that  "there  is  no  unfair  eompi'tition,  apart 
from  the  infiin}.'ement  of  a  patent  or  trademark,  unless  the 
eompetinjr  jterson  so  makes  or  marks  his  p:oods  or  eonduets  his 
business  that  puri-hasers  of  ordinary  caution  and  ])rudenee, 
and  not  those  who  are  exceptionally  dull,  are  likely  to  be  mis- 
led into  the  belief  that  his  <;oods  are  the  {joculs  of  somebody 
else. "•"'•  But  it  is  the  jjrobability  of  deception,  and  not  ])ro<)f 
tliat  customers  have  actinilly  been  (b'ceivcd,  that  controls  or 
should  control  in  all  cases  of  unfair  competition  as  well  as  in 
eases  of  tei-iinical  trademark  infrin<remcnt.  A  leai-ned  Kurdish 
judfre  has  asked:  "Why  should  \\  c  l)e  astute  to  say  that 
(tlie  defendant)  can  not  succeed  in  doin^  what  he  is  straininj^ 
every  nerve  to  do?''"'"  "Where  the  form  and  size  of  a  |)a(d<ajr(^ 
luive  become  common  to  a  tirade.  resend)lance  in  either  or 
both  of  these  jjarticulars  is  not  actionable."'^ 

In  all   of  this  class  of  cases  the   jreneral   rule  of  trademark 
la^\•  aj)plies,  that   it   is  immaterial   Avhethn-  the   i.'oods  sold  by 

?,A — diaries  E.  Hires  Co.  v.  Con-  .^fi — Allen,  J.,  in  Dover  Stampinjr 

sumers"    Co..     100     Feil.     Itep.    SOi>;  Co.    v.    Fellows,    1(53    Mass.    l!tl;    40 

Ajiollinarifl    Co.    v.     IJrumler.    Cox.  X.  K.  l^p.  10".;  2S  L.  R.  A.  44S;  47 

Manual.  420;    llostettt-r    v.    Adams.  Am.  St.  Uep.  44S:  eitin;;  Cilman  v. 

10    Fed.    Uep.    S:iH;    Sawyer   v.    Kel-  lluniiewell.    1'22    Mass.    !:{!);    Sin^'er 

H';.',  7   Fed.  Hep.  720;   Sjierry  &  Co.  :\If;,'.    Co.    v.    Wilson.   2  Cli.    1).    4.34- 

V.     PcTcival     Millin;:    Co..     SI     Cal.  447;    Hrill    v.    Sin-er    Mf;;.    Co.,    41 

2.')2;    Noera   v.    Williams    Mf;r.    Co..  Ohio    St.     127:     r.2    Am.     Hep.    74; 

lr)8  Mass.    110;    Mo.vie    Nerve    Food  Hol.ertson   v.  Herr.v.  .'lO  .Md.  aOl ;   .'13 

Co.  v.  nauml.aeh.  ."$2  Fed.   Hep.  20');  Am.    Hep.  .328.     To  the   same  effiH-t, 

Kerry  v.  Touj.in.  (50  Fed.   H<'|>.  272;  ^'an    Camp    Haekinj:    Co.    v.    Cruik- 

Uiirt    v.    Smith.    71    Fed.    Hep.    Kil  ;  shanks  Hros.  Co..  Ho  Fe.I.  Hep.  814; 

Tlildreth     v.     McDonald.     104    Alass.  \'on    Miinim    v.    Witteman.    S.'i    Fed. 

in;     4ft    Am.     St.     r.ep.     440;     Hoyal  Hep.     !Ml(l;     iidirmed,     HI     Fed.     Hep. 

Tlakin^'     I'.iwder    Co.     v.     Davis.     2ti  120;   3:1  C.  C.  A.  4iil. 

Fed.  Rep.  203.  37  — I/milhy.    b.    J.,    in    SlazenpT 

35— Ilildreth    v.    D.    S.    MeDonald  v.   Feltham.  0  H.  V.  C.  538. 

Co.,  1«4  MuHH.  HI;  41  N.  K.  Rep.  .'iO;  3S— All.n    H.   Wrisley  Co.   v.   Oeo. 

40  Am.  St.  Rep.  440.  F.    Rouse    Soap    Co.,    87    F<  <l.    Rep. 

589. 


2!)!  inki(INUi:mi-2<t.  [§117 

llic  (Irrciidaiit  ;iri'  iiitViKir  nr  sii|ici'i(ir  lo  those  dI'  tlic  jihiiii- 
lirr.  Tlius  ill  an  early  case  .hidtrc  Morris  saiil :  "Wliat  wc 
decide  is  that  whetlier  the  eoiiiplaiiiaiit  has  a  trademark  or 
not,  as  he  was  tlie  first  to  put  up  hliiiu;^  for  sah'  in  the  i)ceu- 
liarly  shaped  and  lalieh'd  boxes  adopted  \>y  liiin.  and  as  his 
^oods  have  become  known  to  i)urciiasers,  and  are  houj,'iit  as 
ihe  jfoods  of  the  comi)hiinaiit  hy  reason  of  their  jx-culiar  sliape, 
color  and  label,  no  person  has  the  rijj:lit  to  nse  the  complainant's 
foi-iii  of  package,  color  or  label,  or  any  imitation  thereof,  in 
such  manner  as  to  mislead  jmn-hasers  into  buyin^^  his  goods 
foi-  those  of  the  complainant,  whether  they  Ix;  better  oi-  worse 
in  (piality. ""■''' 

The  registration  of  such  trademai'ks  as  "a  green  line  or 
stripe"  ai'bitrarily  ap])liecl  to  one  edge  of  a  canvas  belt,  al- 
tliongh  the  Patent  OHice  persists  in  granting  snch  registra- 
tions, can  not  be  sustained. ••'• 

"Where  a  plaintiff  ])rodneed  toy  animals,  eoi)ie(l  by  defend- 
ant, the  court  observed  "both  parties  have  an  ecpial  right  to 
copy  nature,"  but  exjiressed  a  belief  that  a  different  question 
would  have  been  presented  had  the  defendant  copied  "gro- 
tesque, comical  dolls,  or  sinj^uiar  variants  from  normal  ani- 
mals.'•'> 

In  eonnection  -with  this  branch  of  our  subject,  it  should  be 
noted  that,  in  the  absence  of  a  patent,  every  one  is  at  liberty 
to  re]n-oduce  merchandise  or  machinery  made  by  another.  In 
the  language  of  the  Massachusetts  court,  "in  the  absence  of 
a  iiatent.  the  freedom  of  inanufacture  can  not  be  cut  down 
under  tlu^  name  of  preventing  unfair  competition."^-  In  an 
earlier  case,  it  Avas  said  that  "apart  from  these  (i.  r..  patents 
for  inventions  or  designs)  any  one  may  make  anything  in 
any  form,  and  may  copy  Avith  exactness  that  which  another 
has   ]irodueed,   without   inflicting  any   legal   injury,   unless   he 

3n— Siiwyir  v.  TTorii.  1  Fed.  TJc]).  ;Nrar«rar('te  StrilT  v.  Biii'r,  124  C.  C. 

24-.3S.  A.   r)()0;   200  Fed.   Rep.  DOO,  cU-alin;,' 

40 — Candy  Boltinji  Co.  v.  Victor-  witli  the  same  facts. 
Balata  Co..  21."»  Fed.  Be)).  705.  42— Holm'.s,  C.  J.,  in  Flagjr  :Mf;:. 

41 — Hoiifih.      J.,      ill      :Nrarjiarcte  Co.    v.    Ilolway.    178    Mass.    83:    ;'J) 

StcifT   V.   Binjr.   21.3    Fed.   R.-p.    204,  X.  K.  Rep.  GG7.     To  the  same  effect 

208;  see  also  Steiff  v.  Cimlnd  Bros.,  see    Pia;,'et    v.    TIeadley,    fiS    X.    V. 

131  C.  C.  A.  21;  214  Fed.  Rep.  500;  Suj.p.  .3:)1. 


§11 


'J 


HOPKINS   ON    TILVDEMARKS. 


292 


attributes  t(»  that  wliifli  lir  lias  iiiadi-  a  false  origin,  by  ilaiiii- 
ing  it  to  be  the  manulaeture  ol'  another  person."^-'  In  a  later 
ease,  Jiuige  Severens  bus  thns  stateil  the  rule:  "Without 
doubt,  a  party  may  adojjt  distin^'uishiny:  marks  to  denote  the 
oripin  or  prodnetion  as  Ix'inij  liis  own,  oi-  lie  may  adopt  some 
other  poeuliar  nnMliod  of  distin^iiisliintr  his  own  ^'oods,  and 
thus  retain  the  beiiefit  of  tlie  irood  reputation  whieh  lie  has 
aequired  for  them.  Rut  flio  very  idea  of  distinpruishinpr  them 
imjilies  tlint  it  ean  not  he  done  liy  sncli  universal  eharaeter- 
isties  as  belonp  to  other  poods  of  the  kind  and  which  the  pen- 
oral  publie  have  the  undoubted  ripht  to  use.""  Rut  in  mak- 
inp  an  artiele  whose  strueture  may  be  made  by  anyone,  it  is 
nevertheless  unlawfid  to  imitate  its  ensemble  as  made  by  an- 
other, with  the  purpose  and  effeet  of  misleadinp  the  jiublic^'' 


43 — Johnson.  .T..  in  Fairlmnka  v. 
Jacobus,  14  Blatclif.  3.37,  330;  Fed. 
Case  No.  4,008,  and  tt>  the  aamo  ef- 
fect, see  Dover  Stamping  Co.  v. 
Follows,  103  Mass.  101;  40  N.  E. 
Rep.  lOf);  28  L.  R.  A.  448;  47  Am. 
St.  Rep.  448;  Marvel  Co.  v.  TuUar 
Co..  12.">  Fed.  Rep.  82!>. 

4 1— Globe- Wernicke  Co.  v.  Fred 
Macey  Co.,  f.O  C.  C.  A.  304;  110  Fed. 
Rep.  000,  704 ;  followed  in  Burrowea 
v.  Carrom-Areharena  Co..  100  Fed. 
Rep.  204. 

4."> — Cilobe-Wernioke  Co.  v.  Brown 
&  Besly,  r)7  C.  C.  A.  344;  121  Fed. 
Rep.  00;  Marvel  Co.  v.  Pearl,  00 
C.  C.  A.  220;  122  Fed.  Rep.  100, 
distinfnnshes  between  the  cases  '. 
vhich  the  resemblance  between 
manufactured  articles  is  due  to  the 
phynical  retpiirements  essential  to 
commercial  sucecHS,  and  tliose  in 
which  the  resemblance  of  form  and 
•  color  are  unneeessary  and  manifest- 
ly deHi;.med  to  miHre[)reHent  the 
orifiin  of  the  articles.  Tliis  de- 
cision, by  the  Court  of  Appeals  for 
the  Second  Circuit,  dmyinjr  injunc- 
tive relief  on  the  [tceuliar  facts  of 
the    caw,    was    [»rtee(lid    by     I^iiter- 


prise  Mfjj.  Co.  v.  Lander-*.  Frary  A. 
Clark.  Of)  C.  C.  A.  r)87 ;  131  Fed. 
Rep.  240.  and  foUowt'd  by  Yale  & 
Town.-  Mf-.  Co.  V.  Alder,  83  C.  C. 
A.  140;  1.-.4  Fed.  Rep.  37  (revers- 
in-r  s.  c,  140  Fed.  Rep.  783),  in 
both  of  which  cases  injunctive  re- 
lief was  pranted.  On  an  applica- 
tion for  preliminary  injunction, 
Judfje  Lacombe  has  said,  "whether 
the  shape  of  ventilators  and  loca- 
tion of  parts  have  been  selected  be- 
cause of  some  necessity  or  because 
(if  a  desire  to  imitate  complainant's 
sinictnrf  is  a  matter  which  it 
WMubl  be  very  difficult  to  decide 
npnn  allidavits."  Rushmore  v. 
Saxon,  ir.4  Fed.  R.'p.  213.  Tlius.  it 
was  held  that  clieek-marka  produced 
on  <be  bi'ad  i>f  a  liorseslioe  nail  as 
an  iii<i<b!il  in  tlie  course  of  manu- 
fiicfure.  (b)  not  constitute  a  trade- 
mark, and  their  use  by  another  will 
not,  in  the  absence  of  ])rc)of  of 
fraudulent  intent  or  actual  decep- 
tion, be  enjoined  as  unfair  comp«'- 
t  it  ion.  Capewell  ITorse  Nail  Co.  v. 
Putnam  Nail  Co..  140  Fed.  Rep.  070. 
Hut  the  contrary  was  held  in  fur- 
tlier    litigation    on   the   same   mark. 


293 


INFUINGEMENT. 


[§118 


§118.  Intent  and  scienter.  It  was  at  first  licld  tliat  (•(inity 
could  only  admiiuster  relief  ancillary  to  that  olfcivd  by  the 
courts  of  law.  It  is,  indeed,  diHicult  to  ai)i)r('lii'nd  on  what 
ground  this  reluctance  to  interfere  in  trademark  eases  arose. 
The  only  explanation  vouchsafed  is.  that  when  chancery  under- 
took to  act  it  ^vas  "exercisiiif^  a  jurisdiction  over  lej^'al 
rights.""'  But  whether  at  law  or  in  o(iuity,  the  doctrine  of 
the  common  law  prevailed,  that  the  defendant  must  be  shown 
to  have  guilty  knowledge  or  fraudulent  intent.^" 

In  1838  the  rule  was  distiiu'tly  announced  that  courts  of 
equity  "will  act  on  the  principle  of  protecting  i)roperty  alone, 
and  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  injunction  to  prove  fraud  in 
the  defendant. "■•^  This  rule  is  now  universally  recognized 
in   technical   trademark   cases.-*»     It   is  unnecessary   to   show 


Capew(>ll  ITorsc  Nail  Co.  v.  Mooriov. 
167  Fi'd.  ru'i;  allirrrnMl,  C'npowfU 
Horse  Nail  Co.  v.  Mooiu'V,  172  Fed. 
826;  07  C.  C.  A.  248. 

Similarity  of  manufactures  in 
details  not  essential  to  the  per- 
formance of  tlie  mechanical  func- 
tion will  always  be  enjoined  where 
it  is  so  extensive  as  to  satisfy  the 
mind  of  tlie  court  that  defendant 
was  wilfully  simulating  the  non- 
essentials of  the  complainant's 
wares,  and  that  the  result  is  con- 
fusion in  tlie  minds  of  the  purchas- 
ing puhlic.  11.  Mueller  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
A.  Y.  :\rcDonally  &  Morrison  Mfg. 
Co.,  1G4  Fed.  Rep.  1001,  lOOo; 
I\ushmor(>  v.  ^lanliattan  Screw  & 
Stamping  Works,  10.3  Fed.  Rep. 
939;  90  C.  C.  A.  209.  Important 
issues  are,  is  the  similarity  neces- 
sary, or  is  it  inherent  in  the  nature 
of  the  article.  Baldwin  v.  Grier 
Bros.  Co.,  215  Fed.  Rep.  7.3r»,  737. 
For  interesting  cases  of  distinctive 
dress,  see  Pacific  Coast  Condensed 
Milk  Co.  V.  FrA-e  &  Co.,  80  Wash. 
133;  147  Pac.  Rep.  86.5;  Safe-Cab- 
inet Co.  V.  Globe-Wernicke  Co.,  3 
Ohio  App.  24;  34  Ohio  C.  C.  528. 


4fi — Motley  v.  Downman,  3  Myinc 
&  Cr.  1-14. 

47 — Singleton  v.  Bolton,  3  Doug. 
203;  Morrison  v.  Salmon,  2  Man.  & 
Cr.  385;  Crawshay  v.  Thompson,  4 
Man.  &  G.  3.-)7 ;  Taylor  v.  Ashton, 
11  M.  &  W.  402;  Rodgers  v.  Xowill. 

5  C.  B.   100;   Myers  v.  Baker,  3  II. 

6  N.  802 ;  Sykes  v.  Sykes,  3  B.  &  C. 
541;  5  D.  &  R.  292. 

48— :Millington  v.  Fox,  3  Mylne 
&  Cr.  338. 

40— Glenny  v.  Smith.  2  Drew.  & 
Sm.  470;  11  Jur.  N.  S.  004;  13  L. 
T.  N.  S.  11;  13  W.  R.  10.32;  0  X.  l\. 
303;  Se1>.  247;  Filley  v.  Fassett,  44 
Mo.  173;  Co.K,  530;  Sel>.  313;  Amos- 
keag  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Garner  (1),  55 
Barb.  151;  6  Abb.  Pr.  X.  S.  205; 
Cox,  541;  Scb.  314;  Holmes,  Booth 
&  Ilaydens  v.  Holmes,  Booth  &  At- 
wood  Mfg.  Co.,  37  Conn.  278;  0  Am. 
Rep.  324;  Seb.  340;  Singer  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Wilson,  3  App.  Cas.  376.301;  Col- 
man  v.  Crump,  70  X.  Y.  573;  10 
Alb.  L.  .T.  3.52:  Seb.  .570;  Shaw  v. 
Pilling,  175  Pa.  St.  78-87:  Wother- 
spoon  V.  Currie,  L.  R.  5  11.  L.  508- 
517;  McLean  v.  Fleming.  96  U.  S. 
24.5-253;     24    L.    'Ed.    828;    Liggett 


^   Il8j  HOPKINS    ON    TKVDKM  AUKS.  L*:i4 

thut  tlio  ilofi'iulaiil  knew  that  his  tracU'inark  rosonihleil  any 
oilier  traik'inark,""'  ami  it  lollows  that  it  iiecil  not  be  shown 
that  he  knew  whose  mark  his  resembled;'''  and,  the  intent  of 
the  defendant  beinj?  immaterial,  the  faet  that  he  intended  to 
infrinj^'e  plaintiffs  rights  will  not  entitle  the  plaintifT  to  relief 
if  the  defendant's  nets  do  not  aniimiit  to  trii.lriii;ii-k  iiifrinjjre- 
ment  or  nnfair  eomjietition.''- 

There  is  a  line  of  deinareation,  to  he  noted  in  this  regard, 
between  the  elass  of  nnfair  trade  eases  whieh  involves  a  tech- 
nieal  trademark  and  that  whieh  does  not.  Where  a  plaintiff 
establishes  by  e()mi)etent  proof  his  title  to  the  speeifie  trade- 
mark, infringement  is  shown  by  eompari.son  witli  tlw  ticfend- 
ant's  mark.  The  resend)lanee  of  the  defendant  s  mark  ereates 
a  i)resnmi>tion  of  fraud.'''  But  where  the  i)laintiff  has  no 
trademark  there  is  no  basis  of  compai-ison  such  as  existed  in 
the  former  ease,  because  there  is  no  technical  property  right 
in  the  i)laintilT.  'Mere  resemblance  between  the  goods  of  the 
])arties  may  or  may  not  be  snfTicient  to  establish   the  right  to 

&  y\\vr  Toll.  Co.  V.  Tlyncs.  20  .Xinrrican  (anient  &  Oil  Co.,  C")  C. 
Fill.  l?op-  •'^'^•'';  ^-  ^■'-  !^i"imon»  C.  A.  in.^r  l.'lo  IVd.  Hop.  70:i,  711; 
Mfd.  Co.  V.  Mnnsfiold  Drug  Co..  citin;,'  §  7«i  of  tlu-  first  edition  of 
!i3  Tcnii.  S4;  Klpriii  Xat.  Watch  this  liook.  and  (Vnta\ir  Co.  v.  Mar- 
Co.  V.  niin..is  Watcli  Cus.-  Co.  (2).  shall.  .^S  C.  C.  A.  4i:i:  07  Fi-d.  Rep. 
170  r.  S.  Ofi.")-674:  -l.')  T..  I'd.  3fi."):  7S.");  Tdstuni  ('.rcnl  Ci".  v.  Amor- 
Cravonrtte  Co.  v.  ntMijaniin.  10.")  ican  Health  Ftiod  Co..  .'»('»  C.  C.  A. 
Ff(L  15fp.  r.21:  American  Crocor  .-UU);  1 10  Fed.  Ucp.  848,  8.V2. 
Pnh.  Co.  V.  Crocor  Pnl>.  Co..  2.")  ').*] — "A  trademark,  clearly  such, 
Ilun,    308.  ia   in   itself  evidence,  when    used   hy 

r,f)_Kinahan    v.    Kinahan,    1.")    Tr.  a  third  party,  of  an  ille^jal  act.     It 

Ch.   7.">;    Orr-Kwinj,'  &   Co.   v.   firant,  is   of   itself  <'videne<'  that  the   party 

2    Hyde,    la.'i;    Sinjtor    Mfg.    Co.    v.  int<-nded    to    defraud    and    to    palm 

1.00;.',    IS   Ch.    I).    412;    Harrison    v.  ofT    his    froods    as    another's."      Mr. 

Taylor,   11   dur.   N.  S.  408;   Fdelsten  .lustiee     Hradhy.     in     Tutnam    Nail 

V.    Edelslen.    1    DeO.    J.    &    S.    18.-.;  Co.    V.    Ihun.-tt.     1.!    Ked.    Hep.    800. 

nnr;.'iss    v.    Hills,   20    Beavan,    244;  And  to  the  same  .  Ifeet.  Hoston  Did- 

Ite^is    V.    J.    A.    .Taynes   &,    Co.,    IR.'.  tite    Co.    v.    Florence    Mfg.    Co.,    114 

Mass.  4r.8;  70  N.  F.  Rep.  480.  Mass.    00;    M.Lean    v.    Fhminn,    90 

r,l_<^^'artier  v.  Carlile.  31    Heavan,  C    S.    24.-.;    24    L.    K<1.    828;    Menon- 

202.  'h'z  V.    Holt.    12s   V.   S.    ."iU;    32   L. 

r,2 — Kann    v.    Diamond    Steel    Co.,  Fd.     r>2(i ;      Lawrence     Mf;:.     Co.     v. 

80    Fed.    Hep.    700712.      "An    int.n-  Tennessee  Mf^r.  Co..    138  V.   S.   MT ; 

lion  to  injure,  if  no  injury  he  done.  3  J    I,.    Fd.    007;    Halena   Signal    Oil 

ronslituteM    no    >;r<.und    for    relief."  (■>.  v.  W.  V.   Fuller  &   Co..   112  Fed. 

J.nkins,   .1.,    in    (i.    W.   Cole   Co.    v.  Hep.    lnoJ.   H'o:. 


295  INl'UINtiKMKNT.  [§  119 

injuiictioii.  It  must  he  fstahlisluMl  that  the  (Icrciulant  is  uii- 
Tairly  competing  witli  the  |)hiiiitin';  liis  Traud  must  be  proven 
directly  or  by  inicrcncc.  In  a  recent  opinion  .Jiulgc  liaker 
says:  "While  the  idea  oi"  fraud  or  imposition  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  liie  law  of  technical  trademarks  as  well  as  the 
law  of  unfair  competition,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  fraud 
may  rest  in  actual  intent  shown  by  the  evidence,  or  may  be 
inferred  from  the  ciirnmstances,  or  may  be  conclusively  pre- 
suuhhI  from  the  act  itself.  In  the  ease  of  unfair  competition 
the  fraudulent  intent  must  be  shown  hy  the  evidence,  or  he 
inferable  from  the  circumstances,  wliile  in  the  case  of  the  use 
hy  one  trader  of  the  trademark  or  trade-syiid>ol  of  a  rival 
trader,  fraud  will  l)e  presumed  from  its  wron^'ful  use.""'' 

And  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  states  the  rule  to  be 
that  "the  deceitful  representation  must  he  made  out  or  be 
clearly  inferable  from  tlie  circ\nnstances."'' • 

"An  inference  to  this  effect  is  justified  where,  on  the  party's 
attention  hein^  called  to  the  subject,  he  unreasonably  persists 
in  holding  to  the  imitative  dress  which  he  has  given  to  his 
goods,  however  innocentl}^  intended,   at   the  outstart.  "^"^^ 

§  119.  What  persons  liable. — With  the  establishment  of  the 
rule  that  mala  mens  need  not  be  shown,^'~  it  followed  that 
liability  for  infringement  was  extended  to  many  persons  who, 
in  the  absence  of  that  doctrine,  could  not  be  reached  by  the 
owner  of  the  pirated  mark.  "All  persons  in  any  way  con- 
nected Avith  the  infringement  of  a  trademark  are  responsible 
to  the  owner  for  the  injury  done  to  his  rights. "°** 

r,4_Clnircli     &     D\vi<,'lit     Co.     v.  f).! — Lawn-iu't'    "Mf-r.    Co.    v.    Tor- 

Huss.  1)9  Fod.  R.'p.  270-270.     To  tho  nossoo  :Mf<r.  Co.,   138  V.  S.   -,:M-r,rA  ■ 

same   offoct.  soi>   Lamont,   Corliss  &  .34  L.  E<1.  907;   followofl  in  Corham 

Co.  V.  Horslu'V,  140  Fed.  Rop.  763;  ^Slf^'.  Co.  v.  Emory-Bird-Tlia.v.>r  Co., 

American    Clay   Mffl-   Co.   v.   Amer-  43  C.  C.  A.  .511;   104  Fed.  Rep.  243. 

ican  Clay  Mfjj.  Co.,  108  Pa.  189 ;  47  244. 

Atl.  Rep.  930.     "This  is  not  a  case  56— Archbald.  J.,  in  Lamont,  Cor- 

of    unfair    competition,    Imt    it    in-  liss  &  Co.  v.  Hershey,  140  Fed.  Rep. 

volves    only    a    pure    common    law  763,  764. 

trademark.      In    such    case    defend-  r>7 — Wotherspoon  v.  Currie.  L.  R. 

ant's    pood    faith    is    immaterial    as  .".  IT.   L.   r)nS-.->17;    Saxlehner   v.   Sie- 

respects    the    rifjht    to    injunction."  pel-Cooper  Co.,   179  U.  S.  42;   4.')  L. 

Knappen.  J.,  in  DeVoe  Snuff  Co.  v.  Ed.   77. 

Wolff,    124  C.   C.   A.   302;    206   Fed.  r)S— Hawley,    J.,    in    Ilennessy    v. 

Rep.   420,  424.  Herrmann,  89   Fed.  Rep.   669-670. 


§  120]  IlOrKINS   ON    TRADEMAUKS.  'JUG 

^120.  Of  labels,  generally. — Tlio  ilress  of  a  comiut'ri-ial 
article  usually  onilxxlies  a  label.  The  consequeiu'o  is  that  llic 
cases  refer  to  labels,  frc(iueutly,  as  though  they  were  a  dis- 
tinct factor  ill  the  law  of  unfair  competition,  to  be  treated  as 
an  entity.  i-e<;arclless  of  the  presence  or  absence  of  trade- 
nuirk  nuiterial  upon  them.  Thus  N'iee-Chancellor  \'an  Fleet, 
in  the  Court  of  Chancery  of  New  Jersey,  has  said:  "If  we 
speak  with  accuracy,  these  ialicls  can  not  he  caMcd  'trade- 
nuirks, ■  but  they  serve  substantially  the  same  j)urpose.  They 
are  the  nuirks  by  which  the  complainant's  goods  are  distin- 
guished in  the  markets  from  all  like  goods  put  upon  the  nuirket 
by  otlier  jiersons,  and  are,  for  that  reason,  according  to  many 
decisions,  just  as  nnicli  under  the  protection  of  the  law  as 
trademarks  are.  The  law  i)rotects  them  for  the  same  reasons, 
and  in  exactly  the  same  way,  that  it  does  trademarks.  The 
leading  ]U'inciple  of  the  law  on  this  subject  is  that  no  man 
should  be  permitted  to  sell  liis  goods  on  the  reputation  which 
another  dealer  has  established  in  the  market  for  his  goods, 
and  this  principle  applies  with  equal  force  to  the  case  where 
the  goods  of  such  other  dealer  are  known  in  the  nuirket  by  a 
label,  as  it  does  to  the  case  where  they  are  known  by  a  mark 
which  is  strictly  a  trademark.  No  dealer  can  lawfully  adopt 
the  label  of  another  dealer,  or  one  so  near  like  it  as  to  lead  the 
public  to  suppose  that  the  article  to  which  it  is  affixed  was 
put  upon  the  market  by  .such  other  dealer.  "•''•' 

The  duty  is  incumbent  upon  one  entering  into  competition 
with  an  established  business  to  make  "an  honest  effort  to 
accentuate    differences    in    labels   aiul    wrappers.'''"'"*      A   label 

.')!» — Wirtz  V.   Ea-ilc   Rottlin;;  Co.,  ni2  (where  tlie  marks  involved  wore 

.lO  X.  J.  Eq.  1«4;  24  Atl.  Rep.  f».")8;  ci;,'ar  lianda)  ;   DeLoiijr  Hook  &  Eyo 

followintr   Miller   Toltacco   Manufao-  Co.  v.  Fraiieifl  ITook  &  Eye  Co.   (2). 

tory    Co.     V.    Commerce,    4.')    X.    .T.  1.30  Fed.  Rep.   14(5;  DeLoii;;  ITook  A 

Law,    IR,    24.      To   tlie    same   effect,  Eye  Co.  v.  Francis  Tlook  &  Eye  Co., 

Bo«'  American   Brewinf?  Co.  v.  Bicn-  7.")  C.  C.  A.  4S4 ;    144  Fed.  Rep.  fi82 

villo    Brewery,    1.').*}    Fed.    Rep.    dl.'),  (win  re    tlie    liook.s   and   eyes   of    the 

019;  AnheiiHer-Busch  Brewing  Ansn.  reHpective  parties  were  mounted  for 

V.   Clarke,  2<5   Fed.   Rep.   410;   R.   .1.  ^ah•  l.y  liein^'  stitclu-d  on  cards). 

Reynolds     Tobacco      Co.      v.      Allen  (tO— Lacomhe,  .1.,   in   Sa.xlehner   v. 

Bros.    Tohacco    Co.,     l.'il     Fed.     Rep.  Craef,  81   Fed.  Rep.  704. 
Hl{»;    Clay   V.    Kline,   1  \'.\    F..!.    Uep. 


2!>7  INFRINGEMENT.  [§  121 

used  on  a  patciil cd  ai'1i<'lc'  docs  not  Ix'como  puhllci  juris  on  the 
oxpii'ation    of  the    palcnl.''' 

§121.  Of  packages,  generally. — We  liave  lierotoforo  (see. 
54)  noted  those  technical  ohjections  whieh  prevent  th(!  i)a('k- 
age  in  which  the  merchandise  is  sohl  I'l'oni  Ix'in^'  a  1  fach-niark. 
It  is  evident,  I'roni  tiie  cases  referred  to  in  the  next  jireceding 
section,  that  tiie  doctrines  of  unfair  competition  apply  to 
l)ackages  as  to  every  other  form  of  commercial  dress  in  which 
merchandise  is  dealt  with  commercially. 

The  package  usually  embraces  a  label;  or  it  nuiy  be  a  car- 
ton, or  other  package,  upon  which  the  designs,  emblems,  or 
words  selected  by  the  originator  of  tiie  package  are  directly 
imprinted.  However  it  may  be  composed  and  ])y  whatever 
means  the  emblems  upon  it  are  affixed,  they  can  not  be  pro- 
tected or  recognized  in  equity  except  when,  and  to  the  extent 
that,  they  are  distinguishing.  To  be  distinguishing,  they  must 
not  be  common  to  the  trade. 

This  principle  applies  to  the  component  parts  visible  upon 
the  exterior  of  the  package,  as  well  as  to  what  the  English 
courts  have  comprehensively  called  the  "get-up"  of  the  pack- 
age. 

Judge  Lowell,  in  a  carefully  considered  opinion,''^  quoted 
the  following  applications  of  this  rule  as  applied  in  England: 

"lie  (the  ])laintiff)  must  make  out,  not  that  the  defend- 
ant's are  like  his  by  reason  of  those  features  which  are  common 
to  them  and  other  i)eople,  but  he  must  make  out  that  the  de- 
fendant's are  like  his  by  reason  of  something  peculiar  to  him, 
and  by  reason  of  the  defendant  having  adopted  some  mark, 
or  device,  or  label,  or  something  of  that  kind,  which  distin- 
guishes the  ])laintiff's  from  other  goods  wliich  have,  like  his, 
the  features  common  to  the  trade.  Unless  the  plaintiff  can 
bring  his  case  up  to  that,  he  fails.  "^'•'^ 

"The  evidence  is  very  strong  that  one  tin  may  be  mis- 
taken for  the  other,  very  likely;  but  why?  Because  of  the 
features  common  to  them  and  common  to  all.""-* 

01 — Centaur   Co.    v.   Killonborger,  03 — Payton  v.   Snclling,   17   R.   P. 

87  Ft'd.  Rop.  725,  726.  C.  48,  52. 

()2 — United  States  Tobacco  Co.  v.  04 — Payton  v.   Pnellinfr.   17  R.   P. 

McGreenery,  144  Fed.  Rep.  531,  532.  C.  G28. 


§  122]  lIOrKINS    ON    TRAOIM  AUKS.  298 

''The  only  (luostion  you  have  tlu-n  to  coiisultM'  is  wlictlior 
the  defendant's  pet-up  Ls  so  like  the  plaintiirs'  as  to  be  ciU- 
eulated  to  be  mistaken  for  it.  But  when,  as  in  this  ease  and 
in  the  last,  what  is  ealled  the  plaintiffs'  <:et-up  eonsists  of 
two  totally  different  thinjis  eonibined,  namely,  a  fret-up  coni- 
mon  to  the  trade,  and  a  distinetive  feature  alTixed  or  added 
to  tin*  eoninion  feature,  tiien  what  you  have  to  consider  is  not 
wjictiu'r  the  defendants'  jret-up  i:^  like  tlu>  plaintiffs'  as  rejjards 
the  eoninion  features,  but  whether  that  whieh  specially  dis- 
tiiifruishes  the  jjlaintiffs'  has  been  taken  by  the  defendants."'"^ 

§122.  The  engraver  or  manufacturer  of  the  label.  The 
rule  that  equity  will  enjoin  one  who  participates  in  the  pro- 
duction of  an  infrinfiinp:  mark  or  label  was  first  established 
in  GuiiDicss  r.  I'llincr,  in  1847,  in  which  ease  the  i)laintiffs  were 
brewers  of  porter,  and  the  defendants,  who  were  engravers, 
engrraved  plates  to  be  used  in  printinp:  labels  in  imitation  of 
the  plaintiff's  label.'''^  This  decision  was  followed  in  1855  by 
a  ease  in  which  a  printer  printed  and  sold  labels  whieh  were 
fac-similes  of  the  plaintiff's  labels,  and  the  ]iiracy  was  en- 
joined:'"" and  the  rule  is  noAv  extended  to  inehule  one  who 
deals  in  counterfeit  labels,  thongrh  he  does  not  manufacture 
them.'''^ 

In  1877  a  label  printer  was  enjoined  by  the  Superior  Court 
of  New  York  from  the  manufacture  of  labels  which  were  color- 
able imitations  of  plaintiff's.  In  affiniiinfr  the  decision  of 
the  lower  court  the  New  York  Court  of  Ai)|)eals  announced 
that  it  is  not  necessary  in  such  a  ease  "to  establish  a  jruilty 
knowledge  or  fi-audulent  intent  on  th(^  i)art  of  the  wrong- 
er*— Paj-ton  V.  Ward.  17  R.  P.  C.  same  ifToct.  Colmaii  v.  rrump,  70 
r)8  X.  Y.  r)73;  CiuTvo  V.  Jnpol)  Henkell 

no— CuinnoRS  v.  T'llm.T.  10  L.  T.  Co.,  (10  Off.  Oaz.  440;  r>0  Fed.  Rep. 
127;  Sell.  SO.  471;     Moxif     Nerve     Food     Co.     v. 

(57— Farina  v.  Silvcrloek,  1  K.  &  Beaeh.  33  Fed.  Rep.  248;  De  Kuy- 
J.  nOO;  3  Eq.  Rep.  883;  24  L.  J.  Cli.  p.r  v.  Witteman,  23  Fed.  Rep.  871; 
632;  2r,  L.  T.  211;  3  W.  R.  532;  0  Ilildreth  v.  Spark.s  ^If^^  Co.,  PO 
DeG.  M.  &  a.  214;  20  L.  J.  Ch.  11;       Fed.  Rep.  484. 

2  .lur.  N.  S.  1008;  27  L.  T.  277;  4  08— HenneBHv    v.     H«Trmann,    8!) 

W.  R.  731;  52  Leg.  Oba.  342;  30  Fed.  Rep.  OtiO ;  Cantrell  &  Cochrane, 
L.  T.  242;  31  L.  T.  09;  4  K.  &  .).  Ltd.,  v.  VVittemunn,  109  Fed.  Rep. 
650;    Scb.    130.      See    also    to    the       B2 


290 


INKKINGKMKNT. 


[§122 


doer,"""  It  is  now  the  settled  rule  that  "tlio  mere  act  of 
jifintiiifj:  and  selling'  labels  in  imitation  of  the  comi)lainant'H 
mi^'hl  be  innocent,  and,  witliont  evidence  of  an  illicit  jjnr-pose, 
would  iiol  bo  a  vi()l;it  ion  of  tlic  coniplainaiit  "s  iM<rlif s. "  ^" 
Judji:e  Thayer,  however,  iiehl  tliat  Ihe  court  would  presinin! 
fraudulent  intent  where  counterfeit  labels  were  niainiractiireil 
and  sold  and  advei'tised   I'oi-  sale  by  the  derciidaiit .'' 

"Whei-e  a  person  induces  a  nianufacturei-  to  make  for  him 
ji^oods  marked  with  the  ti-ademai'k  of  a  third  jx'i-son,  the  manu- 
facturer can  liold  him  liabh'  foi-  all  money  j)aid  and  expense; 
incurred  by  the  manufacturer  in  com  prom  isin<;  a  suit  brou^dit 
against  him  by  the  owner  of  the  trademark. '- 

Whei'e  both  parties  are  in  a  similar  business,  one  will  be 
enjoined  from  buying  up  the  empty  bottles  or  other  i)ackage.s 
used  by  the  other.^-' 

Where  a  suit  against  a  manufacturer  using  an  infringing 
carton  had  been  comjiromised,  the  plaintiff  releasing  all  claims 
against  the  defendant's  customers,  a  subsequent  suit  against 


60 — Colman  v.  Crump,  70  X.  Y. 
573-578;  alTirminf,'  s.  c,  40  X.  Y. 
Super.  Ct.  (8  J.  &  S.)  548;  Seh. 
570.  The  court  of  appeals  in  tliis 
case  further  says  (per  Allen,  J.)  : 
"It  is  an  infraction  of  tliat  ri-^'ht 
(i.  c,  the  ri<,'lit  to  a  trademark) 
to  print  or  manufacture,  or  put  on 
the  market  for  sale  and  sell  for  use, 
upon  articles  of  merchandise  of  the 
same  class  as  those  upon  which  it 
is  used  by  tlie  proprietor,  any  de- 
vice or  symbol  wliicli  by  its  resem- 
blance to  the  establislied  trademark 
will  be  liable  to  deceive  the  public 
and  lead  to  the  purchase  and  use 
of  that  which  is  not  the  manufac- 
ture of  the  proprietor,  believinfr  it 
to  be  his."  From  which  Mr.  Cox 
makes  this  deduction:  "The  distinc- 
tion would  seem  to  be  that  where 
the  facts  of  the  case  show  that  tlie 
printer  of  the  labels  contemplated 
their  use  upon  goods  not  made  by 


tlie  owner  of  tlie  mark,  the  court 
will  interfere  whatever  the  intent; 
l)ut  where  the  purpose  was  that 
they  should  be  honestly  used  in 
such  manner  as  to  be  tantamount 
to  an  application  of  the  mark  by  its 
owner,  the  courts  will  decline  to  in- 
terfere." Note  to  Farina  v.  Silver- 
lock,  Cox,  ^Manual,  130. 

70 — Wallace,  J.,  in  De  Kuyper  v. 
Witteman,  23  Fed.  Rep.  871;  Cox, 
^lanual,  ()04. 

71— Carson  v.  Ury,  30  Fed.  Rep. 
777;  Cox,  Manual,  700.  See  also 
Von  Mumm  v.  Wittemann,  85  Fed. 
Rep.  OfiG. 

72 — Dixon  v.  Fawcus,  0  W.  R. 
414;  3  Ell.  &  Ell.  537;  30  L.  J.  Q. 
B.  137;  7  Jur.  X.  S.  805;  3  L.  T. 
X.  S.  603;  Seb.  104. 

73— Evans  v.  Von  Laer,  32  Fed. 
Rep.  153;  Sawyer  Crystal  Blue  Co. 
V.  Hubbard,  32  Fed.  Rep.  388. 


§  123]  HOPKINS    ON    TRADEMARKS.  300 

the  niamifmturor  of  tli«>  cjirtuiis  used  by  the  first  defendant 
was  dismissed  as   iiuM|uifal>lf.' • 

J;  123.  Of  counterfeiting  trademarks. — A  eountcrfeit  mark 
is  one  whieh  is  a  fae-simile  (r.  j/.,  an  exact  copy  or  reproduc- 
tion) of  a  frenuine  trademark.  Counterfeitiuf?  may  be  accom- 
plished eillier  l)y  usiiij;  forced  facsimile  trademarks,  or  by 
usinp  ponuine  trademarks  upon  goods  substituted  for  those  of 
tlie  owners  of  the  trademarks;  as  by  refilliii<r  bottles,  boxes  or 
other  packa^res  beariTi<r  trademarks  after  their  original  con- 
tents  have   been   consumed. 

§124.  Of  imitation  of  trademarks.- -An  imitation  is  a  mark 
so  contrived  as  to  resemble  an  established  trademark.  The 
imitation  is  actionable  only  in  cases  where,  ui)on  comparison, 
the  court  determines  that  the  difference  is  "merely  color- 
able,"'^ or  as  stated  by  Vice-rhancellor  AVood :  "In  every 
case  the  court  must  ascertain  whether  the  differences  arc  made 
bona  fulc  in  order  to  distinfrui.sh  the  one  article  from  them, 
whether  the  resemblances  and  the  differences  are  such  as 
naturally  arise  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  or  whether,  on 
the  other  hand,   the   differences  are  simjdy  colorable.''^'* 

§  125.  Colorable  imitation. — As  to  what  constitutes  color- 
able imitation,  some  ai)i)arent  diversity  of  oi)inion  arises  in 
the  cases.  In  the  opinion  of  Vice-Chancellor  Wood  from  which 
we  have  quoted  in  the  foregoing  section,  he  says:  "Resem- 
blance is  a  circumstance  which  is  of  ])rimarv  importance  for 
the  court  to  consider,  because  if  the  court  finds,  as  it  almost 
invariably  does  find  in  such  cases  as  this,  that  there  is  no 
reason  for  the  resemblance,  excepting  for  the  pnrjiose  of  mis- 
leading, it  will  infer  that  the  resemblance  is  adopted  for  the 
imrpose  of  misleading."""  Hut  this  dictum  is  not  convincing, 
because  if  the  resemblance  is  not,  in  fact,  calculated  to  mis- 
lead, the  fact  that  it  was  adopted  for  the  purpose  of  mislead- 
ing is  wholly  immaterial. 

74_nilM.l.'      flHniical      r.i.      v.  7U— Tavlor  \.    linl.ir,  2  Kq.    Rep. 

Munwin.   lHi   K.-.I     Kij).   IHK.  '-"";  '^'-^  '^-  •'•  <"''•  '-•'•"»•  -'-  •-  '••  '"1; 

7.1-  DnviH  V.  K.-iidiill.  2  H.  I.  nrtO;  ^i''*-    1--1- 
Vox,  112;  Seb.   lua.  ~*' — iuylur    v.     laylur,    supra. 


.'{01 


INFKINOKMKNT. 


§  i2f; 


'^riius    it    has    liccii    liold    rcpcaf fdly    tlint    ^vllf'ro    thoro    is    no 
iiiiif  at  ion    of    the    essential    pai't    ot"    tlie    t  I'adeiiiark,    a    resein- 
hlanee  in   i>art  icnlai's  conniion   to  the  tra(h'   is  not   an   infi-in<.'i' 
ment.''^ 

§  126.  The  test  of  probability  of  deception. — The  variance 
of  opinion  as  to  wliat  constitutes  colorable  imitation  arises 
from  the  standanKs  adopted  by  the  difTerent  courts  as  to  the 
tendency  of  the  aUej^ed  infriiif^'ement  to  deceive  the  cautious, 
ordinary  or  unwary  customer.  It  is  never  necessary  to  estab- 
lish actual  deception.  Tjoi'd  Westbury  said  that  it  was  not 
"necessary  for  relief  in  e(iuity  that  proof  should  be  fjiven  of 
persons  having  been  actually  deceived,  and  having  bought 
goods  with  the  defendant's  mark  under  the  belief  that  they 
were  the  manufacture  of  the  j)laintiirs,  i)rovided  the  court 
be  satisfied  that  the  i-esem])lance  is  such  as  would  be  likely  to 
cause  the  one  nuirk  to  be  mistaken  for  the  other.''  '•'  Accord- 
ingly it  is  no  defense  to  show  that  all  the  persons  purchas- 
ing goods  bearing  the  simulated  mark  were  aware  that  the 
goods  were  not  of  the  plaintiff's  manufacture,**"  or  that  the 


78 — Portuondo  v.  Monno,  28  Fed. 
Rep.  16;  Price  &  Steuart,  1115; 
Ball  V.  Siegel,  110  111.  U7  ■  56  Am. 
Rep.  706;  In  re  Ilorshurgli,  53  L.J. 
Ch.  2:J7;  Tucker  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Boy- 
ington,  9  Off.  Gaz.  455;  Fed.  Case 
No.  14,220;  Thornton  v.  Crowley, 
47  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  527;  Price  & 
Steuart,  455;  Coata  v.  Merrick,  30 
Fed.  Rep.  324;  45  Off.  Gaz.  347; 
Marsl.all  v.  Hawkins,  4  N.  Z.  L.  R. 
Sup.  Ct.  50;  Staeliell)erg  v.  Ponce 
(2),   128  U.  S.   680;   32  L.   Ed.  509. 

79— Kdelsten  v.  Edelsten,  1  DeG. 
J.  &  S.  200;  9  Jur.  X.  S.  479;  11 
W.  R.  328;  7  L.  T.  X.  S.  708;  1  X. 
R.  300;  and  to  the  same  effect,  see 
Monro  v.  Smith.  13  X.  Y.  Sup.  708; 


eral  de  Tobacos  v.  Rehder,  5  R.  P. 
C.  61;  Cartmell,  103;  Orr-Ewing  v. 
.Johnston,  7  A.  C.  219;  51  L.  J.  Ch. 
797;  40  L.  T.  216;  30  \V.  R.  417: 
Cartmell,  249;  Seb.  040;  Reddaway 
&  Co.  V.  Bentham  Hemp  Spinning 
Co.,  9  R.  P.  C.  .503  (1892)  ;  2  Q.  B. 
639;  07  L.  T.  301;  Braham  v.  Bus- 
tard, 9  L.  T.  X.  S.  199;  1  Hem.  & 
M.  427;  11  W.  R.  1061;  2  X.  R. 
572;  Sel).  226;  Filley  v.  Fassett,  44 
Mo.  168;  Sel).  313;  Ahhott  v.  Bak 
•Ts  &  Confectioners  Tea  Assn.,  W. 
X.  1871,  p.  207;  \V.  X.  1872.  p.  31; 
Seb.  379 ;  Osgood  v.  Allen,  Fed.  Case 
Xo.  10,603;  1  Holmes,  185;  6  Am. 
L.  T.  20;  3  Off.  Gaz.  124;  .Seb.  410; 
.Job    Printers'   Union   of   Chicago  v 


Cox,  Manual,   724;    Dixon   v.    Faw-       Kinsh.y.   107  111.   App.  054. 
cus,  3  Ell.  &   Ell.   537;    .30  L.   ,T.  Q. 

B.  137;  7  JIur.  X.  S.  895;  3  L.  T. 
N.  S.  693;  9  W.  R.  414;  In  re 
Christiansen's   Trademark,    3    R.   P. 

C.  54;  Cartmell,  95;  Compania  Gcn- 


SO— Edel.^ten  v.  Edelsten.  9  .Tur. 
X.  S.  479;  1  DeG.  .7.  &  S.  185;  11 
W.  R.  328;  7  L.  T.  N.  S.  768;  1  N. 
R.  300. 


§127]  HOPKINS  i)N   TKAOKM  \UKS.  302 

maker  of  tlio  spurious  poods,  or  tlio  jolih^r  who  sells  them  to 
retailers,  informs  tliose  who  purehase  that  the  artiele  is  spur- 
ious or  an  imitation  ;  "'  the  reason  beiny:  that  there  is  no  assur- 
anee  that  the  retailer  will  pive  the  same  cautionary  informa- 
tion to  his  eustomers.^-  So  where  the  defendant  elaimed  that 
the  gowla  l)earing  the  false  nuirk  were  for  his  own  family's  use, 
he  was  enjoined  ;  ^•'  and  wliere  the  defendants  contended  that 
they  did  not  deal  in  the  jroods  hearing  the  fraudulent  nuirk. 
hut   oidy   acted   as    forw  ardiri}?  ajjents.   they   were   enjoined.'*^ 

It  is  always  the  presumption,  however,  that  the  eonsumiufr 
purchaser  has  no  opportunity  of  compariuf,'  the  conHictiufr 
marks;  and  this  |)resumption  is  an  important  element  in  i)ass- 
inp  upon  the  ]trol)ahiIity  of  tlic  defendant's  nuirk  effectinji: 
deception.^' 

There  is  the  further  pi-esuniptioii  which  has  been  rceognized 
judicially,  that  the  consuming:  purchaser  is  "apt  to  act  (piickly, 
and  is  therefore  not  ex|)ected  to  exercise  a  high  degree  of 
eaution."  **'■ 

Among  other  statements  of  the  rule  as  to  the  necessary  prob- 
ability of  deception  in  eases  of  unfair  competition  we  find  the 
following:  "It  is  sufficient  if  the  proofs  show  that  the  aetaal 
and  probable  result  of  the  use  of  defendant's  label  will  be  to 
deceive  tlie  ordinary  purchaser  making  purchases  in  the  ordi- 
nary way."  ''" 

§  127.  The  degree  of  resemblance  which  constitutes  in- 
fringement.     It    follows    from    the    principles   which    we    have 

HI  — foiitH    \.    llnll.rn..k.   '2    Simdf.  S.". —  rillslniry    v.    Pillsliury-Watjli- 

Cli.  .'•.Rfl;   S<'l).  79.  Iiiini    Co.,   (i4    K.d.    I{i|).    S41;    12   C. 

H2 — ('liHp|M'll    V.    DavidHon,    2    K.  ('.    A.    4.{2;     Maiuifuftiirin;,'    Co.    v. 

L  .1.   I2:<     *-    I'-';     M     V    <;     1,    S,.li.  Trainer,  lol  U.  S.  rAiU;   2.1  L.   Kd. 

1.30.  Wy.i;   Li^'fr«'tt  &   Myir  Tolmcco  Co.  v. 

H.'i— I  |.iiiaim     \.     lor.st.r,     I..     IJ.  llyn.'H.  20   I«Vd.   R.-p.  .SS3. 

24   Hi.    I).   231;    .V2   L.  .1.   Cli.    i'M'..  sii-  I'arirt  M.-dicin,-  Co.  v.   \V.   IT. 

49    L.    T.    122:    :12   W.    H.   2H .    (art  Hill    Co.,     102    F.d.     R.  p.     l-lfi-l.-.l; 

ni.dl.  :<31.  ^2  C.  C.  A.  227. 

84 — I'pniHiiti    V.    Klkan.   L.    R.    12  S7      Hazt-I.  .1.,  in  .'Miiminiiin  Cook- 

Eq.   140;   40  \..  .1.  Cli.  47r>.  24  ]..  T.  iii^'  rtrnwil   Co.  v.   National  Alumi- 

N.   S.  firtO;    19  \V.    R.   R«7;    L.    R.   7  mini  WOrkH,  220  Fed.  Rop.  SIT),  817. 
Ch.  130;   41   L.  .1.  Ch.  240;   2r.  L.  T. 
N.  S.  813;  20  W.  K.  131;  Sib.  300. 


;;();]  infringement.  [§  127 

reviewed  tlial  the  (|iiesti()ii  of  iiil'iMiii-'eiiieiit  may  he  treated 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  (h't,M-ee  of  approximation  between 
the  eontlictinf?  marks.  Tlie  iide  I'or  applying'  this  test  has 
been  tlms  expressed:  "Wliat  defjree  of  resemblance  is  nec- 
essary to  const  it  lite  an  infrinfjement  is  in('ai)ablc  of  exact 
definition,  as  ai)plieahle  to  all  cases.  All  that  conrts  of  jns- 
tice  can  do  in  that  rejjard  is  to  say  that  no  trader  can  adopt 
a  trademark  so  resemblinjr  that  of  another  trader  as  that 
ordinary  purehasers  hnyin*;  with  ordinary  cantion,  are  likely 
to  he  misled.  Where  the  similarity  is  sufficient  to  create  a 
false  impression  in  the  public  initid,  and  is  of  a  character  to 
mislead  and  deceive  the  ordinary  ])urchaser  in  the  exercise 
of  ordinary  care  and  caution  in  such  matters,  it  is  sufficient 
to  jrive  the  injiii-ed  i)arty  a  ri^ht  to  redress.""" 

When  the  rule  is  stated  in  this  way,  it  comes  back  to  the 
oriijinal  question,  the  de<rree  of  care  expected  of  the  consuming 
purchaser. 

But  the  true  test  of  likelihood  of  deception  is  always  to 
view  the  possibility  of  such  deception  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  consumer,  and  not  from  that  of  the  "trade  expert.""" 

The  application  of  this  rule  has  sometimes  p:one  far  afield 
from  the  ancient  rule  that  if  a  mark  contained  twenty-five 
]iarts,  and  but  one  was  taken  by  the  defendant,  it  constituted 
infriufrement.  Thus  in  a  Missouri  case  the  plaintiff's  mark 
for  cijrars  was  the  name  "Fnion  Station"  and  the  picture  of 
a  buildinjr  known  by  that  name.  The  defendant's  label  had 
a  smaller  picture  of  the  same  bnildin?,  and  the  words  "The 
Gilpin-TTnion  Station."  Each  party  displayed  his  own  name 
or  initials  on  the  package.  The  facts  recited  in  the  opinion 
make  out  a  typical  case  of  technical  trademark  infrin^'cment. 
yet  the  court  denied  the  relief  souprht  solely  on  the  nrround 
of  the  differences  in  the  labels,  thousrh  the  conceded  facts 
show  the  defendant  to  have  appropriated  all  of  the  technical 
trademark  matter  of  the  plaintiff's  label.^^ 

88— ^^c.^dam.    J.,    in    Jerome    v.  89— Cuervo  v.   Owl  Cipar  Co.,   fiS 

Johnson,  r,fl  X.  Y.  Supp.  859;  qiiot-  Fed.  Rep.  .541. 

inp    the    first    two    sentences    from  OO—Xicholson    v.    \Vm.    A.   Stick- 
Mr.    Justice   Clifford   in    ^IcLean   v.  ney  Cipar  Co..   1.58  Mo.   158;    59  S. 
Fleminjr,   96  U.   S.   245;    24   L.   Ed.  W.  Rep.  121. 
828. 


§128]  HOPKINS  OV  THAnKMARKS.  .{04 

§  128.  The  degree  of  care  expected  of  the  purchaser. — 
Mr.  .lustii'o  ("lifTonl  expressed  \hc  niU*  in  tln'se  wonls :  "What 
degree  of  roscnilihuu'c  is  nci'os.sary  to  constituto  an  infringo- 
niont  is  im-apable  of  oxart  di'linition  as  applicable  to  all  cases. 
All  that  courts  of  ju.stifo  can  do  in  that  rc^'ard  is  to  say  that 
no  trader  can  adopt  a  trademark  so  rcseniblinf;  that  of  another 
trader  a.s  that  ordinary  purchasers  bnyiiif;  with  ordinary  cau- 
tion are  likely  to  he  niislcil."-"  Hut  further,  in  the  same 
opinion,  he  bases  the  decision  explicitly  upon  the  ground  that 
the  defendant's  package  "is  well  calculated  to  mislead  and 
deceive  the   i/jJi/ar//."- 

In  the  langiuigc  of  Judge  Thomas.  "The  usual  purchaser 
neither  abstracts,  or  analyzes  for  the  purposes  »if  difTerentia- 
tion   aiul   judgment."  •'•' 

Judge  KnapjKMi  has  said  "the  jirotection  accorded  to  a 
trademark  is  not  limited  to  the  cautious  and  discriminating 
customer,  but  embraces  the  'ordinary'  or  'unwary*  purchaser 
as  well.""^ 

There  are  many  instances  of  similar  dicta.  "We  have  here- 
tofore referred  to  the  assertion  of  Vieo-riiancellor  Shadwell, 
who  said  that  "Tf  a  thing  contains  twenty-five  ]iarts.  and  but 
one  is  taken,  an  ijuitation  of  that  one  will  ])e  sufTieient  to  eon- 
tribute  to  a  deception,  and  tlie  Liw  will  luJd  tliose  responsible 
•who  have  contributed  to  the  fraud."  •'•'"'  Tt  is  at  tliis  jioint 
that  we  can  secure  j)robal)ly  the  most  striking  jiroof  of  the 
manner  in  whidi  the  law  of  trademarks  and  tlie  law  of  unfair 
competition  overlaji  each  other.  True,  the  function  of  tlie 
trademark  is  to  distinguish  the  goods  to  which  it  is  applied, 
and  whose  origin  or  ownership  it  indicates.  Tnu*  that  the 
purpose  of  an   intentional    infringement    is   to   draw   away   the 

111— McLi-an  v.  Fh'minjr.  !M5  U.  S.  J).{— Cant  nil    iK:    (  .Mliriin.-   v.    I»\it- 

24.")-2.'>l ;    24    L.    Ed.    82S ;    following'  l.r.  121   Fed.  Hi-p.  200. 
thf   luii^'unp'  of  I.^)rd  ('runwortli   in  '••I  —  DcVoc    .'-Jnufr    f'o.     v.    Wolfl", 

St'ixo  V.   Pnivczvnd.'.  i"..   H.    1   ("li.   I).  124    ('.    C.    A.    .{(12:    20(1    K.d.    R.p. 

192.      S<f    alwi    I'opliam    v.    Wilcox,  420.  424. 

14    Alit).    I'r.    \.    S.    200;    .'18    N.   Y.  1».->— r.iiinn.-HH  v.  rilmcr.   10  L.  T. 

Super,  ("t.  274;  flfl  N.  Y.  fJO;  23  Am.  127.     .^.'i'  hIwi  Ix'atlur  ("loth  Caso. 

Ki-p.  22;  Si-h.  42.'i;  DawvH  v.  DavirH.  11    H.    L.  C.   r)23;    3r»  L.   .1.  Ch.   S3; 

S«-li.   42fl.  11    .?ur.   X.   S.   .'•>13;    12   L.  T.  N.   8. 

92— Mrl^an  v.  FLmin^'.  90  U.  S.  742;   13  W.  R  873;  Popham  v.  Wil- 

24.'i,  at   p.  2.'ifl;   24   L.   Kd.   832.  cox,  0)',  \.  Y.  0<). 


'SO')  INFHINGKMKNT.  f§l-^ 

li-iitlc  s('('ui-('(l  liy  tilt'  iiifriiiprcd  mark  for  tlif  Ix-iiofit  of  tin- 
owner  of  tlic  iiifi-iii^'iii^'  iiiarU.  Tliat  itifi-iii^'ciiu'iit  is  to  be  {!<*- 
tcriiiiiKHl,  not  \)y  tlie  (lucstion  wlidlK-r  any  siihstantial  j)art 
of  the  IradtMiiarlv  is  copied  (»i-  (lii|(lieate(l  by  tlie  infrin<.'in|^ 
mark,  hut  l»y  llie  tendency  (d"  tlie  pirated  mar-k  to  deceive 
(whetlier  the  careful,  ordinary  or  unwary  i)urchaser  is  im- 
material), is  an  anomaly  in  our  jurisprudence.  liut  the  courts 
have  persisted  in  disre<:ardin^;  the  technical  composition  and 
detail  of  trademarks,  and  have  invariably  ai)i)Iied  th(!  test 
of  tendency  of  the  suspected  mark  to  deceive.  The  test  i^Miores 
the  absolute  ripht  of  proi)erty  wliich  exists  in  a  lawful  trade- 
mark, and  {rives  the  owner  of  such  a  mark  no  other  or  further 
rifrhts  than  are  given  the  i)laintiff  who  uses  only  generic  terms 
to  designate  his  wares  and  perforce  relies  u])on  the  doctrines 
of  unfair   competition."" 

The  broad  yu\c  as  stated  above  by  Mr.  .Justice  Clifford  has 
been  elaborated  by  other  courts.  In  some  eases  no  reference 
is  made  to  the  care  and  caution  exi)ected  to  be  exercised  by 
the  purcliasing  public, ••'  while  in  others  it  is  held  that  it  must 
be  shown  that  the  mark  employed  bears  such  resemblance  to 
the  complainant's  trademark  "as  to  be  calculated  to  mislead 
the  i)ublic  generally  who  are  i)urchasers  of  the  article;'"'* 
sometimes  it  has  been  expressed  as  the  deception  of  "the 
ordinary  mass  of  purchasers;"  »^  or,  as  by  the  Massachusetts 
court,  that  injunction  Avill  not  lie  "unless  the  form  of  the 
printed  words,  the  words   themselves,  and  the  figures,   lines 

Ofi_T,„r(l  Wi'stlmry  evidently  was  Cli.  X.  S.  KU ;  SH).  ".3;  Taylor  v. 
impressed  witli  tliis  tlioujiht  Avhen  Carpenter  (3),  2  Sandf.  603;  11 
lie  said,  "Imposition  on  the  public  Pai^'c,  292;  Cox,  45;  Seb.  84;  Cof- 
is  necessary  for  the  plaintiff's  title,  feen  v.  Brunton,  5  :MoLoan,  27i€t; 
l)ut  in  this  way  only,  that  it  is  a  Cox,  132;  Set..  100;  Shrimpton  v. 
test  of  the  invasion  by  the  defend-  Lai-^ht,  18  Beav.  104;  Hardy  v.  Cut- 
ant  of  the  plaintiff's  ri<,'ht  of  prop-  t.-r,  3  Off.  Gaz.  408;  Heinz  v.  Lutz, 
orty;  for  there  is  no  injury  if  the  140  Pa.  592;  23  Atl.  Rep.  314. 
mark  used  by  the  defendant  is  not  98— Walton  v.  Crowley,  Fed.  Case 
such  as  is  mistaken,  or  is  likely  to  Xo.  17,133;  3  Blatchf.  440-447; 
be  mistaken.  l)y  the  public  for  the  Compania  de  Tobacos  v.  Rehder,  5 
mark  of  the  plaintiff;  but  the  true  R.  P.  C.  61;  Cartmell.  103. 
-,'round  of  this  court's  jurisdiction  !)n— Blackwcll  v.  Wrijrht,  73  X. 
is  property."  Hall  v.  Barrows.  4  C  310-313;  Crawshay  v.  Thompson, 
DeG.  J.  &  S.  150.  4   Man.    &    G.    357;    5    Scott   X.    R. 

97— Ransome  v.   Bentall,  3   L.   J.  562;   11  L.  J.  C.  P.  301;  Seb.  72. 


§128]  llorKINS  i»\    TK  SIMM  AUKS.  'M)Ct 

aiul  (lovii'tHi,  an*  so  similar  that  any  person,  with  sucli  reason- 
abh"  rare  aiul  olistTvatioii  as  tlio  jmhlic  ifeneriiUy  are  caj)able 
of  usiiij;  ami  may  be  fxpoctcd  to  exorcise,  would  mistake  the 
one  for  the  other."'  The  irreverent  layman  could  not  fail 
to  note  the  remarkable  elasticity  of  the  lulc  as  tiius  laid 
down.-  And  wc  lind  a  court  of  i-cpute  holding  that  "it  is 
the  unwary,  and  not  tlic  wary,  who  are  to  be  proteeted,  as 
most  likely  to  be  taken  in  by  tiie  counterfeit;"''  and  another 
saying'  that  iMpiity  "sliould  jtrcsumc  that  the  pid)lic  makes 
use  of  the  senses  of  si^dit  and  licarintr.  and  tiuit  it  i.s  possos.sed 
of  a  .suflU'ient  amount  of  intcHi{;encc  to  note  the  difTerencc 
these  senses  convey;"  '  and  Sir  George  Jcsscl  sayinp:  "I  am 
not.  as  I  consider,  to  decide  cases  in  favor  of  fools  and  idiots, 
but  in  favor  of  ordinary  Entriisli  i)eople.  who  understaiul 
English   when   they   see   it."'' 

The  best  considered  oi)inions  seem  to  be  those  that  insist 
upon  fairness  in  trade  even  though  the  only  persons  likely 
to  be  deceived  are  those  who  can  not  read  t)r  write." 

1 — (;i]mnn      \.      Ihiiintucll.      122  .Iml;.'!'    Hciicdict    luifl    sniil:      "It     is 

MasH.    l.'J'.t-UH.       It    is   ttnly    fair    ti)  no  answer  to  pay  that  tlu-  ultimate 

ncite  tliat   tliis  t-asi'  was   ini|>ro|H'rly  purcliasiT     was     i;,'niirant     or      un- 

l»roU}:lit   as   a   trademark   cas«',    and  wary."      Von    Mumm    v.    Frash,    50 

j-:    treat«-d    as    such    hy    the    court,  Fed.    Rep.    830-830.      The    followinfj 

whereas    the    facts    show    that    in-  casea   have    lield    that   the    ri^ht   to 

junctive     relief     could     only     have  relief   depends    only    upon    a   def^ree 

Ihh'U   firanted,   if   at   all,   to  restrain  of     nsemhlanre     eal(\ilat»'il     to     de- 

tlie    unfair    competition    of    the    de-  eeive     the     eareless     and     unwary: 

fendant.       It     lias    lieen    held    else-  Colman    v.    Crump,    70    N.    Y.    r)73, 

where,  however,  that  the  relief  will  r)78;    MeCann    v.    Antliony.    '21    Mo. 

not    Ik-    granted    where    the    defend-  Aj>p.    83;    Wirtz    v.     Imi;.'K'    Rottlin;,' 

ants'  acts  are  sueh  as  could  deceive  Co.,  r>0  X.  .1.   K<|.    1(!J;   '2\  Atl.   Hep. 

only    a    careless    punliaser.      X.    K.  C.")8. 

Fairl.ank    Co.     v.     Lu.kel,     Kin;;    &  4— Munro  v.  Tousey.  12!)  X.  Y.  38. 

Cake    S.ap    Co.,    H8    Fed.    Hep.    (MM.  .'>— Sin;,'er     Mf;,'.     Co.     v.     Wilson, 

Hut    this   decision    «as    reversed    on  L.    R.    2    Ch.    I).    434;    ipioted    witli 

a]ipeal;    H.   c.,  42  C.  C.    A.   "70;    102  approval.    Munro    v.    Sniitli,    13    X. 

F.-<1.    Hep.   327-332.  V.   Sup.  708. 

2 — SuliMtantiaily     the     same     dir  0— Walter   Haki-r   &    Co.    v.    Hiiri- 

tum    is  to   he   found    in    Hall    v.   Sie-  tan    Pure    Food   Co..    130    Vn\.    \U-]\ 

U>\.  no  111.   137140;  citing;  Hopham  O.SO.  083;    Fischer   v.    Ilhuik.   138   N. 

V.  Cole,  00  X.  Y.  00  V.    241;    33   X.    K.    Hep.    1040;    Cox, 

3 — Swift     V.     Dey.     4     Hoh«'rtHon,  Manual,  Cusu  No.  731. 
Oil;     Cox,     310;     Seh.     245.       Aud 


307 


INFRINGEMENT. 


§129 


Till'  Eiij^lisli  courts  have  devoted  mueh  time  to  spoculutiiig 
Avhollior  "most  En^Mislimcn"  woidd  mistake  tho  defendant's 
mark  i'oi-  tlie  |)laiiit ifT's,  or  wlietlier  if  the  mark  failed  to 
deeeive  "most  Kii<rlislimen "  it  still  mit,dit  mislead  "tiie  ordi- 
nary native  pui-ehaser  in  Bombay  where  the  floods  go,"  as 
has  aetiially  been  done  in  the  opinion  of  one  eonrt.'  Tnder 
the  doctrine  so  stated,  T  will  not  he  protected  ])y  injnnetion 
in  a  case  where  the  defendant  has  not  copied  my  trademark 
sufficiently  in  detail  to  deceive  "most  Enjrlishmen."  hut  if 
my  floods  are  sold  to  natives  of  Africa  T  may  have  an  in- 
junction against  him  if  he  engages  in  that  trade. 

If  we  were  to  nndertake  to  deduce  a  general  rule  from  the 
oases  it  woidd  l>e  that  the  test  is  tlie  liklihood  of  deception 
of  the  consuming  purchaser;*  and  in  applying  this  test  all 
doubts  are  to  ])e   resolved    in    favor   of  the   eomi)lainant." 

§  129.     Infringement  must  be  by  use  on  same  class  of  goods. 

■ — The  English  Patents,  Designs,  and  Trademark  Act,  1S.S3  to 
1888,  provide  that  the  ai)i)lication  for  registration  must  state 
the  particular  goods  or  classes  of  goods  in  connection  with 
Avhich  the  applicant  desires  the  trademark  to  be  registered.'" 
A  similar  provision  exists  in  the  act  of  congress  of  190-5.'' 
Aside  from  these  provisions  as  to  registration,  it  is  self-evi- 
dent that  tliere  can  be  no  infringement  unless  the  two  marks 
are  used  on  the  same  class  of  goods;  '-  though  in  this  country, 


7— Wilkinson  v.  Griffith,  8  R.  P. 
C.  370-374. 

8 — AUof^retti  Chocolate  Crpam 
Co.  V.  Keller,  85  Fed.  Rep.  643; 
Collinsplfttt  V.  Finlayson,  88  Fed. 
Rep.  ()!):5;  N.  K.  Fairl)ank  Co.  v. 
R.  W.  Bell  Mfj;.  Co..  23  C.  C.  A. 
.5.54;  77  Fed.  Rep.  8(59-877;  Hansen 
V.  Siegel-Cooper  Co.  (1),  106  Fed. 
Rep.  690-6ni;  Kostering  v.  Seattle 
Brewinp:  &  Malting  Co.,  116  Fed. 
Rep.  620;  54  C.  C.  A.  76. 

9 — Anheuser-Busch  B  r  e  w  i  n  ir 
Assn.  V.  Piza,  24  Fed.  Rep.  149-1.")1. 
That  injunction  will  he  granted  if 
the  resemhlance  is  "calculated  to 
deceive  the  unwary,  the  incautious, 


or  the  ignorant  purchaser,"  see 
CaufTman  v.  Schuler,  123  Fed.  Rep. 
205. 

10 — Patents.  Designs  and  Trade- 
marks Act,  1883,  Part  TV.  §  62.  suh- 
sec.  3. 

11— Act   of    1905,    §  1. 

12— In  re  Rabone,  Seb.  642: 
In  rr  .Telly,  Son  &  Jones,  51  L.  J. 
Cli.  639;  In  re  Whiteley,  43  L.  T. 
N.  S.  627 ;  Ainsworth  v.  Walmsley, 
L.  R.  1  Eq.  518;  Hall  v.  Barrows, 
4  DiC.  .T.  &  S.  150;  Hart  v.  Colley, 
7  R.  P.  C.  93  ;T.  R.  44  Ch.  D.  193; 
.")!>  L.  .T.  Ch.  355;  Cartmell,  1.54; 
.Tay  V.  Ladler,  6  R.  P.  C.  136;  L.  R. 
40  Ch.  D.  649;  60  L.  T.  27;   37  W. 


§  1-!>1  llol'KIN-;  ON    TH  \|)|.M  \1JK>.  :?(»S 

o\\  iii^  to  \ho  absriHM'  nl'  the  exact  classilicat  idiis  used  in  tin* 
Eiifrlish  rcj^istrat ion  practi(M>.  it  is  prohaMy  more  exact  t«> 
say  that  the  marks  must  In-  used  ii|n(ii  ^mods  of  so  simihir 
<lescriptioii  that  ^'oods  heariii;:  the  (h'feiidaiit  "s  mark  may  he 
taken  for  the  maiuifaetnre  of  the  plaintiff;  as  where  the  plain- 
tiflf  ndojited  the  wonls  "Lone  daek"  to  designate  smokin<r 
tn])nccn  mnnufaetnred  by  him.  and  the  d(>fendant  applied  the 
same  words  to  eiparettes.  The  conrt  pave  as  its  reason  for 
enjnininp  tlie  dofondnnt  that  lie  was  holding  out  liis  cipar- 
ottes  as  containinfT  the  ])laintiff's  tobacco.'''  And  where  the 
defendants  were  sellinpr  shirts  nnd(M-  the  name  of  "Wamycsta" 
and  advortisinp  tliom  as  made  of  "Wamycsta,"  they  were 
enjoined  froin  iisinp:  tliat  designation  at  the  instance  of  the 
AVamsntta  ^lills,  whose  prodnct  was  kiiown  as  "Wamsutta" 
muslin,  and  was  not  nsed  by  defendants  in  the  manufacture 
of  their  shirts."  Where  the  complainants  used  the  words 
"Collins  &  To."  upon  metal  articles  of  their  manufacture. 
])ut  did  not  manufacture  shovels,  the  defendants  were  enjoined 
from  placing  those  words  on  shovels,  they  having  exported 
shovels  so  marked  to  Australia,  where  the  complainants 
nuirketed  a  |)ortion  of  their  output.'"  In  a  recent  case  Judpe 
Bradford  said:  "Pale  ale  and  half-and-half  must,  as  apainst 
an  infriufrer  (»f  a  trademark  for  the  former,  be  treated  as 
malt  li(juors  sid)stantially  similar  to  each  other  and  belonpinp 
to  the  same  class.  Courts  should  not  he  astute  to  reeopnize 
in  favor  of  an  infringer  fine  distinctions  ])etween  different 
articles  of  merchandise  of  the  same  peneral  luiture.  and  should 
resolve  apainst  the  wronp-(h)ei'  any  fail-  doubt  whetlier  the 
public  nuiy  or  nuiy  not  be  (h'ceived  throuph  the  api»lication 
of  the  spurious  symbol."  "'     Where  the  i)laintiff  was  the  manu- 

l:.    .'>(i."> ,    (artnull.    1st;    Colmnn    v.  tmcro  Co.  v.  Polncstk.  170  Fod.  Rep. 

Crump.  7(t  N.  V.  '.7.<:   Hccht  v.  Tor  117. 

t.r.   '.*    Vac.    ('.    L.    J.    r.0!» ;    S()ci6t6  14— Wnmsiitta  Milln  v.   Allen,   12 

Am.nymo  v.  nHXt«T,  14  Hlatchf.  2fil.  Pliiln.  rul^. 

F«*d.  ("aw  No.  800!l;  AmoHkcu;;  Mf>,'.  1.') — CoHinrt  Cd.  v.  Olivor  Amoa  A 

Co.  V.  OarniT,  .'».'>  HarK.  I'd;  Cror^'o  Sonn,    IH    Fed.    IJi-p.    r)fil.      Soo   also 

V.    Smith,    .'i2    Fed.    Hi-p.    fi.Kl;    Air-  In  the  Hami-  rfTcct,  F.trn  v.  Dunn,  L. 

IlruHh    Mf-    (  ..    V.  Tha.v.r.   H4   F.-.I.  H.  1.'')  A.  C.  2.-.2. 

H«-p.  040.  in— BanH.      HntclilT      A       Clr.-ttcn 

1.1 — Carroll      v.      Frtln-ih-r,     Cox,  (T.ld.l    v.    Frij:cnnpnn,  t»fl  Fed.   Rep. 

Manual,  009;    1    F.d.    Rrp.   08H.     To  200  211 
the    »am<-    •■'^•■■■*     '-<•<•    Amcrirnn    To- 


300  iNi"i;iN'c;i:.MKNT.  f§120 

fiictiii'cr  of  "OiiK'^a  Oil,"'  a  liiiiiinMit  oxtensivcly  advertised 
as  a  rt'iiH'dy  for  skin  and  scalj)  diseases,  a  defendant  wlio  b(';,'an 
to  )nanufac'ture  and  sell  a  soap  named  "Ouic^^'a  Oil  Medicated 
Soap,"  advertised  1)\'  defendanl  as  a  remedy  for  diseases  of 
the  skin  and  sealp,  an  injunction  was  f^ranted  the  pJaintifT 
on  tiie  autiiority  of  the  "Lone  .Ia(d<"  ease,  Jiulfje  lilanchard 
sayinj,'  that  "The  adoption  of  the  woi-ds  'Onief;a  Oil'  by  de- 
fendant Avas  ealenlated  to  deceive  the  ])nl)lie  into  the  belief 
that  ])laintiff's  article  was  beinp:  put  up  for  sale  in  another 
form,  at  least  into  the  belief  that  the  soap  was  placed  on  the 
market  by  i)laintiff  or  by  its  consent."  '" 

It  is  the  necessary  converse  of  the  nde  under  considera- 
tion that  it  is  no  defense  to  an  action  for  trademark  infriufje- 
ment  that  the  defendant  used  the  mark  in  application  to 
another  class  of  merchandise  before  the  i)laintiff  bepan  his 
use  of  the  niaik.  Thus  whore  a  defendant  had  applied  the 
word,  "Epicure"  to  canned  peaches  and  canned  tomatoes, 
that  fact  did  not  avail  as  a  defense,  where  the  plaintiff  was 
the  first  to  apply  the  word  to  canned  salmon,  and  the  defend- 
ant afterwards  bep:an  to  apply  it  to  canned  salmon.  In  his 
opinion,  -Tudpre  Coxe  observes:  "The  roasoninj]:  of  some  of 
the  authorities  would  indicate  that  the  defendants  had  a  rijrht 
to  use  the  brand  in  connection  with  other  fruit  and  vegetables, 
analojrous  to  tomatoes  and  peaches,  but  to  assert  that  they 
have  the  rijrht  to  use  it  on  all  canned  goods  is  carrying  the 
doctrine  far  beyond  any  reported  case.  Beer  and  nails  do 
not  belong  to  the  same  class  of  merchandise  because  both  are 
sold  in  kegs."  ^^ 

In  a  recent  case  in  which  the  complainant's  mark  was  ap- 
plied to  baking  soda  and  saleratus.  and  the  defendant's  to 
baking  ])()\vdcr,  Judge  Baker  lield  the  parties'  goods  to  be  in 
the  same  class  l)ecause  they  were  handled  generally  by  the 
same  class  of  dealers  and  jiurchased  by  the  same  class  of 
customers;  either  is  iiulifferently  used  to  accomjilish  the  same 
object ;    so    that    they    come   in    direct   competition    with    each 

17 — Omopa    Oil    Co.    v.    Weachlrr.  lion  of  the  defendant   must   involve 

71    N.  Y.   Supp.   0S3,  984.  the    same    class    of    poods    as    those 

18_C,eorpe     v.     Smith,     r.2     Fed.  (.f    the    plaintifT.      Basket    Stores   v. 

Rep.   830-832.     The  unfair   competi-  Allen    (Xeb.),  i:)5  N.  W.  Rep.  803. 


§  l.JO)  IKU'KINS  DN  'n(.Vl>K.M  \I{KS.  ItlH 

other  in  sale  aiul  use.  In  that  case  tlic  vu\o  is  aiuinunct'd 
that  "froods  art'  in  tlic  sanif  (lass  whiMiovcr  the  iiso  of  a 
•>'iv(Mi  trademark  or  syinhol  on  hoth  woiiltl  ('iial)lo  an  nnsi-rup- 
ulons  dealer  readily  to  paliu  ofT  on  the  nnswspectintr  i)nr- 
ehaser  the  ^'o«»ds  df  the  infritifrei-  as  the  ;roods  made  by  the 
owner  of  the  ti'adennirk,  or  with  his  anth(»rity  and  consent."  '" 

In  the  applieation  of  the  rnle.  it  has  heen  held  that  the  iise 
of  a  red  triiMi^rle  on  la^rer  lieer  did  not  infrinj^e  the  same 
devierf'  used  hs  a  trademark  for  ale.-" 

It  has  heen  held  in  the  patent  ofliee  thai  suspenders  and 
hose-supporters  nvc  not  yroods  of  the  same  descriptive  prop- 
erties,-"" 

§  130.  The  value  of  proof  of  fraudulent  intent. — So  muoli 
is  saitl  of  fraudulent  intent  in  the  deeisions  that  it  is  proper 
to  discuss  it  in  this  place,  in  its  relation  to  infrinpemeiit. 
As  we  have  seen,  eipiity  will  restrain  the  use  of  the  infriiip- 
iu}r  mark  without  re<rard  to  the  intent  of  the  defendant.  It 
is.  however,  a  matter  of  practical  iini)ortance  to  estahlish  the 
deliberate  fraud  of  the  defendant  where  it  exists.  It  was 
distinctly  held  by  Lord  Westbury  that  an  account  would 
only  be  {jriven  with  the  injuiu'tion  in  respect  of  any  user  by 
a  defendant  aftci-  he  liad  become  aware  of  the  prior  owner- 
ship;-' and  in  another  ease,  where  defendant  claimed  to 
have  boujrht  counterfeit  champafjiu'  believing'  it  to  be  genuine, 
an  accounting:  was  denied  because  of  the  absence  of  proof 
of  <ruilty  knowlcdtre.--  And  the  fraudulent  intention  of  the 
defendant  must  be  shown  in  an  action  at  law,--'  or  at  least 
to  support  the  recovery  of  i)unitive  danuifres.-^  Hut  the  rule 
is  fixed  both  in   Enjriand  and  the  I'nited  States  that  proof  of 

11»— (  liunli      A      Dwi^'lit      C...      v.  124    C.    C.    A.    :UI2;    20fi    I'r.l.    K.'j.. 

RunH,  Hit  IVd.  H.p.  27(i  JKd.  420,  424. 

20— BaBH  V.   Htrirv  Z.ltmr  Brew.  22— Moct    v.    Couston,    .1.3    Beav. 

Co.,   37  ('.  ('.   A.   .{:>:.;    !».-•    Fc.l.    Rep.  ru».      Se."    alw»    Koho    v.    LoftuH.    47 

KKifi;  HfTirmin^'  Bush  v.  Henry  Zclt-  L.    J.    Cli.    rutt;    .Millin^rton    v.    Fox, 

n.r   Bnw.   (  <..,   H7    1".<1.    K.|>.   4(5«.  ."{  Myhie  *  Cr.  ."{.{S .   Wr.-d  v.   Pi-tor- 

20a— Frnrik    v.     Macwilliam,     117  wm,   12  AMi.    I'r.   N.  S.    17«. 

(»fT.    (Jttz.    1  !(•».'».  2.1 — Kdc'lHttii    V.     F.clclrttcn,    auprn. 

21  — P:di-lHt<-n  V.   Kd<'lHt«ii,    1    D.C.  24— Fuher  v.   I)'UUi»«<y.    11    Ah!.. 

.T.    4     S.     IH.'i.       VoT    thf    Am.ri.an  I'r.   N.   S.  .309 ;    Marnh  v.   Billingn,  7 

rule,  »fc  DeVot-  SnufT  Co.   v.  W OKI,  CuHh.   322;    Cox,    118. 


Ill 


INFlMNiiK.MKNT. 


§131 


fraiidiili'iit  iiilcnt.  or  ;i('tuiil  (lccc|iti()ii  cil"  Ili<'  jmlilic,  Jirf  aliUc 
uiineeessary  in  actions  in  (MHiity,  in  tcdinical  t  ladi'iiiark  cases; 
nor  is  it  necessary  in  cas«'s  nf  Iradcniark  infiiu^rcnicnt  or 
unfair  competition  to  pi-ovc  actnal  deception  of  pnrcliaKcrs 
Avlicrc   there   is  slio\\  ii   "a   manifest   liability   to   dece|)t ion. "  2'' 


§131.  The  manner  of  establishing  fraudulent  intent.  -The 
inspecdion  of  the  two  marks  in  coidrovei'sy  is  the  main  test 
of  the  allejjed  resemblance.-"-  although  the  testimony  of  expert 
witnesses  familiar  with  tlie  li'ade  and  the  habits  of  customers 
is  of  wi'i<.dd.-'  So,  for  exami)le,  where  tlie  phiintitT's  mark 
was  a  tin  star,  and  tlie  defendant's  a  tin  buzz-saw,  both  affixed 
in  use  upon  plug:  tobacco,  the  court  could  have  small  diniculty 
in  inferring  frandident  intent.-"^  Amon^^  other  matters  con- 
sidered by  the  courts  as  jjrobative  of  the  defendant's  intent 
are  false  representations  of  securinji-  awards  at  an  exhibi- 
tion;--' the  fact  that  defendant,  who  adoi)ted  as  a  mark  for 
his  factory  the  words  "Norfolk  House,"  i)reviously  used  by 
])laintiff,  kept  the  publication  of  that  name  out  of  a  city  direc- 
tory:  •"'    and    the    circumstance    that    defendant    removed    his 


25— Fullir  V.  IIulT,  43  C.  C.  A. 
453;  104  Fed.  K.'i).  141.  "Thus 
the  inquiry  naturally  arises:  Did 
appellees'  conduct  in  disposing  of 
tlie  machinery  manufactured  by  it 
tend  to  or  have  the  efVoct  of  pass- 
ing tlie  same  to  purchasers  as  tiie 
machinery  maiiufaetun-d  hy  appel- 
lant? In  order  tliat  this  result  be 
accomplisiied,  it  was  not  necessary 
that  appellees  or  either  of  them 
actually  take  some  affirmative 
action  in  this  respect,  or  that  they 
or  either  of  them  so  intended,  as 
actual  deception  was  not  necessary. 
If  tlie  name  under  which  appellees 
disposed  of  their  machinery,  to- 
gether with  the  method  of  dispos- 
ing of  the  same,  was  manifestly 
liable  to  deceive  purchasers,  the 
result  would  be  accomplished. 
Northwestern  Knitting  Co.  v.  Garon. 


112  Minn.  ;{21  ;  128  "N.  W.  Rej). 
200;  Fuller  v.  HutT,  104  Fod.  141; 
43  C.  C.  A.  453;  51  L.  R.  A.  3.32.' 
Deister  Concentrator  Co.  v.  Deister 
Mach.  C"o.  (Ind.  App. ) ,  112  X.  E. 
Rep.  n09.  See  also,  to  the  same 
elTect,  ]\Ianitowoc  Malting  Co.  v. 
Milwaukee  Malting  Co.,  llO  Wis. 
.-)43;   07  X.  \V.   Rep.  380. 

2(i — Drummond  v.  Tinsley.  52 
Mo.  App.  10;  Liggett  &  Myers  Tob. 
Co.  V.  Finzer,  128  U.  S.  182-184; 
32  L.  Ed.  305;  Weyman  v.  Soder- 
berg,   108   Fed.    Rep.   r)3-r)5. 

27 — Drummond  v.  Tinsley,  supra. 

28— Liggett  &  :Myerl  Tol).  Co.  v. 
Sam    Reid   Tob.   Co.,    104    Mo.    53. 

20— Cave  v.  Myers,  Seton  (4th 
Ed.).  238;  Seb.  304. 

30 — Rodgers  v.  Rodgers,  31  L. 
T.  N.  S.  285;  Seb.  442. 


§  l:ni  II(>I'K1N<  ON    TKAPr.M  AKKS.  ',\\'2 

plaoc  (»f  biisiiioss  into  llu'  samo  lonility  as  tlic  plaintiff,^'  or 
is  detilin^  in  otlicr  frauduloiil  fjoods.-'- 

Tho  uso  and  t'inwlation  <>f  rt'inoval  notices,  "so  closely  sim- 
ilar as  to  Ite  a  tlecej)tive  iiiiitatiun  (of  plaintifT's  stationery), 
and  •  •  •  so  ambifruons  in  ])lirasintr  as  to  lead  the  un- 
wary to  believe  that  reference  was  made  to  the  plaintiff,  and 
not    to  the  defendant,   is  nnfair  competition.*'-'-'" 

The  nse  l»y  a  defendant  of  the  words  "sole  a^'cnt,"  may  bo 
(•onsidcred  as  an  evidence  of  fraud,  where  no  atrency  exists, 
}«nd  there  is  similarity  of  dre.ss.'''' 

A  curious  insteuec  of  facts  retrarded  as  indicia  of  fraud 
is  to  be  found  in  a  case  whore  a  i)laintiff  whose  name,  origi- 
nally "Dr.  J.  W.  Trn.st."  had  been  chanf-ed  to  "Dr.  T.  F. 
Gouraud."  was  the  manufacturer  of  a  cosmetic  styled  "Gou- 
raud's  Oriental  Cream,"  and  the  defendants,  his  sons,  who 
had  retained  the  name  Trust,  engaged  in  the  Siilc  of  a  cos- 
metic which  they  named  "Creme  Orientale.  by  Dr.  T.  F.  Gou- 
raud's  Sons;"  the  co\irt  holding  from  these  facts  that  the  state- 
ment of  the  relationship,  thoiigh  truthful,  was  made  with 
fraudulent  intent.-"  The  use  on  defendant's  label  of  fictitious 
medals  of  award  lias  been  treated  as  evidence  of  fratuhdent 
intent.^'' 

As  most  of  these  badges  of  fraud  have  been  referred  to 
by  the  courts  because  of  their  determiidng  influence  in  cases 
of  nnfair  competition,  we  will  consider  them  at  length  in  that 

.'{1  — Kl^'iii  Nut.  Watch  tO.  v.  :12— C'lins.  E.  Ilin'S  C"o.  v.  Con- 
Illinois  \Vnt<li  Case  Co.,  89  Ftd.  snmcrs'  Co.,  100  Fed.  Rop.  800-812; 
Urp.    487,    488;    reverwd    on    other  41  C.  C.  A.  71. 

^'rounds.   .Ifi  C.   C.  A.   2.37;    04    F.'d.  .32rt— Blniuhnnl.     J.,     in     United 

Il«'p.    007;     Fnllwood    v.     Fulhvood,  States     Frame     A      Picture     Co.     v. 

(1),  W.  N.  1873.  p.  9.3;  W.  N.  lS7:i.  Horowitz.     HU)     X.     Y.     Supp.     70.'>. 

p.      18.'i;      Seh.     42.        See     alrto     to  Citing;    and    following,'    DeYoun^rs    v. 

Kame     cfTfct,      I>of     v.      Haley.      21  .Iiin^'.  27    X.  Y.   Supp.   .370;    7   Mi«o. 

I-.      T.     N.     S.      .140;      18     \V.      U.  Hep.    .lO;    .lohnson    v.    Hitchcock,   .3 

181;    L.   R.   .'>  CTi.   D.    l.ri:    39   L.  .1.  X.    Y.   .Supp.   080. 

Ch.  284;   22  L.  T.  X.  S.  2.'il ;    18  W.  .3.3— National       Water       Co.       v. 

n.    242;    Viano   v.    Haccij.'alup..,    183  Hertz.    177    Fed.   H.p.   007. 

Mhkh.     100;     07     X.     K.     Kep.     041;  34  — Cnuraud     v      Trust.     3    Hun, 

Cliurch    V.    KreKn.r.    49    X.   Y.    .Sup.  027;   Seh.  400. 

742;     Internaii..nul    Society    v.     In-  3.')— Hohn    A    Hynie    Mf>,'.    Co.    v. 

ternational  Society,  .M)  X.  Y.  Supji.  JonaHch.   tW)   X.    Y.   Sup.    555. 
78.-). 


313 


INFRINGEMENT. 


[§132 


conueetioii.  Tiiosc  we  have  iiicrit  ioiicd  ai'c  illustrative,  how- 
ever, of  the  class  of  facts  pn-t  im-iit  to  he  shown  in  cases  of 
technical  trademark  infrinj;enient,  and  to  prove  which  is  impor- 
tant for  the  reasons  and  purposes  ahove  referred  to. 

§  132.     Infringing    by    refilling    trademarked    packagea.— 

Tiicre  is  no  doul)t  tiiat  one  who  furnishes  liquors  (or  any 
other  class  of  ^oods)  witii  the  expressed  j)urpose  that  the 
goods  so  sold  are  to  he  used  in  rcfillinj?  genuine  packapes 
whose  original  contents  liave  been  removed  will  be  dealt  with 
as  an  infringer  and  enjoined  in  equity.^'"'  The  refilling  of  gen- 
uine packages  will  be  restrained,"*'  even  where  the  package, 
a  bottle  bearing  a  name  blown  in  the  glass,  is  used  for  a  sim- 
ilar article,  in  connection  with  a  label  not  resembling  that 
borne  by  it  originally. ^^  Injunction  will  issue  even  where 
the  refilling  was  done  at  the  request  of  a  customer.'''^  Judge 
Thayer  has  enjoined  a  defendant  from  offering  for  sale  an 
imitation  of  Ilostetter's  Bitters  in  bulk  with  advice  to  cus- 
tomers to  refill  bottles  originally  containing  the  genuine  com- 
pound, with  the  spurious  article.^"'     In  this  class  of  cases  "the 


30— llostcttor  Co.  V.  BniPfrge- 
man-Reinart  Distillinj;  Co.  4G  Fed. 
Rep.  188;  Cox,  Manual,  729;  Hos- 
tetter  Co.  v.  Wm.  Schneider  Co., 
107  Fed.  Rep.  705;  Hostetter  Co. 
V.  Conron,  111  Fed.  Rep.  737; 
Samuel  Bros.  &  Co.  v.  Hostetter 
Co.,  55  C.  C.  A.  Ill;  118  Fed.  Rep. 
257;  Hostetter  Co.  v.  Gallagher 
Stores,  142  Fed.  Rep.  208.  Com- 
pare Hostetter  v.  Fries,  17  Fed. 
Rep.  620,  in  which  defendants 
compounded  a  sul)stance  to  he  used 
in  makin<r  Hostetter's  Bitters,  and 
sold  it  with  directions  for  so  using 
it.  hut  injunction  was  denied.  This 
decision   is  entitled  to  no  weight. 

37 — Evans  v.  Von  Laer,  32  Fed. 
Rep.  153;  Sawyer  Crystal  Blue  Co. 
V.  Huhl)ard,  32  Fed.  Rep.  388;  Rose 
V.  Henley,  cited  at  47  L.  J.  Ch.  577; 
38  L.  T.  N.  S.  410;  Seh.  551;  Van 
Hohoken    v.    Mohns    &    Kaltenbach, 


112  Fed.  Rep.  528;  Pontefact  v. 
lsenl)erger,  106  Fed.  Rep.  499; 
Hiram  Ricker  &  Sons  v.  Leigh.  77 
X.  Y.  Supp.  540;  Eckhart  v.  Con- 
solidated Milling  Co.,  72  111.  App. 
70;  Scott  V.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  100 
Ala.  475. 

38— Evans  v.  Von  Laer,  32  Fed. 
Rep.  153;  Hostetter  v.  Anderson,  1 
V.  R.  (W.  A'B.  &  W.)  Eq.  7;  1 
Anst.  Jour.  4;  Seh.  652;  Rose  v. 
Loftus,  47  L.  J.  Ch.  576;  38  L.  T. 
X.  S.  409;  Seh.  608.  See  contra, 
Welch  V.  Knott,  4  K.  &  J.  747; 
4  .Tur.  X.  S.  330;   Seh.   157. 

39— Barnett  v.  Leuchars.  13  L. 
T.  X.  S.  495;  14  \V.  R.  100;  Seb. 
253. 

40 — Hostetter  v.  Brueggeman- 
Reinart  Co.,  46  Fed.  Rep.  188;  Cox. 
Manual.  729;  cited  and  followed  in 
Hostetter  v.  Sommers,  84  Fed.  Rep. 
333.      These   cases   overrule   Hostet- 


rm 


imi'KINS  »)\   TI{M>i:.M  VUKS. 


:U4 


burden  is  stroiij;ly  upon  tlu*  coiiiplaiiijitil  to  |>r()V(>  fi-ainl  \n- 
a  fair  propoiuK'raiu'c  of  ovidoiu-c. ""  " 

The  iiijuiu'tion  will  not  ho  donicd  because  of  the  defeiMhiiit 
eoverinp  the  trademarks  of  the  orifriiial  container  w  ith  a  jiapcr 
label. ^■- 

The  burden  is  n|)on  llic  defendant  who  has  undertaken  to 
retill  the  plaintiffs  ti-adcnuirked  containers  to  "completely 
and  permanently  ol)literate  and  remove"  the  trademark  from 
the   container.^-' 


§  133.  Packages  distinguished  from  their  contents. — Whero 
articles  are  sold  to  the  consumer  only  in  packa<;es  of  course 
the  marks  upon  the  packages  strike  the  eye  of  the  consumer 
before  those  on  the  articles,  and  this  fact  may  often  be  of 
controllinfr  importance  in  cases  of  unfair  eom|)etition,'*^ 
Thus.  Judpe  Richards  has  said,  in  a  case  of  this  character  "it 
does  not  ajipear  that  the  defendant  attempted  to  deceive  the 
j)ublic  by  jjalmiufr  off  its  matches  as  those  of  the  complain- 
ant. There  was  no  simulation  of  jiaekapres.  The  packages 
plainly  indicate  their  ori<rin,  and,  since  matches  are  always 
sold  in  i)ackafres.  the  ordinary  purchaser  could  not  well  be 
deceived."  ''     Where  there  is  simulation  of  the  packaj^e  relief 


U'T  V.  Kri.s,  17  Fid.  Hep.  020, 
wluTc  .Iu<l;.'c  Walliio'  ri'fuscd  to  en- 
join di-ffiidantrt  wlio  pr('|>nr«d  niid 
wdd  an  oxtract.  ;,'ivin^'  instructinnw 
to  their  customers  for  making; 
"IIost<'tter*s  Bitters"  from  the  ex- 
traet.  Thi-  nih-  stated  in  tiie  text 
is  f<dhi\vrd  in  Myers  v.  Tiieller,  38 
Fed.  Hep.  (;07-<!(Ht;  Hostetti'r  Co.  v. 
Martinnni.    110   Fed.    Hep.    '.24. 

41 — f'oxe,  .1..  in  TTostetter  Co.  v. 
Comerford.  07  Fed.  Hep.  r.R.");  and 
to  the  same  effect  we  Hostetter 
Co.  V.  Houer,  74    Fed.   Hep.   23r.. 

42— I'reHtOI.it)'  (■<..  V.  Avery 
lAnUfinu  Co..  101  Vn].  I{.p.  (14«, 
or.  I. 

4.1— Prent-O  Lite  Co.  v  ll.id.n. 
l.l.'i  C.  C.  A.  r.ir,.  -.17.  21!t  Fed.  Hep. 
H4.'..    HJ7.      Siur.lilii-lif     CiiH     Co.     v. 


I'rest-OLite  Co..  131  C.  C.  A.  G20; 
2ir.  Fed.  Hep.  092,  090;  Prest-O- 
Lite  Co.  V.  Davis.  131  C.  C.  A. 
4!tl;  2ir.  Fed.  Rep.  340,  3r.O;  Prest- 
(>-I>ite  Co.  V.  Avery  Lijjhtinp  Co., 
101  Fed.  Hep.  04S,  0.->0.  0.'>2;  Prcflt- 
O-Lite  Co.  V.  Davis.  200  Fed.  Rep. 
017.  022,  024;  PrestO-Lito  Co.  v. 
H(.;ren.  200  Fed.  Hep.  01.'..  010; 
Prest-lVLite  Co.  v.  Post  4  Lester 
Co.,   103   Fed   Hep.   03,  04. 

44— Ileide  v.  Wallace  &  Co.,  120 
Fed.  Hep.  040.  O.'.O  ( wliere  li(|uoricc 
jiastillis  were  sold  in  l.oxoa)  ; 
KnickerLoeker  Clioeolate  Co.  v. 
Crinin^',  144  F.d.  Hep.  310  (whore. 
(lioc<.late  ennfi  ef  inns  were  so  sold). 

4.-.-  Diamond  Mateli  C«».  v.  Sajri- 
naw  Match  Co..  74  C.  C.  A.  :.!• ;  142 
F.<1.    Hep.   720.  730. 


315  INKIJINCKMKNT.  [§134 

\\\\\  he  gr-aiilf(l  cvcii  llioiit^'li  llic  coiitciits  arr  uiioljjfcl  ion- 
able.  "' 

§  134.  Infringement  by  refitting  and  reselling  worn  trade- 
marked  articles.'^ — Akin  in  icliliint;  li-adcniai-kcd  packa^jcs 
are  cases  where,  i)arts  ol'  u  tradi-niafkcil  article  liavin<r  worn 
out  in  service,  the  jiarts  are  replaced  and  the  article  sold  w  itli- 
out  removing  the  trademark,  and  where  this  replacement  of 
l)arts  is  made  by  the  owner  of  the  ti'ademark,  identity  being 
substantially  retained,  no  fraud,  is  elfectcd.  Otherwise,  if 
the  replacement  is  nuide  by  a  stranger.'^  The  Ma.ssachusetis 
court  has  refused  to  enjoin  the  manufa(;ture  of  stove  castings 
used  to  replace  worn  parts  of  a  plaintiff's  trademarked 
stoves.'-* 

Where  i)arts  are  sold  merely  for  rej)lacement  and  repair, 
there  is  no  duty  on  the  part  of  the  nmnufacturer  to  so  dis- 
tinguish the  parts,  by  marking  or  advertising,  as  to  clearly 
indicate  the  manufacturer.  Thus,  i-elief  by  injunction  has  been 
refused  where  the  defendant  failed  to  so  mark  repair  parts,'*" 
and  has  been  refused  where  they  were  advertised  by  cata- 
logue and  label  as  being  of  the  defendant's  make.'*'  So  an 
injunction  was  refused  as  against  a  manufacturer  selling  ink 
and  paper  for  use  on  the  Neostyle  machine,  though  the  court 
suggested  that  the  defendants  ]int  their  names  on  tiieir  future 
jiroduct.-'^'- 

§  135.  Infringement  by  applying  a  manufacturer's  trade- 
mark to  goods  of  his  to  v^^hich  he  does  not  intend  its  application. 

— In  IIoDicssjj  V.  Wliih ,  the  defendants  bottled  brandy,  pur- 
chased in  casks  from  j)laintiffs,  and  apjilied  to  such  bottling 
a  labpl  which  A\as  a  colorable  imitation  of  that  used  by  plain- 

46— Bates     Mff,'.     Co.     v.     Bates  Co..  84  C.  C.  A.  3r)3;   MG  Fed.  Rep. 

Mach.  Co.,  141  Fed.   Rep.  21.J.  (541,   riversin<i   Enterprise  Mfg.   Co. 

47 — Compare   §  ir)2,  post.  v.  Bender,   148  Fed.   Rep.  313;   Col- 

48 — General    Electric    Co.    v.    Re-  iiml>ian  Enjr.   Works  v.   Mallory,  7r» 

New  Lamp  Co.,  128  Fed.  Rep.   ir)4:  Or.  r)42:   147  Pac.  Rep.  r)42. 

General     Electric     Co.     v.     Ro-Xew  ")] — I)cerin<^     Harvester     Co.      v. 

Lamp  Co.,   121    Fed.   Rep.   lf)4.  Wliitman.  33  C.  C.  A.  558;   91   Fed. 

4fl — Mapee    Furnace    Co.    v.    Le-  Rep.   370. 

Barron,  127  Mass.  115.  52 — Xeostyle  Mfg.  Co.  v.  P^llam's 

50— Bender    v.     Enterprise    Mfg.  Duplicator  Co.,  21   R.  P.   C.   185. 


§135]  HOPKINS  ON    nCADK.MAKKS.  '.]}{] 

tiffs  to  dosi^riiatt'  a  liifrlicr  ^rrailr  of  l)raii(ly  sold  by  thfin 
in  bottles  only.  The  roiirt,  by  Molcsworth.  .1..  said:  "I  think 
a  new  featnrt'  whii-li  has  nut  Itctii  prtvsont  in  any  otluT  case, 
and  is.  theroforo.  not  tonchnl  by  the  lan^Miaj:*'  of  the  other 
cases,  is  one  which  1  nii<rht  to  act  \ipon  here;  that  is.  that  the 
makers  of  articles  of  difTci-cnt  (|ualifics  arc  entitled  to  brand 
their  best  article  in  a  pai'ticnlar  way  to  show  the  sujierior 
valne  they  ptit  njton  it."  Stowell.  C.  .T.,  in  the  same  ease,  in 
the  \'ictoria  Snprenie  Court,  states  the  i-nle  more  broadly: 
"If  a  brandy  difTerent  from  that  which  the  mannfaetiirer 
bottled  is  ])nt  into  bottles  and  sold  as  the  mamifaeturer's 
bottled  brandy,  the  fact  that  it  is  the  nianiifactnr<'r 's  bidk 
brandy  does  not  make  the  sale  less  an  imi»osition."  •''•'  There 
can  be  no  doubt  of  the  ri<rht  of  the  maniifacturer  or  selector 
to  desifrnate  pr(»ods  of  a  certain  irraib*  bottled  or  packt^l  by 
him  by  a  distinctive  tra(bMnark.  and  that  no  one  ]>urchasinfr 
goods  in  bulk  from  him  can  therein-  acfpiire  the  rijrht  to  pack 
or  bottle  sueh  poods  uncb^r  the  trademark  of  th(»  vendor  used 
oidy  njion  his  |)a(d<injr  or  bottliuL'.  Whether  the  bulk  poods 
are  better  than  or  inferior  to  the  trademarked  poods  is  utterly 
immaterial  exeept  as  bearinp  ui)oii  the  (piestion  of  damapes.-'"'* 
"It  is  manifest  that  the  sale  of  merchandise  in  bulk  by  a 
manufacturer  does  not  jiistify  the  veTidee  in  usinp  on  his 
retail  packapes  the  label  which  the  mainifacturer  uses  upon 
the  same  merehandise  only  when  i)r(>pared  by  himself  on 
smaller  packapes  for  the  retail  trade."''  but  he  is  at  liberty 
to  .so  mark  them  as  to  truthfully  indicate  the  manufaeturer.'"'"' 
Where  bulk  poods  were  sold  without  limitation  as  to  the  man- 
ner in  whieh  they  were  to  be  re-sold,  the  effeet  of  the  sale 
was  held  to  be  "t(»  invest  the  defendants  (vendees)   with  the 

.l.l — ItcnncsHv  V.   Wliitc.   (\   W.   W.  mimrml     milicatiii^'    lumtlicr    ^/radc 

A-   A'H.   E<|.  2K5-221:    Si"l>.   n.V).      Sec  of  pj-n   made  l>y   tlif  siinif  miunifnc 

hImi    to    Hiim.'    <(Tc(t    HcnnoHHy    v.  tun-r.      Clillott    v.    Kctllo.    .1    Diitr. 

Hojfan.   «    \V.    \V.    A    A'B.    Eq.   22.'>;  024;  Cox.   I4S. 

S«-l..    nr>l;    KraiiHH    V.    .lo«.    R.    IVt'-  r)'>— Tnft.  .1..  in  KnniwH  v.  .In«.  H. 

I.!«h'   SonM  Co..   TiH   Fed.    Rep.   riRfi.  P.-oldcB*     Sons     Co.,     .'.S     F.-d.     Rep. 

.'i4 — S«f  tlic  raw   in   \v)iich   a  per-  ."»S."»-r)t(2. 

m>n    |iiircliH«int'  |H-nM   fr<»ni   n    inanu-  TiO — RtiHMin    ('<Miiiit    Co.    v.     Knf 

f«rtiir«T     n-movi'd     thr     liilicln     and  zinntrin.    10!»   Fed.    H.p.    'M4. 
iiiil)Htitiit<-d    otlxTH    niarkt'd    with    a 


317  INFKINUliMENT.  [§  V-iO 

title  to  the  article,  and  with  the  li^lit  to  divide  it  into  small 
packajjes.  as  (they)  mif^ht  see  fit,  and  sell  the  same  as  origi- 
iiatiiif;  from   the  plaiiitifT,   aeeordinp  to  the  faet."-"'' 

In  aeeordanee  with  the  treiieral  doetriiie  of  this  section,  a 
bill  disclosed  that  the  complainant  was  the  manufacturer  of 
two  i)rei)aratioiis  used  for  nuikint;  root-beer — one  a  syrup. 
the  other,  an  extract.  The  defendant  bou^dit  the  extract  and 
made  a  beveragre  from  it  by  the  addition  of  sim|)le  syruj)  and 
carbonated  water,  and  sold  it  under  the  complainant's  name. 
"Hires  Root  Beer,"  from  which  he  was  enjoined.''' 

In  Enjjland  Lord  Justice  Phillimore  has  recojrnized  this  rule. 
sayiufr,  "this  is  a  passinpr-off  which  is  actionable;  iu)t  the  usual 
passinp:-off  when  a  man  sells  his  own  floods  representing,'  them 
to  be  those  of  another  trader,  but  a  more  subtle  and  possibly 
a  more  injurious  i)assin<r-off,  when  a  man  sells  the  second-class 
goods*  of  a  trader  representing  them  as  the  first-class  goods 
of  that  trader."-""' 

§136.  Substitution. — By  "substitution,"  as  used  here,  is 
meant  the  substitution  by  a  retail  merchant  of  goods  other 
than  those  called  for  by  a  purchaser.  In  its  narrower  sen.se 
it  is  confined  to  the  retail  merchant  who  commits  the  offense. 
In  its  broader  sense  it  includes  the  manufacturer  of  the  sub- 
stituted goods  in  cases  where  he  has  so  prepared  the  goods 
as  to  make  the  substitution  possible,  and  for  the  purpose 
and  with  the  intent  that  they  may  be  substituted.""  Of  such 
mainifacturcrs  the  Supreme  Court  of  New  York,  by  Barrett, 
J.,  said:  "The  law  of  trademarks  has  been  gradually  expand- 
ing so  as  to  meet  just  such  cases.  The  courts,  in  a  long  and 
un])roken  line  of  decisions,  have  endeavored  to  uphold  and 
enforce  commercial  morality,  and  have  afforded  their  protec- 
tion to  honest  enteriu-ise  and  skill.""'     As  to  the  retailer  who 

57— Whooler,   J.,    in    Russian   Ce-  00— Enoch   Moipan's   Sons  Co.  v. 

mont    Co.    V.    Francnliar.    126    Fed.  Wondovor.   44    Fed.    Rep.   420. 

Rop.   228:    amrmod,   Russia   Cement  (il— Morgan   Sons  Co.   v.   Troxell, 

Co.  V.  Frauenhar.  (>('.  ('.  C.  A.  500;  Cox.  :Manual.  074.     Tlio   New  York 

133  Fed.  Rep.  .")1S.  Court     of     Appeals,     treating:     this 

r>8— Chas.  E.  Hires  Co.  v.  Xepa-  case  as  purely  a  technical  trade- 
pas.  180  Fed.  Rep.  n.V2.  mark  case,  reversed  it  in   SO  X.  Y. 

.')0 — A.    C.    Spaldin-r    &    Bros.    v.  202.      If   there  had   heen    consid<>red 

Carnage.  Etd.,  :U   R.  P.  C.   12.').   1:50.  by  the  appellate  court  the  doctrines 


§13(5)  IIOI'KINS  ON   TliAMK.NJAKKS.  .{Ig 

jxM-fonns  tin*  actual  siihstiliit ion,  there  is  no  (jucstion  that  lie 
will   iiivariahly   ln'  ciijoiiicd   from   rt'itftitioiis  of  Jiis  otTt'tisc."- 

Thc  law  as  t«)  suhstitiitioii  is  adinirahly  cinhraccd  in  tlio 
lanJrua^'l'  of  rhid^rc  Laft»nilH':  "A  court  of  ('(|uit y  will  not  allow 
a  man  to  jialni  off  his  jroods  as  those  of  another,  whether  his 
misrepresentations  are  made  hy  word  of  mouth,  or  more  subtly, 
by  simulatiu};  the  eolloeati<uis  of  (b^tails  of  appearance  by 
wliieh  tlie  eonsuminj?  p»d)lic  has  come  to  recopnize  the  pro- 
duet  of  liis  competitor. " ''•■' 

Tlie  sale  of  an  imitation  article  without  misrepresentation 
will  not  be  enjoined.  ^Vhere  tlie  article  was  a  bitters  made 
in  imitation  of  Ilostetter's  Hitters,  but  the  defendant  had 
sold  the  {roods  without  any  misrei)resentation  of  their  identity 
and  without  sujrfrestin}?  their  adaptibility  for  substitution, 
injunctive  relief  was  refused.'' 

False  oral  re])resentation  that  defeiulant's  <roods  are  those 
of  the  complainant  will  be  enjoined,''"'  thoufrh  where  the  de- 
fendant "s  atlidavits  contrsidiet  those  of  the  i)laintiff  concern- 
int:  such  i-epresentations  jireliminary  injunction  will  be 
denied,'''  and  the  proof  must  be  clear  on  final  hearinjr  to 
entitle  plaiiitifl'  to  the  relief  sought.''" 

The  substitution  of  ciprars,  in  boxes  of  a  manufacturer 
liearinjr  his  tradenuirk,  entitles  him  to  the  recovery  of  pun- 
itive damapes  in  an  a<'tion  at  law.  thou^di  no  actiuil  damagr'^s 
are  proven.'"'*' 

we  liavr   iu)\v    imdcr   (liscussif)ii,  tlw  in;.'    124    Kfil.    Kcp.   !>2.'»,   ami    tn    tin- 

liii-ibiiiii    (if    tlu'    lower    f«»urt    would  same   circct   sfc    j-Mison    Mf;;.    Co.   v. 

Iiavc     Im*<-ii     alllrint'd.       Taiiidstifks-  (Iladstoin-.  —   N.  .1.    Kq.  — ;   .")S  Atl. 

falirikn  Aktii-I>ida;:rt   Vulcan  v.   My-  Kcp.    .'ini,    not   oflirially    reported. 

cTH.    11    N.    Y.    Slip.    (!«!.■{;    .\very   v.  (i  t— HoHtetti-r  Co.    v.    N'an    Vor>t. 

Meikle.    HI    Ky.    7.'.;    Cox.    Manual.  r.2   Fed.    !{ep.   Uno. 

08(1.    and    eawH    cited    elsewhere    in  0') — Welter    Medieal     Tea     Co.     v. 

tluH  fliapter.  KirHistein,    lol    Fed.    I{ep.   .".Sn. 

(J2— Snxleliner    v.    F-inner    A    Men-  iW — Lavanlmr;,'   v.    I'feilTer,    'rl   >.". 

delw.n     Co..     8S     Fell.     !{ep.     (il-7();  Y.  Sujip.  SOl. 

Miinro  V.  Smith,  l.'t  .\.  Y.  Snp.  708;  (17— I.avanhur;:   v.    I'feilTer.  (iC.    \. 

\.    K.    Fairliank    Co.    v.    Dunn.    120  Y.   Siipp.    :{!l. 

Fi-il.    Itep.    227;     HarneM    v.     I'ieree,  (18 — I.ampiTt     v.    .Iiid^^'e    A     Onln'i 

104    Fed.    iJep.   21M.  I)ni;r  C<>..   2:i8   Mo.   4(»!t :    111    S     W 

0.1 — KnterpriH4>    Mf;;.    Co.    v.    Lan-  Hep.     inn.'t;     reverHin;.'    I.uinpert     v. 

diTH,    Frarv   A    Clark,   or.   C.   C.    A.  .Iiidfre  &    I).d|di    Drn-.'  Co.,    lift  Mo. 

r»87:    131    Fid.    Hf-p.   40.   41;    alTirm-  Aj.p.  Oft.'J,  000;   100  S.  \V.   I?<«p.  fl.'iO. 


31D  INFUIN(ii;MF.NT.  [§137 

§  137.  The  use  of  misleading  signs  and  circulars. — Tlic  use 
of  niislcadiii^'  business  si},Mis  will  he  restrained  in  e(juity, 
Avlietlier  or  not  sueli  si^'iis  are  fixed  before  a  particular  j)lueo 
of  business,  or  ai-e  disti'ibiited  tlirou^'li  the  trade.  The  j^eneral 
rule  has  been  thus  stated  by  tiie  Chaneellor  of  r]>i)er  Canada 
in  a  ease  invoivinj;  the  use  of  si<;ns  beariuf^  words  "The 
Golden  Lion"  used  upon  a.  dry  poods  establishment:  "Where 
it  is  clear  to  the  court  that  the  defendant  himself  intended 
an  advantage  liy  the  use  of  a  pai-ticular  sifrn  or  mark  in  use 
l)y  aiiotluM-.  and  Ix'lieves  lie  has  obtained  it.  or-,  in  other  -words, 
tiiat  the  defendant  himself  thoujrht  the  use  of  it  was  calcu- 
lated to  advertise  him  at  the  expense^  of  the  plaintiff,  and  this 
was  his  object  in  usin^  it,  and  w  Iicre  such  has  been  the  effect 
of  the  user,  I  think  the  court  should  say  to  him  'Remove 
that  si<rn  :  its  use  by  you  may,  as  you  intend,  danuige  the 
j)laintilT.  It  can  not  be  necessary  or  valuable  to  you  for 
any  other  jturpose.  You  lune  your  choice  of  many  sifrns 
which,  as  a  niei'c  attraction,  or  to  jt^ivc  your  store  a  marked 
desifrnation,  must  answer  a  fair  ])\isiness  jmrpose  eqimlly 
well."  ""'•' 

It  will  be  noted  that  in  the  foreproinpr  ease  the  deception 
employed  consisted  in  duplicating  the  tradename  in  which 
the  jilaintiff's  business  was  conducted.  The  same  jirinciple 
has  been  applied  by  a  New  York  court  in  granting  equitable 
protection  to  a  flag  design  used  in  newspaper  advertising  by 
a  real  estate  auctioneer.  The  advertising  device  which  was 
emi)loyed  was  the  representation  of  a  flag  having  an  orna- 
mentation of  stars,  fancifully  arranged  along  its  njiper  aiul 
lower  edges.  The  defendant  duplicated  this  device  in  his  news- 
paper advertising  matter,  and  there  was  testimony  tending 
to  show  that  jiersons  had  actually  been  deceived  into  believ- 
ing that   defendant's  advertising  was  that   of  tlie  jilaintiff.''^ 

In  the  latter  case,  therefore,  the  signs  were  not  used  upon 
a  place  of  business.  In  a  ^Missouri  case,  e(iuital)le  relief  was 
granted  to  a  brewing  company  in  the  use  of  white  muslin 
signs  of  jieculiar  size  and  lettering  wliich  had  been  distrib- 
uted both  by  the   plaintiff  aiul   the   defendant  brewing  com- 

00— Walk.r    v.    Alley,    13    Grant  70— Johnson    v.    Hitchcock,    3    N". 

Up.  Can.  Cli.  300.  Y.  Supp.  680. 


§  137]  HOPKINS  ON   TKAPKMAUKS.  3*20 

panics  to  the  retail  trade  throiijrlioiit  the  eity  of  St.  Louis. 
The  ileeree  in  the  lower  eoiirt  was  for  tiie  plaint IfT.  The  St. 
Loui.s  Court  of  Appeals,  in  reversinp  the  lU'cri-e  anil  direct inj;  the 
injunetion  for  the  plaint ilT,  said:  "The  eorreet  deeision  of 
the  ease  at  bar  depends  upon  the  fnulin{r  of  two  i)rop()sitions: 
was  the  imitation  of  tlie  jilaintiff's  sijrns  hy  <lefendant  merely 
the  result  of  an  accident  ;  or  was  it  the  result  of  a  precon- 
ceived desiprn  to  mislead  Ihc  jiuhlic  iiitu  the  belief  tiiat  the 
]>laintifl"s  beer  was  beinfj  sold  at  the  defeiulant's  place  of 
business?  Was  the  imitation  of  the  sijrn  close  enough  to 
bring  about  such  a  deception?"'' 

The  more  usual  cases  are  those  of  signs  bearing  similar 
tradenames  exhibited  on  competing  stores  in  the  same  vicin- 
ity, in  which  tlie  sign  of  the  later  comer  is  enjoined  if  eal- 
cidated  to  mislea<l  tlu^  public  into  the  false  belief  that  they 
are  jiatronizing  the  older  establishment. '- 

Circulars. — The  usual  I'cmedy  by  injunction  against  unfair 
competition  will  be  granted  where  a  eompetit(U'  issues  cir- 
culars calculated  to  deceive  customers  into  the  false  belief 
that  the  goods  of  the  ])arties  are  identical.'"'  The  relief  has 
been  granted  where  the  defendant's  circulars  were  sent  to 
the  i)laintiff's  customers  and  recited  that  defendant  had  there- 
tofore distributed  the  goods,  and  that  the  defendant's  manu- 
facturing was  done  in  part  at  the  plaintiff's  street  address.'^ 

Similarly,  the  use  of  display  signs  calculated  to  deceive 
the  j)ublic  into  patronizing  one  competitor  in  the  belief  that 
they  are  patronizing  the  other,  will  be  enjoined,"^  as  will 
the  publication  of  circulars  calculated  to  induce  the  false 
belief  that  a  book  published  by  complainant  was  fraudulent."'' 

71 — AnK-ricaii   Unwin^'  Vn.  v.   St.  Rep.  1004.     For  n  form  of  injunction 

F.ouiH  Hn-win;:  Co.,  47  .Mo.  A[)p.   14,  in   muoIj   a   oaso  8«'f   Huiikrr  v.    Kcn- 

20.  n«.   Price  &  Stewart  SH.I. 

72— MiHkell   V.    Prokop,   58   NfJ)r.  71— American     Novelty     A     Mfp. 

028;    7!»    N.    W.    Ucp.    r».")2;    Nolan  Co.      v.      Manufacturing'     Electrical 

llroH.  Sho<-  Co.  V.  Nolan.   VM   Calif.  N..vclty  Co.,  7:i  X.  Y.  Supp.  7r)r>. 
271;    r,:i    Pac.    Hip.    4«0;    Uicnrd    v.  7.">— Cady  v.  Schnltz,  10  H.  T.  193; 

CaU.n    Colli-;.'.-    C...     (Minn.),   H2    N.  ri2   Atl.    Hep.   015;    nuke  v.   Cleaver. 

\V.  Hi-p.  JtriH.  10    Tex.    Civ.    App.    21H;     40    S.    \V. 

7.'»— Hrown    v.    HraunHtiin.   8.{    N.  Hep.    1128. 
Y.  Sufifi.   KtOC;  \'an  Stan's  Stratenii  70-  Halstenil      v.      Houston,      111 

Ci,   v    \'iin  Stun.  2(»!i  Pa    .'.('.4,  .'.H  Afl  F.cl.  Hep.  'Mn. 


921 


INFRINGEMENT. 


§  l.'}8 


Relief  1)y  preliiiiinai'V  injunction  lias  been  diMiicd  uinTe 
defendant  resold  inadiiiies  of  |)Iaintift"s  nuirnifaclnre,  adver- 
tising,'' tlicin  as  "('lieap'"  rnacliincs.' ' 

§  138.  Infringement  by  a  non-identical  word  or  mark. — 
The  fjeneral  r\de  is  that  th(>re  may  be  infrinf,'enient  even  in 
the  absenee  of  exaet  similarity  between   the  marks."" 

In  1866  Lord  Cranworth  said  in  a  leading  case:  "If  the 
goods  of  a  maiiufaeturer  have,  from  the  mark  or  device  he 
has  used,  become  known  in  the  market  ])y  a  pai-ticnlar  name. 
I  think  that  the  adojjtion  by  a  rival  trader  of  any  mark  Avhieh 
Avill  canse  his  proods  to  bear  the  same  name  in  the  market 
may  be  as  mneh  a  violation  of  the  riprhts  of  that  rival  as  the 
aetnal  copy  of  his  device."""  This  dictum  was  elicited  in 
a  ease  where  the  plaintiff  sold  wines  in  casks  stamped  with 
the  device  of  a  crown  and  an  eagle,  and  the  initials  "B.  S. " 
on  the  head  of  the  cask,  and  a  crown,  the  word  "Seixo" 
and  a  date  at  the  bung  hole,  from  which  the  wine  had  acquired 
the  name  "Crown  Seixo;"  while  the  defendants  sold  wine 
in  casks  stamped  on  the  head  and  at  the  bung  hole  with  the 
device   of  a   crown,  the  initials  "C.   B.,"  the  words  "Seixo 


77 — Oliver  Typowritcr  Co.  v. 
American  Writing  Mach.  Co.,  lofi 
Fed.  Rep.  177. 

78— Ligpett  &  Myer  Tobacco  Co. 
V.  Hynes,  20  Fed.  Rep.  883.  "What 
degree  of  reaemhlance  is  necessary 
is,  from  tlie  nature  of  tliinjis,  a 
matter  incapable  of  di'finition  a 
priori.  All  tiiat  courts  of  justice 
can  do  is  to  say  that  no  trader 
can  adopt  a  trademark  so  resemb- 
ling that  of  a  rival  as  that  ordin- 
ary purchasers,  purchasing  with 
ordinary  caution,  are  likely  to  be 
misled."  Lord  Cranworth  in  Seixo 
V.   Provezondc,   L.   R.    1   Ch.   D.   192. 

70 — Seixo  V.  Prove/,endi>,  supra  ; 
12  .Tiir.  X.  S.  21.-);  14  L.  T.  X.  S. 
314;    14  W.   R.   3.-)7;   Seb.  256. 

The  doctrine  of  the  leading  case 
applies     to     all     cases     where     the 


goods  of  a  |)articular  dealer  or 
manufacturer  have  become  known 
l)y  a  name  derived  from  his  trade- 
mark. Anglo-Swiss  Condensed 
Milk  Co.  v.  Metcalf,  L.  R.  31  Ch. 
D.  4r)4;  ;->;-)  L.  .J.  Ch.  463;  34  W.  R. 
34o;  3  R.  P.  C.  28;  Cartmell.  48; 
In  re  Speer's  Trademark,  4  R.  P.  C. 
r)21:  -).-)  L.  T.  X.  S.  880;  Cartmell, 
317;  In  re  Baschiera's  Trademark, 
33  S.  J.  469;  In  re  La  Soci6t6 
Anonyme  des  Verreries  de  I'Estoile, 
10  R.  P.  C.  436;  L.  R.  (1894)  1  Ch. 
D.  61;  11  R.  P.  C.  142;  Wilkinson 
v.  CrifTith,  8  R.  P.  C.  370;  Cart- 
mell, 344;  Morgan  Envelope  Co.  v. 
Walton,  82  Fed.  Rep.  469;  81  OfT. 
Caz.  1615;  Johnson  &  .Johnson  v. 
Bauer  &  Black,  27  C.  C.  A.  374; 
82  Fed.  Rep.  662 ;  Kann  v.  Diamond 
Steel  Co.,  89   Fed.   Rep.   706. 


§  138]  IIOPKIN'S  ON  TKADKMARKS.  ;V22 

de  Cima.'"  ami  fij^ures  "1861.  "     Tlic  dcfciulants  wore  iMijttincd 
notwithstaiulinp  the  t'ait   that   llic  marks  were  not  similar. 

Mik-itaiiKS. — AVhoro  a  commercial  article  lias,  fortuitously 
or  otherwise,  accpiireil  a  nick-name  by  which  it  is  known  and 
called  for.  that  nick  name  will  he  protected  in  e(|uity.  Not- 
withstanding: its  proper  desi-rnat ion,  "still  if  for  some  rea- 
son the  general  public  has  ^^iven  to  the  |iroduct  another  and 
different  name,  hy  which  it  alone  is  known  t<>  the  trade,  the 
ajipellant  (plaintiff)  becomes  entitled  to  protection  by  injunc- 
tion atrainst  one  who  thereafter  endeavors  throu^di  tiie  adop- 
tion of  such  term  as  the  public  employs  as  synonymous  for 
or  as  a  secondary  desi^Miation  of  such  product."^"  The  thing 
suggesting  the  nick-name  need  not  be  identif-al  with  plain- 
tiff's mark. 

I'nder  this  rule,  jilaintiffs  who  made  a  certain  beer  to  which 
they  applied  the  device  of  a  bull-dog's  head  were  granted 
an  injunction  against  the  use  by  comi>eting  dealers  of  a  label 
similar  in  .shape  to  the  plaintiff's  and  bearing  a  terrier's  head. 
There  was  no  resemblance  between  the  labels  beyond  the 
similarity  in  shape,  but  the  plaintiffs'  beer  had  come  to  be 
known  as  "Dog's  Head  Beer."  and  the  use  of  a  dog's  head 
upon  similar  merchandise  by  the  defendants  was  manifestly 
for  the  purpose  of  passing  off  their  beer  as  being  the  i)lain- 
tiffs'.*"  It  is  self-evident  that  a  trademark  may  be  infringed 
by  a  mark  entirely  different,  but  suggesting  to  (Mistomers 
and  the  public  the  same  word  or  idea.  Thus  when  r.n  English 
house  had  used  in  India  a  trademark  for  yarn  whicli  had  led 
the  natives  to  call  for  it  as  "Bhe  Ilathi"  fmeaning  "Two 
Elephant")  yarn,  a  competing  firm  was  enjoined  from  export- 
ing yarn  to  India  under  a  trademarlc  of  wliich  the  principal 
feature  was  the  representation  of  two  elephants. ^^  Qy^  t}ie 
same  reasoning  the  word  "Sportsman's"  accompanied  by  a 
picture  of  two  mounted  huntsmen,  tised  as  a  trademark  for 
cherry  brandy,  was  held  to  be  infringed  by  the  picture  of  a 
huntsman   standing  beside   his  horse,  and   the   words  "Ilunts- 

RO — Cnrland,  J.,  in  Dcnvt-r  Ch<in.  81 — Rend  v.  RiclinnlHon,  4.">  L.  T. 

Co.  V.  Lillfv.  133  C.  C.  A.  73;   21fi       N.  S.  M;  Cox.  Mnnnal.  \o.  008. 
Fed.  Rep.  809.  82 — Orr  Ewinj,'  *  Co.  v.  .TohnRton 

4  Co.,  40  L.  T.  N.  S.  307 ;  S.'l).  046. 


32:i 


INKKINGKMKNT. 


§i:}8 


nians  CluMTy  liraiuly,"'  w  lici-c  the  pi-oof  ulinndr  sliowod  that 
the  phiiiitifl's'  licjiior  had  hccoMic  kiinuii  to  the  puhlif  as 
"The  Hunter's  Cherry   Biandy. " ''•• 

Jud^e  Sanlxn-ii  has  well  said  that  "every  suit  of  this  char- 
acter is  founded  on  the  fact  that  the  aetion,  or  the  projjosed 
action,  of  the  defendant  has  deceived,  or  is  calculated  to 
deceive,  ordinary  j)urchasers  buyinf?  with  usual  care,  so  that 
they  have  ])ur('hased,  or  will  probably  purchase,  the  poods 
of  the  defendant  under  the  mistaken  belief  that  they  are 
those  of  the  complainant."'*^  So  that  each  case  must  turn 
upon  the  peculiar  facts  involved.  Thus  where  a  plaintiff 
had  for  some  time  mamifactured  tennis  racquets  uniformly 
stamped  at  a  particular  place  upon  the  handle  with  the  words 
"The  Demon,"  and  the  defendant  began  to  manufacture  and 
sell  racquets  of  a  similar  desifrn,  stamped,  in  the  correspond- 
ing ])lace  upon  the  handle,  with  the  word  "Demotic,"  the; 
use  of  the  Avord  "Demotic"  Avas  restrained.*^  So  the  word 
"Curative,"  applied  to  soap,  has  been  held  to  infringe  the 
word  "Cuticura,"  similarly  api)lied;'^"  and  a  red  Greek  cross 
has  been  held  to  be  infringed  by  a  maltese  cross  with  a  red 
center,  each  being  used  as  a  mark  upon  medicinal  plasters,**" 


8.3 — In  re  Barker's  Trademark,  53 
L.  T.  X.  S.  23;  Cartmell,  72.  Simi- 
lar cases  are  Barlow  v.  Johnson,  7 
R.  P.  C.  395;  Cartmell.  73;  Upper 
Assam  Tea  Co.  v.   IlerlK-rt,  7   R.   P. 

C.  183;  Cartmell,  333;  In  re  Worth- 
ington's    Trademark,   L.    R.    14   Ch. 

D.  8;  49  L.  J.  Ch.  G46;  42  L.  T.  X. 
S.  563;  28  W.  R.  747;  Cartmell, 
351 ;  Jerome  v.  Johnson,  59  X.  Y. 
Supp.  859. 

84 — Kann  v.  Diamond  Steel  Co., 
89  Fed.  Rep.  706. 

85 — Slazenger  v.  Feltham.  6  R. 
P.    C.    531;    Cartmell.    310.      Thus 


86 — Potter  Drug  &  Chemical 
Corp.  V.  Miller,  75  Fed.  Rep.  656. 

87 — .Johnson  &  Johnson  v.  Bauer 
&  Black,  27  C.  C.  A.  374;  82  Fed. 
Rep.  662 ;  reversinf^  same  case,  79 
Fed.  Rep.  954.  In  the  opinion 
Judpe  Jenkins  said:  "It  sufficiently 
appeared  by  the  testimony  that  the 
goods  of  the  appellant  have  come 
to  be  known,  and  are  off'ered, 
ordered  and  sold,  as  'Red  Cross 
Plasters;'  and  we  can  not  but  think 
that  tlie  maltese  cross  adopted  l>.v 
the  appellee,  in  so  far  as  it  con- 
tains a   red   circle,   has  a   tendency 


where    an    anchor    had    been    regis-      to  promote  confusion,  and  will  in- 


tered  in  Englard  as  an  umbrella 
trademark,  the  word  "Ancross"  for 
umbrellas  was  refused  registration. 
In  re  Tliewlis  &  Blakey's  Trade- 
mark. 10  R.  P.  C.  369. 


terfere  with  the  leiritimate  trade 
of  the  appellant.  ♦  •  ♦  The 
red  cross  speaks  to  the  eye,  and 
tlie  article  being  known  by  that 
d(^sigiiation  speaks  also  to  the  ear 
by  that  name." 


§  138] 


HOPKINS  ON    TK  ADKM  AUKS. 


:{24 


'I'lu'  (U'frrt'o  of  I't'sciublancf  Ix'twi'di  pictorial  marks  iice- 
ossury  to  establish  infriiipeinciit  is  illustrated  by  a  lasc  in 
whith  tlio  ])i('tur(*  of  a  roostor  slaiulin^;  on  the  body  of  his 
(U'ad  adversary  was  held  to  infriii^re  a  representation  nf  a 
ehieken  eoek  standing'  under  llic  bi-ancli  of  an  nlive  tree.'''* 

Other  instanees  in  which  the  i-ourts  have  declared  a  word 
or  words  used  as  a  trademark  to  be  infriiifred  by  a  different 
word  or  words  will  be  found  instructive.  V\)V  the  conven- 
ience of  the  reader  they   are  tabulated    in  alphabetical   order. 


The  Trndimark  or  Tradename. 
"Al)aens.-" 
"Alba." 

^'American  CJirl." 
"Anvil." 
*' ApoUinaris. " 
"Auto." 
••Beaded." 
"Black  Diamond." 
"  Bovilene." 
"Burp:ess. " 

"Canadian       ("lub       Whis- 
key." 
' '  Cascarets. ' ' 

8S — C'usimano  &  Co.  v.  Olivo  Oil 
Imp.  Co.,  :J8  So.  1I.|).  iuo ;  114  La. 
312. 

H9_K.ufT«I  &  Khwt  ("o.  v.  n.  R. 
Crocker  Co..  UK  I'Vd.  R«'p.  1R7. 

90— /fci</. 

01— Wolf  Rrus.  &  Co.  v.  Ilaniil- 
ton-Hrown  Shoe  Co.,  1«5  F«'d.  K»  p. 
4l.{;  ill  C.  C.  A.  3«.1:  Hamilton- 
iJrown  SIkm'  Co.  v.  Wolf  HroH.  & 
Co.,  240  l^  S.  2.11 ;   00  L.  Kd.  — . 

02— KcufT.l  4  KHHcr  Co.  v.  11.  S. 
CrockiT  Co..  IIH  Fed.   Hop.   IH7. 

03 — A|M)HinariH  Co.  v.  Hcrrfeldt. 
4  I'.  R.  47W;  ApollinariH  Hruiincn 
V.  Somhorn.  14  Hlatdif.  MHO;  Fed. 
Chhi'    No.   400. 


Ill  hi  to  hi    infr'uKji (I  by. 

"Areade."**" 
"Antique.""" 
"American  Lady."  ^^ 
"  Anchor. " '•'- 
"Ai)ollinis.  "'•'•■' 
"Auto-Xoisette."»^ 
"  Nu-B-l)ed.  "='•'■ 
"Diamond  (;em."»« 
"  Boviiui."  ■•'' 
"Burgiss. "  '■"* 

"Canadian    Rye    Whis- 
key.""'' 
"Cascara."  ' 

04— Walt. T  Rakrr  &  Co.  v.  D.la- 
pcnlia,    1()()    Fed.    Rep.    74(5. 

0.")— United  Lncc  &  Rraid  MU^. 
Co.  V.  Rartli.-ls  Mfj;.  Co.,  221  Fed. 
Rep.    4.")<5.    4()2. 

0(1- Pike  Mf^'.  Co.  V.  li.vriuii.l 
Stone   Co.,    3")    Fed.     Rep.    SO(l. 

07 — Lockwood  v.  Ho.stwiek,  2 
Daly.  r>21. 

OH — liur^eHH  \.  Hills,  2t>  Riavan, 
244. 

00— Walk. T  V.  MikoluH.  70  F.d. 
Rep.  0.">."i:  Hiram  Walker  &.  Sohh 
V.    Hoekstaeder.    S.)    Fed.    Rep.    776. 

1 — SU'rIinf;  Remedy  Co.  v. 
Corey,    110    Fed.    Rep.    372. 


:}25 


IM-IUNUEMENT. 


[§138 


The  Tnidonark  or  Tiadoianu. 
"Cascarets." 
"Cashmere  Bouquet." 
"Celluloid." 
"Ceresota." 
"Ceresota." 
"Chartronso." 
"Chatterbox." 
"Clark's  O.  N.  T." 
"Coeoaine." 
"Cocoatiiia." 
"Coe's    Superphosphate    of 

Lime." 
"Corona." 
"Cottolene." 
"Cottolene." 
"Creamalt." 
"Cupola." 

"Cyclops  Machine  Works." 
"Demon." 

2 — Still  in-,'  Ki-nu'dy  Co.  v.  Sper- 
mine Renn'fly  Co.,  50  C.  C.  A.  Gi)l ; 
112    Fed.    Hep.    1000. 

3_Colgate  v.  Adams,  88  Fed. 
Rep.   son. 

4_Ct.llul<)id  yU{r.  Co.  V.  Cellon- 
ite  Mffi.  Co.,  ^^•2   Fed.   Rep.  04. 

;") — Xortinvcsteni  Consol.  ilill  Co. 
V.  Wm.  Cullalian  &  Son,  177  Fed. 
Rep.   78(!. 

G — Northwestern  Consl.  Mill  Co. 
V.  Mauser  &  Cressman,  162  Fed. 
Rep.  1004. 

7 — A.  Bauer  Co.  v.  Order  of 
Carthusian  Monks,  oG  C.  C.  A.  484; 
120    Fed.    Rep.   78,   80. 

8— Kstes  V.  Leslie,  20  Fed.  Rep. 
91. 

9 — Clark  Thread  Co.  v.  Armi- 
tago.  21  C.  C.  A.  178;  74  Fed.  Rep. 
936;  affirming  Clark  Thread  Co.  v. 
Armitage,    67    Fed.    Rep.    896. 


Ihhl  If)  Ik    infrln(j(d  hij. 
"Castorcts. "  - 
"Violets  of  Cashmere."'* 
"Cellonito."^ 
"Certosa."-' 
"Cressota."" 
"Chasseurs.""^ 
"Chatterbook."« 
"Clark's  N.  E.  W."" 
"Cocoine."!"" 
"Cocaotine."'! 
"Andrew  Coe's  Superphos- 

])hate  of  Lime."  '^ 
"Corinth."  '•' 
"Cottoleo."^^ 
"Chefolene."!-"' 
"Crown  Malt.">" 
"Composite."  >' 
"Cyclops  Iron  Work.s." 's 
"Demotic."  '» 

10— Rurnctt  v.  Phalon,  0  Bos. 
102. 

11 — Sc'liwi'it/.er  v.  Atkins.  'M  h. 
J.   Ch.   847. 

12— Coe  V.  IJradloy,  Fed.  Case 
No.  2941;  9  OIT.  C.az.   'Al. 

1.3— K.ufTel  &  lesser  Co.  v.  H.  S. 
Crocker    Co.,     118    Fed.    Rep.     187. 

14 — X.  K.  Fairhank  Co.  v.  Cen- 
tral Lard  Co.,  64  Fed.  Rep.  1:5:3. 

If) — X.  K.  Fairliank  Co.  \. 
Ogden  Packing  Co.,  220  Fed.  Rep. 
1002. 

16— George  G.  Fox  Co.  v.  Glynn, 
191    Mass.  .344;    78  X.   E.    Rep.   89. 

17— KeufTel  &  Esser  Co.  v.  II.  S. 
Crocker   Co.,   supra. 

IS — Hainque  v.  Cyclops  Iron 
Works.  1.3G  Calif.  3.');  68  Pac.  Rep. 
1014. 

19— Slazenger  v.  Feltham,  G  R.  P. 
C.  531. 


§  138] 


IHtl'Kl.N;?  ON   TUAPK.MAHKS. 


;{2G 


The  Tradrmarh  or  Trmh  nnmr. 

"  I)»»rii'.  ' 
"l)»'rl>y." 

"Dr.    Williimis'    Pink    Pills 
for  Pair  Pcuplc.' 
"  "Duplox." 
"  Ecctiioiuy. ' 
"K^rypliaii  Dritios. " 
"  Elaslii'  Soam." 
"HI  Dcstino." 

••Electro-Silicon." 

"Every   Day." 

"E.xcdsior. " 

"Flor  (Ic  Marfraretta. " 

"Genuine  Durham  Sniokinjr 
Tobacco,"  with  the  pic- 
ture of  a  hull. 

"German." 

"(Jermau  Household  Dyes." 

"Gernua." 

2l>— K.-nir«-l  &  Kswr  Co.  v.  TT.  -S. 
CnK-kiT  Co.,  IIH  Fid.  Ri'|>.   1S7. 

21— DtThy   Dry  Pluto  Co.   v.    INil 
lard,  2  Tinvs  L.   U.  27(i. 

22— Dr.     Williams    Mod.     Co.  v. 

Totliill,   Caix-   (;o.id    llojio.  2{»   S.  C. 

n.    4H.\;    Dr.    Williams    M.d.   Co.  v. 

Ali'.xaruirr,   Ca|>c   (loml    Hope,   27  S. 

c.  n.  .-)Kn. 

2;{— KoufT.l  &  Kss^r  Co.  v.  II.  S. 
Crofkor   Co.,    supra. 

24— Ibid. 

2.') — AnarjivroM  v.  i;;;v|itiaM  Am- 
aitiH  Cipin-tto  Co.,  <l(i  \.  V.  Supp. 
U2fl. 

2<l — .1.  A.  Striven  Co.  v.  (;irard 
Co..  140  Fid.   K.p.  7!tl. 

27  — I'into   V.   Trott.  H    1'.    K.    17.1 


11(1(1  to  h(    infritKjtif  In/. 

"Delos."-" 

■  ■  1  )fr\V('nt."  ■-' 

••Dr.  \Vils(Mi's  Pink  Pills 
for  Auaeuiif   People."  -- 

••D.'luxe."--' 

"  EcoHdluie. "  '-' 

"E;;y|ttiau    Anuisis, "  -'' 

"  Stretch iseani."  ■•^" 

"El  Diviuo"  and  "El  Des- 
tinacion."  -' 

"Electric-Silicon." -« 

"Everybody."-" 

"Excellent."-"' 

"Marprarita."'" 

"The  Durham  Smokiuir  To- 
bacco," with  the  picture 
of  a  bull 's  head. -'2 

"(icrnuinia."  ■'■'' 

"Excellent  Geniuni  Ilou.sc- 
hold  Dyes."  ■' 

"Germ."-''' 

2S — Kh'ctro-Silifoii  Co.  v.  Trnsk, 
.")!•  Ih»w.  I'r.  1S!I;  followed  in  Snmr 
v.    l-tvy,   ;')!»    How.    Pr.   4(i!l. 

2!t— Proctor  &  C.aml.le  Co.  v. 
(ilol.r  Ucfiiiin^,'  Co.,  !I2  Fed.  Rep. 
li'u;    M   C.   C.   A.   40'). 

.'10 — \'ol<jer  V.  Force,  71  N.  Y.  S. 
200. 

:il  — R.-nedictus  v.  .''^uliivan.  12  R. 
P.  C.   2.'>. 

:J2— Rlackwell  V.  Armi.stead,  3 
llii<:lie8.    1U:1;    Fed.    Case   No.    1,474. 

:{:»— Walter  Baker  &  Co.  v.  Raker, 
77    Fed.    Rep.    IMI. 

:M — Oppermaim  v.  Watt-rman,  94 
Wis.   nH.-J;   00   N.   W.    Rep.    '•(!!>. 

:i.'.— Sperry  v.  Percivnl  Milling 
Co.,  HI   Cal.  2:.2. 


INFRINGEMENT. 


f§i:J8 


Tlic  Trademark  or  'I' nidi  name. 
"Gold  Dust." 
"Golden   Crown." 
"Gothic." 
"Guinness." 
"IIonnita}?o." 
"Holeproof." 
"Homo." 
"Home   Hrand." 
"H(UU'ynio()M." 
"Hostetter  Bitters." 
"Hostctter  &  Smith." 
"Humphrey's   Homeoi)athic 

Specifics." 
"Iron  Ox." 
"Junket  Tablets." 
"Keepclean. " 
"Ky's  Criterion." 
"LaCarolina." 


Jit  Id  to  he   InfriiKjrd  by. 
"Gold  Drop."  a" 
"Golden  Chain."" 
"Ionic."''** 
"Genuine."''" 
"Heritage."^'' 
"No-hole."'" 
"Homo  Delight." -"s 
"Home  Comfort."  ••■« 
"  Honeyeond)."  '^ 
"Host-Style   Bitters."  »' 
"Holstoter   &   Smyte."^" 
"Reeves'  Imi)orted  Homeo- 
pathic Specifics."^" 
"Iron  Oxide."  ■«« 
"Junket  Capsules."  •*» 
"Sta-Klean."-'" 
"Ky's  Credential."  51 
"LaCoraliua."^^ 


30— X.  K.  Fairhank  Co.  v.  Luck- 
c-1,  Kinj;  &  Cak»'  Soap  Co.,  42  C.  C. 
A.  37(5;  102  Ftd.  Rop.  .327;  revers- 
ing 8.  c,  88  Fed.  Rt'p.  (504. 

37 — Parlctt  v.  (;u;i;.'i'iih(>imcr.  07 
Md.   r)42;    10  Atl.  Rep.   SI. 

:?S— KeufVel  cS;  ICsser  Co.  v.  H.  S. 
Crocker  Co.,  118  Fed.  Rep.   187. 

30 — Guinness  v.   Heap,  Seb.   017. 

40— W.  A.  Gaines  &  Co.  v.  Tur- 
ner-Looker Co.,  123  C.  C.  A.  70; 
204  Fed.   Rep.  ;")."):]. 

41 — Holeproof  Hosiery  Co.  v. 
Fitts,  107   Fed.   Rep.  378. 

42 — New  Home  Sewing  Machine 
Co.  V.  Rl()oinin;,'(lale,  ')!•  Fed.  Rej). 
284. 

43 — Griggs,  Cooper  &  Co.  v.  Erie 
Preserving   Co..    131    Fed.    Rep.   3r)9. 

44 — Kentucky  Distilleries  & 
Warehouse  Co.  v.  Wiitlieii,  110  Fed. 
Rep.   G41-C44. 


4-)— Hostetter  v.  Becker,  73  Fed. 
Rep.  207. 

46— Hostetter  v.  Vowinkle,  1  Dill. 
329;   Fed.  Case  No.  6714. 

47 — Humphreys'  Specific  Med. 
Co.   V.   Wen/,   14  Fed.   Rep.  2.")0-2.)3. 

48 — Iron  Ox.  Co.  v.  Co-op.  Socie- 
ty, 24  R.  P.  C.  42.");  same  v.  Leeds, 
24   R.   P.  C.   434. 

40 — Hansen  v.  Siegel-Cooper  Co. 
(2),  100  Fed.  Rep.  001. 

50— Florence  ]SIfg.  Co.  v.  .T.  C. 
Dowd  &  Co.,  178  Fed.  Rep.  73;  lol 
C.  C.  A.  SGo;  reversing  Florence 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  J.  C.  Dowd  &  Co.,  171 
Fed.  Rep.   122. 

51 — Kentucky  Di.stiHerits  & 
Warehouse  Co.  v.  Wathen,  110  Frd. 
Rep.   041-044. 

52 — Havana  Commercial  Co.  v. 
Nichols,   ir5  Fed.   Rep.  302. 


§138J 


HOPKINS  UN   TKAPKM  VHK.S. 


328 


The  Irailcmark  ur  Truth  lunno. 

**LiU'to-Pcptinc, " 
"Laiullorils"  Pnilcctivt'  Hii- 

roau. 
"Lcopoldshall." 
*'Lij;htiin|,'   Hay   Knives." 

"Limctta." 
"Listerine." 

"Little  Shop." 
"Maizena." 
"Manufaotuivrs'  Outlet 

Co." 
":\Iarylana  ("lub  Rye." 

"Mechanics'  Store." 

"Melhvood." 

"Miller's      Chicken       Cock 

Whiskey.  " 
"Momaja." 

.'i.'J — Ciinirirk  v.  Morson,  L.  .1.  N. 
of  C.   (1S77I.  p.  71. 

54 — K<m-1m'I  v.  C'hiciif^o  Land- 
lord's rroU'ctivi'  Bureau,  210  Ills. 
170;  71  N.  K.  Hi'p.  :i02;  allirmiii« 
Chicago  Landlurd'K  I'roU'ctivo  Bur- 
eau V.  Km-lHl.  112  111.  App.  21. 

.')") — Uaddf  V.  Norman,  L.  K.  14 
Eq.  :J4H. 

r>«J— Hiram  Holt  Co.  v.  Wads- 
wortli,  41   IVd.  H.'p.  34. 

r}7 — Orcwry  Si  Son  v.  Wood,  127 
Fed.  R.p.  887. 

58 — LamlM-rt  I'liarmui-al  Cd.  v. 
KaliHh  Pliarmacy,  211)  F«d.  H.p. 
323. 

.IJ) — Lamlx-rt  I'harmacal  Co.  v. 
B«dton  i  ht-m.  Corp.,  2i;t  I'.d.  IUik 
325. 


Ill  Id  to  b<    infrincjcd  by. 
Lattopepsine, "  ''•* 

"Landlords'  Protective  De- 
partment." ''* 

"  Leopoldsalt."  ''^ 

"Lif^htninfT     Pattern      Hay 
Knives.''  •'" 

"Limette,"  ''" 

"Listerseptinc,"  ''" 
and  "  Listojjen."  ''•* 

"Little  Anticjne  Shop.""* 

"  .Mai/.hai-ina."  '"'* 

"Taunton  Oiillet  Co.""^ 
"Maryland      dockey      Club 

Rye."''-' 
"Meehanical  Store."  "< 
"Mill  Wood."'''^ 
"Miller's     Game     Cock 

Rye. ' '  "'•' 
"Mo Java."  '•' 

(iO — Crawford  v.  Lans.  (50  N.  Y. 
Supp.  387. 

<>1 — (Hen  Covf  Mf;;.  Co.  v.  Lu- 
d.diiiL'.  22  K.mI.  K..p.  S23;  23 
Blatchf.    4»i. 

62 — Samwids  v.  Spit/rr,  177  Mas.^. 
22(1;   58  N.  K.   Rep.  U03. 

U3— Calm  v.  Gottsihulk,  2  N.  Y. 
Su|)j).   13. 

04— WfinHtock.  I.ul.in  A  Co.  V. 
Marks.  10!)  Cal.  520. 

0.'>^Mi'll\voo<l  Distillin;;  CV.  v. 
ilariHT.    I(i7    IVd.    Rep.   380. 

OC.  -C.  (;  Wliite  Co.  V.  Miiier,  50 
K.d.    R.p.   277. 

(17 — Anieritan  (Jron-ry  '^o.  v. 
Sloan,  08  Fed    Rep.  53y. 


:i2!) 


INFRINGKMENT. 


§138 


The  Tradfmnrk  or  Tnuh  ikimik  . 

"Morse's  CoiiipouiHl  Syi-iij) 

of   Yellow    Dock   Root." 

"Mottled     (loniian    Soap," 
with    circle,    moon    and 
stars. 
^Moxie." 

"Moxie  Nerve  Food." 

"Nickel-Ill." 

"Normal." 

"Notamiss." 

"Old  Crow." 

"Old  Joe." 

"Old  Mill  Soap." 
."oMo." 

"Pancoast." 

"Paragon." 

"Pepto-]\Iangau." 

"Portland." 

"Pride." 

"Pride  of  Rome." 


Hi  1(1  Id  hi    infriiirjrd  Inj. 

"Dr.  Morse's  Improved  Yel- 
low Dock  and  Sarsapa- 
rilla  Coiiipound."  "^ 

"S,  W.  Meliride's  German 
.Mottled  Soap,"  with  a 
crescent  and  star.''-' 

"Noxie." '" 

"Standard  Nerve  Food.""' 

"Nickel-Saved." '2 

"Normandy."  '^ 

"Nevermiss. "  '■* 

"White  Crow."  "5 

"OldGeo."'" 

"Old  Stone  Mill  Soap."'^^ 

"dMd." '« 

"Pan-coast." '« 

"Pebble."  «"^ 

"Pepto-Manganate  of  Iron 
and  Cascara. "  ^' 

"Famous  Portland. "^2 

"Pride  of  Syracuse."^' 

"Pride  of  the  Home."«* 


68— Aloxan<K>r  v.  Morso,  14  R.  I. 
153. 

69— Proctor  v.  McBride,  Fed. 
Case  No.  11441. 

70— Moxio  Nerve  Food  Co.  v. 
Beach,  33  Fed.  Rep.  248. 

71 — Moxie  Nerve  Food  Co.  v. 
Haunil.acli,  32  Fed.  Rep.  20"). 

72— Seliendle  v.  Silver,  70  N.  Y. 
Sup.  Ct.  330;   18  N.  Y.  Supp.  1. 

73— Keuffel  &  Esser  Co.  v.  H.  S. 
Crocker  Co..  118  Fed.  Rep.  187. 

74 — Daniel  O'Donnell  v.  Riscal 
Mfp.   Co.,   228    Fed.    Rep.    127.    130. 

75— W.  A.  Caines  &  Co.  v.  Leslie, 
54  N.  Y.  Supp.  421:  2.'.  :\Iise.  Rep. 
20. 

76— Bluthenthal  v.  Molilmann.  48 
Fla.  321;  42  So.  Rep.  1046;  38  So. 
Rop.  700. 


77 — Swift  &  Co.  V.  Brenner,  125 
Fed.   Rep.  826. 

78— Omo  Mf<,'.  Co.  v.  Mystic  Rub- 
ber Co.,  225  Fed.  Rep.  92. 

79 — Janney  v.  Pan-Coast  Yenti- 
lator  &  Mf^.  Co.,  128  Fed.  Rep. 
121. 

80— Keuffel  &  Fsser  Co.  v.  H.  S. 
Crocker  Co.,  118  Fed.  Rep.   187. 

81— M.  J.  Breitenbach  Co.  v. 
Spangenberji,  131  Fed.  Rep.  160. 

82 — Van  Horn  v.  Coopan,  52  N.  J. 
Eq.  380;   28  Atl.  Rep.  788. 

S:{_ni,.r  V.  Abrahams,  82  N.  Y. 
.-)10. 

84 — Ft.  Stanwix  Canninj:  Co.  v. 
Wni.  MeKinley  Canning  Co.,  63  N. 
Y.  Supp.  704. 


§138] 


HOPKINS  ON   TK  \1>K.MAKKS. 


330 


The  Trademark  or  Tradt  natnr. 
"Robert's    Parabola    Gold- 

Ituniislu'd   Sliarps." 

■  l\(»}rers. " 
"Roof  Leak." 
"Roy  Watch-Case  Co." 

"  Riibborset." 

"Ku-bor-oid." 

"Sanitas." 

"Sapolio." 

"Sapolio. " 

"Sapolio." 

"Savonol." 

"Sawyer's      Crystal      Blue 

and  Safety  Box." 
"Seccotine. " 
"Shawknit." 

85 — Rolwrts  V.  Sluldon,  8  Bias. 
3fl8;    Fed.  Case  No.   11916. 

80 — Intrrnationnl  Silver  Co.  v. 
Kodprs  Hn.s.  Cutlery  Co.,  136  Fed. 
Rep.  1019.   1021. 

87 — Klliott  Varnish  Co.  v.  Sears, 
RfH-l.uck  &  Co.,  221  Fed.  R.p.  797 ; 
n-versi'd  232  PVd.   Rep.  588. 

88 — Roy  U'atoh-CaBc  Co.  v.  Camm- 
Roy  Wateh-Case  Co.,  .''.9  X.  Y.  Supp. 
979. 

89— Kiil.her  &  Celluldid  H.  T.  Co. 
V.  RiiM.erHoiiiKl  Hnisli  Co..  81  \. 
.1.  P>|.  419;  H8  .\tl.  Hep.  210;  .\nn. 
Cax.  1915U,  3(!.^);  aflirmed,  81  N.  J. 
Kq.  519;   88  Atl.  Rep.  210. 

90— RuMkt  Si  Celluloid  H.  T.  Co. 
V.  F.  \V.  I)e\'oe  A  C.  T.  Reynolds 
Co..  233   Fed.   He|..    l.'.o. 

01 — Standard    I'aint   Co.    v.    Hub- 


//(/(/  lo  In   litf ringed  by. 

"William     Clark     &     Soils' 

Parabola  (Jold-Burnished 

Sharps."'"'' 
"  RoDper.s. " '*" 
"Never  Lfak.'"*' 
' '  Caimn-Roy         Watchrase 

( 'o.  •  •  •*« 
"Rubber-Bomul."«» 

and  "Sot  in  Rul)ber."»'» 
"Rubberoid.'"'" 
"Condisanitas."»2 

"Saphia. '"•'••' 

"Sapho.'"'« 

"Sopono.""-' 

"Savoline.""" 

"Sawin's  Soluble  Blue  and 

Pepper  Box."!* 
"Securine."»« 
"Seamle.ss. "  '•'• 

l.eroid  Roofing  Co.,  140  C.  C.  A. 
235;  224  Fed.   Rep.  695. 

92— Sanitas  Co.  v.  Coiidy.  4  P.  U. 
195. 

9;{ — Enocli  Mor;,'an's  Sons  Co.  v. 
Sehwaehofer,  5  AM..  Pr.   N.  C.  265. 

94 — I'noeh  .Mor;,'an"s  Sons  Co.  v. 
Wiiittier-Colturn  Co.,   118  Fed.   Rep. 

(;:.7. 

9.') — Knocli  Mor;:an  &  Sons  Co.  v. 
Ward.  81  C.  C.  A.  616;  152  Fed. 
lu-p.   (i90. 

9(( — i-'iild  V.  W'a^Miel  Syridieate, 
I..    K.    (  1900)    1   Ch.  (151. 

97 — Sawyer  v.  Kellofj^^,  7  Fed. 
Hep.  720;   9   Fed.  Rep.  601. 

98 — McCaw,  Stt'venson  &  Orr, 
Ltd.  V.  Niekols.  21   R.  P.  C.   15. 

99 — Sliaw  Stoekinj:  Co.  v.  Maek, 
12  Fed.   Rep.  7U7 ;  21   IJlatchf.  1. 


331 


iNPKINaEMENT. 


[§138 


The  Tnuh  ttuirk  or  Tradi  nuvic. 

"Shrewsbury,  Marsliall  & 
Co.  Patent  Tlucad." 

"Simplex." 

"Six  Little  Tailors." 

"Sorosis." 

"Southern  Company,  St. 
Louis." 

"Star." 

"Stark." 

"Steinway." 

"Stephens." 

"St.  Ives." 

"Stuart's  Dyspepsia  Tab- 
lets." 

"Sunlight." 

"Swan." 

"Tonge's." 

"Trafford." 

"Uneeda." 

"Universal." 

"Vitae-Ore." 

l_:Marsliall  v.  Rosa,  L.  R.  8  Eq. 
651. 

2— Ki'ufTcl  &  Esscr  Co.  v.  H.  S. 
Crocker  Co.,  118  Fed.  Rep.   187. 

3 — Mossier  v.  Jacobs,  (i.")  111.  App. 
571. 

4 — Little  V.  Kellam,  100  Fed. 
Rep.  353. 

5 — Southern  Wliite  Lead  Co.  v. 
Cary,  25   Fed.    Rep.    125. 

6 — Hutchinson  v.  Covert,  51 
Fed.    Rep.   832;    01   Off.   Gaz.    1017. 

7— Gardner  v.  Baih>y,  Seb.  365; 
Fed.  Case  Xo.  5221. 

8 — Steinway  v.  Henshaw.  5  P. 
R.  77. 

5>— Stephens  v.  Peel,  16  L.  T.  N. 
S.    145. 


Jl(l(l  I  (J  be  infringed  by. 

"Schrcushury-Marchal  Pat- 
ent Tiii't'ad."  ' 

"Simi)li('ity.'"  - 

"Six  Big  Tailors."  3 

"Sartoris."  ' 

"Southwestern,  St. 
Louis."  ° 

"Lone  Star."" 

"Star."" 

"Steinberg. "« 

"Steel  Pens."» 

"St.  Ives."  •" 

"Dr.    Stewart's    Dyspepsia 
Tablets."'" 

"Ameriean  Sunlight."  '- 

"Black  Swan."  •'» 

"Tung's."'-* 

"Stafford."  >•"' 

"Iwanta."  '« 

"University."  '" 

"Vitalizing  Ore."  i* 

10— Alpin  V.  Richards,  20  R.  P. 
C.  79!). 

11— Stuart  V.  F.  G.  Stewart  Co., 
91   Fed.   Rep.  243;   33  C.  C.   A.   480. 

12— Lever  Bros.  v.  Pasfield,  88 
Fed.    Rep.   484. 

13 — f-:x  pditr  (.'aire.  15  Off.  Gaz. 
248. 

14_Ton-e  V.  Ward,  21  L.  T.  N. 
S.  480. 

15 — Smitli  V.  Carron  Co.,  13  P. 
R.    108. 

16 — National  Biscuit  Co.  v.  Bak- 
.  r.  95  Fed.  Rep.   135. 

17— Keuffel  &  Esser  Co.  v.  H.  S. 
Crocker  Co.,  118  Fed.  Rep.  187. 

lS_Xoel  V.  Ellis,  89  Fed.  Rep. 
978. 


§1381  II(»l'KINS  ON   TK  VPKM AKKS.  \V,V1 

The  Trademark  nr  Tradi  natm .      Ildd  lo  hr  iiifriiujcd  by. 

**  Wamsiitta."  "  Wamycsta,"  '" 

"  WanuT. "  "  Wit'iicr. "  -" 

*'  WarriMi."  "  Warranted.  "  -' 

■' \Vfart'v«'r. "  "I'^vcrlastiii^'. "  -- 

"WeU'onio."  "Wdeome  A.  Smith,  "^a 

"Willoujrhl.y  Lake."  "Willoufrhby  Kidge."" 

"Yusoa."  "U-C-A."--' 

It  follows  that  a  woi'd  may  iiifriii<ri'  a  synd)ol,  or  vice  versa. 
Thus  the  fifruro  of  Columbia  is  an  infringement  of  the  word 
"Columbia."  previously  apjdied  to  the  same  elass  of  mer- 
chandise.-'""' Hut  the  use  by  a  plaintiff  of  a  eonventional  dia- 
mond-shaped desipn  has  been  held  not  to  confer  a  trademark 
ripht  in  the  word  "diamond."  .7nd<r('  Adams  remarkinf?:  "If 
the  complainant's  poods  had  ever  been  known  in  the  trade  as 
'diamond  stc«^l.*  or  frcnorally  as  'diamond'  poods,  it  would 
undoiibtedly  be  protected  in  the  use  of  the  word  'diamond' 
as  a  tradeiuime.  even  thouph  siu'h  word  nowhere  appeared 
in  connection  with  the  symbol  of  a  conventional  diamond 
forminp  its  trademark.  Its  use  by  a  com|)etitor.  cither  as 
its  corporate  luime  or  tradename  for  its  product,  under  such 
circumstances  would  undoubtedly  tend  to  deceive,  and  fall 
within  the  condemnation  of  the  cases  of  complaiiumt 's  coun- 
sel.    See,  especially,  J<dins<>n   v.  Bauer,  82  Fed.  Kej).  662."-^ 

in— Wammitta  Mills  v.  AlUn,   12  2.'>— W.'lsl.nch  I/i-lit  lo.  v.  Adam, 

Phila.  S.J.'J.  107   Fod.   R.-p.   4<>:i. 

20 — Warner  Ilrofl.  Co.  v.  Wicnor.  20 — Collins      v.      Reynolds     Card 

134    C.    C.    A.    3!KJ:    218    Ffd.    Rep.  Mia.  <^'«'-.  7  Al.l).   N.  C.    17,  Price  & 

fi.3.'»;    Warner    Rros.    Co.    v.    Wiener,  Steiinrt,  2r)2. 

130  C.  C.  A.  424;   214  Fed.  Rep.  .30.  2(lfl— Mor;,'aM      Envelope      Co.      v. 

21_FroHt    V.    RindKkoi>f.    42    Fed.  Wulton.    S2    Fed.    Rep.   4(i!) ;    81    Off. 

Rep.   408.  <;a/..    Kn.'i:      In   tliis  eonneetion,   see* 

22 — Aluminum     Cookin;;     I'tensil  Kiinn  v.  l)ianion<l  Stv«d  Co..  S!)  Fed. 

Co.    V.    National    Aliiminnm    Works,  Rep.     7(»ti;     iind     In     re  Tliewlis    & 

220  YiH\.  Rep.  Hi.-,.  niakey's    Trad.mark.     10    R.    V.    C. 

2,3— I>«-ver      RroM.      l.t«l..      Hoston  .'lOn. 

WorkH  V.  Smith,   112  Fed.  R<-p.  008.  27— RittslMir-    Crnsli.d    .^teel    Co. 

24— Pike    Mfjj.    Co.    V.    Cleveland  v.   l)ianion<l   Stnl   Co.,  8.',   Fed,    Rep. 

Stone  Co.,  3r>   Fed.    Rep.    890.  0.37042. 


:i:i:i 


INKKINGEMENT. 


f§138 


The  addition  of  othci-  symbols,  words  or  initials  to  tin-  trade- 
mark of  another  will  not  operate  to  avoid  a  charge  of  infringe- 
ment. "No  one  who  has  counterfeited  a  legitimate  trade- 
mark and  applied  the  spurious  symbol  in  competition  with 
the  genuine  can  avoid  the  charge  of  infringement  by  show- 
ing that  the  false  mark  has  in  practice  heen  so  accompanied, 
on  labels,  capsules  or  otherwise,  by  tradenames,  designations, 
descriptions  or  other  accessories,  not  forming  part  of  it,  as 
to  render  it  unlikely  that  the  public  has  been  deceived.  Such 
a  showing,  while  it  may  affect  the  nature  or  measure  of  the 
relief  to  be  granted,  can  not  defeat  a  suit  for  infringement."  2« 

In  the  absence  of  i)roof  of  any  deception  of  the  j)ublic,  the 
courts  have  not  been  inclined  to  declare  a  different  mark  an 
infringement  unless  the  similarity  was  close. 


Mark 

"Coca-Cola." 

"Colonel." 

"Cuticura." 

"Don  Carlos." 

"Everyday  Soap." 

"Glacier." 

"Grape-nuts," 

"Hurricane." 

"Ivy." 

"Kelvindale." 

28— Bradford,  J.,  in  Bass,  RatclifT 
&  Gn'tton  ( Ltd. )  v.  Foigenspan,  96 
Fed.  Ri'p.  2n(;-2r2. 

2fl — Coca-Cola  Co.  v.  Branham, 
216  Fed.  Rep.  264. 

30— St.  Munpo  Mf-r.  Co.  v.  Viper 
Co.,  27  R.  P.  C.  420. 

31— Pottir  D.  &  Chem.  Corp.  v. 
Pasfii'ld  Soap  Co.  ( 1 ) ,  102  Fi'd.  Rep. 
490;  Sanu'  v.  Same  (2),  106  Fed. 
Rep.   914;    46  C.  C.   A.  40. 

32— Chance  v.  Gulden,  16r»  Fed. 
Rep.  624;  92  C.  C.  A.  58;  reversin-; 
Gulden  V.  Chance,  163  I'ed.  Rep. 
447. 


Relief  refused  r/.v  against 
"Koke."2« 
"Colonial."  3'^ 
"Cuticle."  31 
"Don  Caesar."  •■'2 
"Everybody's  Soap."33 
"Glazine."34 
"Grain-Hearts."  35 
"  Tempest.  "3« 
"Ivory.  "37 
"Kelvinside."3s 

33 — I'roitor  &  Gamble  Co.  v. 
Globe  Refinin},'  Co.,  92  Fed.  Rep. 
357;    34  C.  C.  A.   405. 

34 — JlcCaw,  Stevenson  &  Orr, 
Ltd.    V.    Lee    Bros.,    23    R.    P.    C.    1. 

35 — Postum  Cereal  Co.  Ltd.  v. 
American  Health  Food  Co.,  109  Fed. 
Rep.  898. 

36 — Hurricane  Patent  Lantern 
Co.  V.  Miller.  56  How.  Pr.  234. 

37 — Goodwin  v.  Ivory  Soap  Co., 
23  R.  P.  C.  389. 

38— Meikh-  v.  Wiliiamsdii.  27  H. 
]'.    C.    775. 


§  138] 


lIitl'KINS  ON    Tl{  »I>i:.M  \KKS. 


SM 


Mark 
"Nccco.  *' 
"Now  Departure. 
■  *  Xorub. 
"No-to-bne." 
"One  Ni^'ht  Cure. 

"Puddine." 
"  I'yraiui<l." 
'Hoof  Leak." 
"Sal- Vet." 
"Sa|)])ota  Tola." 
"S.  B." 
"Sliurou." 
' '  Sozodont. ' ' 
"  We])er. " 
"  Winearnis. " 
"  Vaiiia-Mai." 


Relief  refused  as  (Kjainst 
"Na\\ac()."'''o 
"New  Idea."*" 
"Nodust."^' 
"Bneocuro."  '- 
"Heeshore        One 

Couf^li   Cure."  *^ 
"Puddiujr."  " 
"Spiralette."  ••' 
"Never  Leak."-"' 
"Sal  Tone."  •■ 
"Elastie  Tolu."'»8 
"R  &  S."*» 
"Stay-on."^" 
"Zodenta."'-' 
"Webster."-"'^ 
"Viiiealis."'-^ 
"Ma-niie."-'« 


Nipht 


Thus  it  has  been  held  tliat  the  mark  "Filofloss,"  applied  to 
.silk,    is    a    valid    trademark    notwithstanding'    the    i)rior  use    of 

30 — New    En;;laii(l     Confcctioncn-  Klliott    \'arnisli    Co.    v.    Sears,    Roo- 

Co.   V.   National   \\  af»r   Co.,   140   ('.  luick  &  Co.,  221   I'.d.  iiep.  707. 

C.  A.  .{(I;  224   Ft-d.  Rep.  344.  47— S.  R.  I<Vil  Co.  v.  John  "E.  Roh- 

40— Hamilton    Mfj;.   Co.   v.   Tul)l)S  l.ins  C(..,  l3fi  C.  C.  A.  2.-.S;  220  Fvd. 

Mf;:.  Co.,  21(5   F.-d.    R<'p.  401.  K.p.   (i.-.O. 

41_Van   ZiK-  v.   Nonil.    Mf;:.    Co.,  4H— Adams     v.      Ili-iscI,     :!!      F.d. 

228   Vi'd.   R«'p.   820.  Rip.   270. 

42 — St<Tlin^'    Rcnu'dy    Co.    v.    Ku-  40 — Hurt    v.   Siiiitli,  71    Ftil.    H<|). 

rcka.  Cli.-m.   Mfg.  Co.,  80  F.-d.   Rep.  Kil  1(53. 

10.'.;  25  C.  C.  A.  314.  r»0 — Kirstcin,  Sons  &  Co.  v.  Cdi.n 

43— Kolil.T  Mf^'.   Co.   V.   R.H'Hlion-  Rn.K..  30  Can.   Sup.  Ct..  28(5. 

(2i.  r.O   F.-d.   Rc'p.  .')72-.'.7(5;   8  C.  C.  :.l— Hall    &     Ruokil     v.     Ingram, 

A.  2 If,.  12(i   O.   G.  7'»0. 

44 — Clotwortliy      v.      Sclirpp,      42  '>2 — Foster  v.  Webster    i'lano  Co., 

F«-d.   Rep.  (12.  13   \.  Y.   Supp.  33H. 

4'! — Mo«'l>iuH    V.    Luuin    l)f    .longe  r>3 — Coleman    4    Co.    I.dl.    v.    .Ino. 

&  Co..  21f)  Fwl.  Rep.  443.  Urown  &  Co.,   lU    ii.    1".  C.   (510. 

40 — Soars,      RtK-liuek     4      Co      v.  r)4 — HiM-Hsneck  v.   Is<lin,  S2  \.  Y. 

Klliott   Varnish   Co.,  2.32   F.d     K.p.  Supp.   1(54. 
588,    500    (C.    C.    A.    7);     r<'V«rHing 


li.'jf)  inkkinoemp:!^.  [§138 

the  mark  '' Filosolle"  applied  to  silk  of  a  different  character  ;'*5 
that  the  mark  "Star"  and  an  iiiicolored  tin  star  is  not  in- 
Iringt'd  !>>'  "Starli{j;lit "  and  a  red  paper  star;'""  that  "  B.  T. 
Babbitt's  Tradcmaik  Best  Soaj)"  is  not  infringed  by  "P.  T. 
Butler's  Trademark  Best  Soap";""  that  the  name  "Social  Reg- 
ister" applied  to  a  directory  is  not  infringed  by  the  words 
"Newport  Social  Index"  ;•'•"  that  the  name  "Vichy"  was  not 
infringed  l)y  "Lithia-Vichy ",  there  being  numerous  artificial 
waters  ui)on  the  market;"'^  that  the  mark  "Rough-on-Rats" 
was  not  infringed  by  "Rough  on  Skeeters. "  the  goods  not 
being  in  comi)etition/''^  that  tlie  l)()ok  title  "Farthest  North, 
Nansen,"  was  not  infringed  by  "The  Fram  'Expedition.'  ""* 
While  the  word  "Muffler"  is  closely  similar  to  "Mufflet,"  and 
the  latter  is  a  valid  trademark  for  neck-scarfs,  the  use  of  the 
former  can  not  be  enjoined  because  it  is  aptly  descriptive  of 
the  article  to  which  it  is  applied/'- 

For    the    same    reason,    "Poresknit"    as    a    trademark    for 
underwear,    is   not   infringed  by  the   words  "Porous  Under- 


wear. 


(;.•? 


It  is  important  to  note  in  this  connection  the  expression  of 
Lord  Cran worth,  that  "It  would  be  a  mistake  to  suppose  that 
the  resemblance  must  be  such  as  would  deceive  persons  who 
should  see  the  two  marks  placed  side  by  side.  The  rule  .so 
restricted  would  be  of  no  practical  use."^-* 

And  another  rule  is  that  a  defendant  can  not  evade  the  charge 
of  infringement  by  "showing  that  the  device  or  inscription 
upon  the  imitated  mark  is  ambiguous,  and  capable  of  being 
understood  by  different  persons  in  different  ways.""'^' 

.')"» — Rawlinsoii      v.      Brainard     &  fil — Harper  v.  Lare.  O:}  Ffil.  Rep. 

Armstronj,' Co.,  .")!)  X.  y.  Supp.  880;  flSO;    ITarp.T    &    Bros.    v.    Lan-,    4.3 

28  Misc.   Ri-j).  287.  C.    C.    A.    182;    10.3    F.-d.    Bcp.    20.3. 

.')(! — Lifr^M'tt  &  Myors  Tobacco  Co.  (12 — Hyf^'icnic   Fleeced   Underwear 

V.  Finzer,  128  U.   S.   182;   32  L.  Ed.  Co.   v.   Way,   70  C.  C.   A.   5r)3 ;    137 

30.-).  Fed.   Rep.   592,  595. 

57— Baltl.itt    V.    Brown,    f.8    Ilun.  0.3— Chalmers     Knitting     Co.     v. 

515.  Columbia    Mesh    Knitting    Co..    lt>0 

58— .'=;ocial  R.'g.  Assn.  v.  :\Iurpliy.  Fed.   R.-p.   1013. 

128   Fed.    Rep.   llfi.  (14— Sei.xo    v.     Provezende,    1..     R. 

59 — La    Repiihlique    Francaise    v.  1    (  Ii.   D.   192. 

Schultz   (4K  115  Fed.  Rep.  19fi.  «).") — Lord   Watson   in   Singer  Mfg. 

(JO— Wells  V.  Ceylon  Perfume  Co.,  Co.  v.  Loog   (3),  8  App.  Cas.  39. 
105  Fed.  Rep.  621. 


§139] 


HOI'KINS  ON  TKADICMAUKS. 


336 


Jj  139.  Patent  office  rulings  on  similarity  of  alleged  conflict- 
ing marks. — The  tiocisioiis  of  the  several  commissioners  of  |»;it 
cuts  as  to  siiiiilurity  and  dissimilarity  of  inarLs  allc^'ed  to  \h-. 
conllu'tiu};  or  itlcntical  aro  fr(M|iitMitly  iiistriictivc  and  vahi- 
able  as  illustrations.  In  tin'  lan<znatr(*  of  Allen,  (  (innnissiont'r. 
"The  (jucstion  of  antic'i|)ation  Ity  a  prior  rcfristcrcd  nuirk  may 
be  tested  by  the  ([in^stioii  of  infrinfreinent.  Tin*  doi'trinc  of  the 
patent  law  that  that  wliii'li  would  infriiifre  if  latfi-  in  datf  will 
auticijiate  if  earlior  is  aiijilicablc  to  (|uostions  of  trademark,  for 
it   involves  only  the  question  of  substantial  identity." '"'" 

In  the  following  eases  registration  was  refused  upon  a  prior- 
refjistered  mark  because  of  the  similarity  adjudf^ed  by  the 
Commissioner  to  exist  between  them: 


Th(*  Api)li(anf's  inark 
"Tolonial." 
"I)yspei)tieide. " 
"Liveroid." 
"Maple  Leaf." 
"Nitro-llunter." 
"Pepko." 
"Satin  Skin." 
"Sajrafoani." 
"Telepraphone." 
"Velva." 


licjccted  on 

" Colonial  Dame."" 
"Dyspeiitieure."«8 
"Liveraid."  ''•• 
"Silver  Leaf." '•> 
"Nitro.""> 
"Pep-Kola." -2 
"Satiiu'tte.""-' 
"Sea  Foam."  "^ 
' '  Telen:rai)hoi)hone, ' ' 
"Velvet." '" 


75 


§  140.     Miscellaneous  matters  relating  to  infringement. — In 

the  cases  of  infrin^reinent   it   is  manifest   that   the  policy  of  the 


fiO — Et  parte  KcyHtoin'  ("liamois 
Co.,  101  Oir.  Caz.  .3 1(10. 

fl7— Alli'n  B.  Wrislf-y  Co.  v. 
Buck,  n.l  Off.  Caz.   2483. 

OK— A'x  parte  Foley  &  Co.,  K7  Off. 
Caz.    in. '.7. 

m—F.x  pitrtr  |)r  Iliirt^r  Mid.  Co., 
Km   Off.    Oh/..    177{t. 

',{\—Ex  parte  V.ipl  A  Son.  W  Off. 
Oa/.    2321. 

71— Ax  parte  \V.  15.  M.  ll.na|.  \ 
Co.,   lO.'i  Off.   Cnz.   715. 


72— /:x  parte  .Vuttmi,  108  Off. 
Oaz.    201. 

7:1— Wood  V.  Hinclimiui,  llo  off. 
Cnz.  (500. 

74 — Ex  parte  Sodnfcmii  Hakin^,' 
I*o\v(kT   Co..   iX;   <^ff.    Caz.    ll'M). 

I't—Ex  parte  HutcliiriH.  100  Off. 
Chz.  1. •{:»(». 

7(1 — Ex  parte  Willard  Clicm.  Co., 
107    off.    (Jaz.    I'.t72. 


337 


INFUINOEMENT. 


§140 


law  is  clear,  and  that  dil'liciilty  in  (Iftrniiiiiin^'  i|iirsti(tMs  of 
inl'i-iiij^cnuMit  arises  only  out  of  llio  facts. 

It  was  asked  in  tlie  English  Hoiise  of  Lords.  "How  can  obser- 
vutions  of  judges  upon  otiicr  and  (juite  different  facts  bear 
upon  the  present  ease,  in  which  the  only  (picstion  is  what  is 
the  result  of  the  evidence?"''  Analogies  will,  however,  fre- 
quently be  found  in  tiie  ad.iudi«'at('d  eases  whieli  may  assist  in 
classifying  tiie  cliaracter  of  infringement  under  consideration. 

Infringements  which  disjday  llie  name  or  initials  of  the 
defendant  arc  none  llie  less  infringements  if  any  substantial 
portion  of  the  mark  is  taken  from  tlie  ])laiiitiiT's  mark."*'  This 
princi]ilc  has  ])een  apjilied  to  a  case  where  tlie  defendant  had 
washed  i)laintiff's  labels  off  his  bottles,  leaving  only  the  marks 
l)lowii  or  moulded  in  the  glass,  and  bad  pasted  his  own  labels 
upon  the  bottles,'"  although  in  similar  cases,  where  the  name 
of  the  defendant  was  conspicuously  displayed  on  the  new  label, 
injunction  was  refused.''"  But  the  fact  that  the  defendant  does 
display  his  name  upon  his  goods  is  always  to  be  considered 
as  a  circumstaTU'C  in  liis  favor.^' 

Infringement  applied  to  goods  o<f  equal  quality. — It  is  settled 
that  the  fact  that  the  defendant's  goods  are  ecpuil  in  quality 
to  the  plaintift"s  is  no  defense  to  the  action  of  infringement. 
As  said  by  Judge  McLean:  "To  entitle  a  complainant  to 
protection  against  a  false  rci)rcscntation  it  is  not  essential  that 


77 — Lord  Watson  in  Johnson  v. 
Orr-E\vin<r,  H.   L.   7   App.  Cas.  210. 

78 — Sawyer  Crystal  Blue  Co.  v. 
Hubbard,  32  Fed.  Rep.  388;  An- 
heuaer-Buscli  Brewin<j  Association 
V.  Clarke,  26  Fed.  Rep.  410;  Gar- 
rett V.  T.  H.  Garrett  &  Co.,  24  C.  C. 
A.  173;  78  Fed.  Rep.  472;  Anheuser- 
Busch  Brewing  Association  v.  Piza, 
24  Fed.  Rep.  149;  Hostetter  v. 
Adams,  10  Fed.  Rep.  838;  Pepper  v. 
Labrot,  8  Fed.  Rep.  29 ;  Shaw  Stock- 
ing Co.  V.  Mack,  12  Fed.  Rep.  707; 
McCann  v.  Anthony,  21  Mo.  App. 
83;  Bass.  Ratcliff  &  Gretton  (Ltd.) 
V.    F«'igenspan.    9(5    Fed.    Rep.    206. 

79 — Hostetter  v.  Anderson.  1  W. 
W.  &  A"B.   Eq.   7;    Seb.   652;    Rose 


V.  Loftus,  47  L.  J.  Ch.  576;  38  L. 
T.  X.  S.  409;  Seb.  608;  Rose  v. 
Ilenly,  Seb.  5.51. 

80— \V<-ldi  V.  Knott,  4  K.  &  J. 
747 ;  Barret  v.  (Jomm.  74  L.  T. 
(Journal)    388. 

81 — "This  is  one  of  the  impor- 
tant means  of  identification."'  Sev- 
erens,  J.,  in  Proctor  &  Gamble  Co. 
V.  GIoIm'  Refining  Co..  34  C.  C.  A. 
405;  92  Fed.  Rep.  357-362.  And  see 
Kann  v.  Diamond  Steel  Co.,  89  Fed. 
Rep.  706;  P.  Lorillard  Co.  v.  Peper, 
30  C.  C.  A.  496;  86  Fed.  Rep.  956- 
959 ;  affirming  P.  Lorillard  Co.  v. 
Peper,  65  Fed.  Rep.  597;  BlackwoU 
V.  Cral)b,  36  L.  J.  Ch.  504;  Beard 
V.  Turner,  13  L.  T.  N.  S.  746. 


$141]  HOPKINS  ON   TKADKMAHKS.  338 

thf  artii'lc  should  be  iiifi'iior  in  (luality.  " "-  And  in  an  English 
case  involving  the  nianufai'ture  of  metallic  hones.  Lord  Dcu- 
nian  instructed  the  jury  that  "even  if  the  defendant's  hones 
were  not  inferior,  the  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  some  damages, 
inasmuch  as  his  right  had  been  invaded  i)y  the  fraudulent  act 
of  the  defendant."^'  It  may  be  regarde<l  as  settled  that  it  is 
immaterial,  in  the  language  of  Judge  Morris,  whether  the  de- 
fendant's goods  "be  Ix'tfei-  or  worse  in  (|uality."''' 

i:;  141.  The  use  of  letters  and  numerals.  'I'lie  i)rinci|)Ie  that 
there  can  be  trademark  rights  in  letters  oi-  numerals  can  not 
be  considered  as  finally  settled.  (liJhitt  r.  EstrrhrooJ,-,''^'  in 
which  the  defendant  was  enjoined  from  using  the  numerals 
"303."  was  for  a  time  regarded  as  upholding  their  use  as  a 
trademark.  h\\\  the  case  is  known  and  recognized  as  a  case  of 
unfair  competition.''"  The  leading  English  ease,  Aitu<iUH}rth  v. 
Walmshif.  is  very  similar  to  (lilloff  v.  Esfrrhrook,  siipro.  in  that 
while  the  imitation  of  a  series  of  inimbers  was  considered  as 
one  of  the  elements  justifying  injunction.  Vice-Chancellor  Wood 
carefully  distinguished  tliem  as  not  lieing  a  technical  trade- 
mark.^" There  is  no  case,  however,  in  England  in  which  the 
courts  have  recognized  "a  mere  numeral  or  combination  of 
numerals,  standing  alone,  as  sufficiently  arbitrary  and  distinc- 
tive to  constitute  a  trademark."  ****  and  the  United  States  Cir- 
cuit Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Sixth  Circuit  has  flatly  held  that 
a  "bare  numeral"  can  not  be  a  trademark.''" 

Of  course  inimcrals  may  form  a  jiart  of  a  trademark,  in 
combination  or  collocation  with  words,  figures  or  designs,  and 

82— CofT.i-n    V.     Bruntoii     (2),    T)  Dupuis     (Mass.  i.    1(>7    N.    K.     Rop. 

Mrl^-an.  2r)fl;    Fwl.   Caw>  No.  2.047.  .'^80. 

H.J— Hlofipid     V.     Payne.    4     B.    &  Rf)— 47  Bnrl).   4.">r);    Cox,  340. 

Ad.   410;    S«'h.   r>0.     Sm'  alHo  Tnylor  8(1— Browne    on    Trademnrkt*     (2d 

V.    Carpenter    (2 1.    2    W.    &    M.     1;  «'d.  I .  S    228. 

Cox.  ;J2;    Taylor   v.   Car|)enter    (.'I  I,  87 — AinHwortli    v.     Walmsley,    L. 

2     Sandf.     Ch.     OO.'J;      Kdelsten     v.  R.    1    Va\.  r)l«-.-.27. 

Kdelnten,   1   DKJ.   J.   A    S.    18.');    Seb.  88 — Sehastian       on       TrademarkH 

21.3.  (4th    V.(\.).  p.  7M. 

84— Sawyer  v.   Horn,   1    Fed.  Rep.  80- Dennirton         Mf^-         (^"o.        v. 

24:J8.     T<i  the  Bame  effect  we  Cut-  Seharff   Ta;;.   Laln-l    &    Box    Co.,   68 

Ur  V.  ('.w\iUri>(\  BroH.  Co.,  .'i.'i  \.  Y.  C.   C.    A.    2ti.1 ;    ViCt    K.-d.    Rep.    025, 

Supp.   208;    (;r<KerH'   Supply   Co.    v.  628. 


•Md 


INKHINUEMENT. 


§141 


many  cases  in  Avhicli  llicii'  iiiiital ion  lias  l)oen  restrained 
turned  upon  this  i)oint  ;  ""  they  will  also  be  i)roteetecl  when  used 
in  an  arbitrary  aiul  dihilinet ive  manner  which  conveys  no  idea 
of  inimhei-,  although  they  would  prohal^ly  not  be  so  used 
excei)t  in  collocation  with  designs  or  words."'  in  one  case 
it  was  held  that  a  eonii)lainant  was  entitled  to  tlic  exclusive 
use  of  a  trademark  consisting  of  the  figures  V^,  only  in  the  form, 
size,  color  and  style  in  whidi  it  had  been  registered  and  used."- 

Thc  strongest  ease  holding  that  numerals  alone  may  form 
a  valid  technical  trademark  is  Shaw  Stockinfj  Co.  v.  Mack,^^ 
in  which  Judge  Coxe  ably  reviews  the  decisions  and  argues 
that  the  rejection  of  numerals  as  trademark  was  invariably 
because  of  their  use  indicating  quality  rather  than  origin  or 
ownership;  but  lie  finally  bases  the  reason  of  his  decree  of 
injunction  flatly  upon  the  defendant's  fraudulent  competition. 

The  iiractical  difficulty  in  the  way  of  constructing  a  trade- 
mark from  numerals  alone  is  that  the  defendant  could  always 
find  a  multiplicity  of  excuses  for  selecting  the  same  numerals, 
and  the  cases  indicate  that  the  courts  grant  ample  protection 
to  their  use  as  against  their  fraudulent  imitation."^ 

Even  where  inimerals  were  originally  indicative  of  origin 
and  ownershij),  if  they  have  come  to  be  used  to  indicate  qual- 
ity, any  one  having  the  right  to  make  or  sell  the  article  in 
connection  wherewith  such  numerals  are  so  used  may  desig- 
nate the  article  by  the  numerals.'*'' 


no — Boardman  v.  Mcridi-n  Brit- 
annia Co.,  3.")  Conn.  402;  Lawrence 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Lowell,  129  Mass.  325; 
Humphreys'  Specific  Med.  Co.  v. 
Wenz,  14  Fed.  Rep.  2.')0;  Carver 
V.  Pinto  Leite,  L.  R.  7  Ch.  App. 
90;  Robinson  v.  Finlay,  L.  R.  9 
Ch.  D.  487;  Broadhurst  v.  Barlow, 
W.  N.  1872,  p.  212;  Carver  v.  Bow- 
ker.  Sel).  '^S\  ;  Ralli  v.  Fleming:,  Ind. 
L.  R.  3  Cale.  417. 

91 — Kinney  v.  Basch,  10  Am. 
Law  Reg.  N.  S.  596;  Seb.  542— 
properly  a  case  of  unfair  competi- 
tion. 

92 — Kinney  v.  Allen.  1  Hughes, 
lOG ;  Seb.  r^'il ;    Fed.  Case  No.  7826. 

93—12   Fed.   Rep.   707.      See   also 


to  tln'  came  effect  Smith  &  Davis 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Smith,  89  Fed.  Rep. 
486. 

04— Oilliott  V.  Kettle,  3  Duer 
624;  American  Solid  Leather  But- 
ton Co.  V.  Anthony,  Ir,  R.  I.  338; 
Collins  V.  Reynolds  Card  Mfg.  Co., 
7  Abb.  X.  C.  17;  India  Rubber 
Coml)  Co.  V.  Jewelry  Co.,  45  X. 
Y.  Sup.  Ct.  258;  Sohl  v.  Geisen- 
dorf.  1  Wills.  (Ind.)  60;  Hazard 
V.  Caswell.  57  How.  Pr.  1;  Glen 
&  Hall  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Hall,  61  X.  Y. 
226;  19  Am.  Rep.  278;  Seb.  443; 
Humj)hreys'  Homeopathic  Medicine 
Co.  V.  Hilton.  60  Fed.  Rep.  756. 

nri — Smith  &  Davis  :\Ifg.  Co.  v. 
Smith,   89    Fed.    Rep.   486. 


§141]  HOPKINS  ON  TRADEMAKKS.  :i4<> 

Tlu*  miinhtT  888  wsvd  as  a  call  for  a  tclcphoiio  coiupaiiy  "s 
so-callcil  "trouble  (Iciiartnu'iit ""  was  the  basis  of  an  application 
for  iiijiiiu'tion  ajraiiist  a  rival  I'oinpaiiy  whicli  adopted  the  same 
number  for  tin*  same  purpose.  The  theory  of  tlu'  a|)itlieation 
was  that  the  ealls  bein^'  the  same,  the  later  user  \vo\il(l  or  mi^ht 
learn  of  defeets  in  the  rival's  customer's  .service  and  u.se  tiiis 
information  to  induce  its  rival's  i)atron.s  to  use  the  respond- 
ent's telephones.  The  application  is,  upon  tiie  face  of  the  opin- 
ion, one  of  the  most  protescpie  attempts  to  pervert  the  law 
of  unfair  competition.     The  relief  soufjht  for  was  denied."" 

In  repard  to  letters,  standing:  alone  or  in  initial  combina- 
tions, the  Eiifrlish  courts  have  from  an  early  ])eriod  treated 
them  as  trademark.s,""  although  it  appears  that  under  the  Enj;- 
lish  Act  of  ISTf).  38  and  39  Vict.,  c.  91,  Vice-rhancellor  Hall 
has  held  a  single  letter  can  not  be  registered  as  a  trademark."^ 

The  use  of  a  single  letter  would  appear  to  be  at  least  unsafe, 
although  it  might  in  the  Ignited  States  be  regarded  as  a  trade- 
mark ;  and  Judge  Bradford  in  a  recent  oi)inion  suggests  that 
a  single  letter  or  figure  may  be  "so  peculiar  aiul  unusual  in 
form  or  ornamentation"  as  to  be  a  valid  trademark.'''' 

Combinations  of  letters,  used  as  initials,  have  been  fre- 
quently apjiroved  as  trademarks  in  the  American  decisions,' 
and  in  the  case  of  AmosUc(i<j  MfiJ.  <'"■  r.  Tro'inir,-  in  the 
federal  supreme  court,  the  decision,  which  held  the  letters 
"A  C  A"   were  not  a   valid  tradcmai-k.   was  based   upon  the 

Wt — Kofky     Mountain    I?«ll     Tclf-  (  l\l)«)nii,   Scli.    .").{:$;    .Moct  v.    IMck.-r- 

plioni-    Co.    V.     rtah    Ti-lcplioiic    Co.,  in*:.    L.    W.   H   Cli.    I).   372;    Kt  partr 

31   Utah  377;    SH  Pac.   Ucp.  2(5.  ^<>un;,^      Scli.      ."):J7 ;       Hansomt"      v. 

07 — RanBonn'   v.    lUntall,   3   L.   .1.  Craliani.  .">1    L.  J.  Cli.  S!t7 ;   Hon<li«r 

Ch.     Kil;     Motlt'V     V.     Downmaii.    3  v.    Dcpatic,    3    Dorion,    233;     In     r< 

My.    i    Cr.    1;    MillinKton    v.    Tox,  Hrook,  2(5  \V.    H.   7!>1. 

3     My.    4     Cr.     338;     CrawHliay     v.  OS— /»    »>•    Mitdi<ll.    I..    K.    7   Cli. 

Tliompw.n.    4    M.    Si    G.    357;    Kina-  I).  3(5;    J(5   h.  .F.  Ch.  STC;   2(i  W.   \\. 

han   V.  Holton.   i:>   Ir.  Ch.  7.'.;   Hop-  32(5;    CartniHl,   22(5. 

kinH   V.    HitdK-.K-k.    11    C.    H.    N.    S.  Oil— Dcnniwon    Mf-r.    Co.    v.   Thoni 

(55;    Hall    v.    HarroWH,   4    D.-fJ.    .1.    i  aH  Mf^'.    Co..  04    Fed.    Hep.    (551(558. 

S.     150;     ItarrowH    v.     I'dHall,    Scl>.  1 — Ccron     v.     CartniT.     47     Fed. 

530;   In  rr  IJarrowH,   L.   H.  5  Ch.   I).  H<|i.     4(57;     Frank    v.     Shopcr,    150 

353;    CartHT    v.    Carlih-,    31     Hcav.  Matw.    583. 

2fl2;  Carti.r  V.  W.-nth.-ad,  S.li.  100;  2— KU    U.    S.   51;    25   L.   Kd.   0'.t3. 
Carticr  v.  May,   Scb.   200;    Moct  v. 


;141  INFRINGEMENT.  (§141 

theory  that  those  h-tters  as  used  hy  the  eomphiiiiaiit  were 
indicative  of  quality,  and  not  of  ori^'in  or  ownersliip,  as  JudK^ 
Coxe  has  pointed  out.'  There  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt  that 
both  numerals  and  letters  of  the  alphabet  may  Kometiraes 
be  technical  trademarks,  and  the  objection  to  their  use  in 
that  capacity  has  been  well  stated  by  Judge  Colt  in  the 
Supreme  Court  of  :\Iassachusetts  to  be  "the  difficulty  of  giv- 
ing to  bare  numbers  the  cfFcet  of  indicating  origin  or  owner- 
ship, and  of  showing  tliat  the  mimbers  used  were  originally 
designed  for  that  i)urpose."  '  And  the  same  i>raetical  sug- 
gestion was  offered  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Connecticut  in 
these  words:  "It  may  be  difficult  to  give  to  bare  numbers  the 
effect  of  indicating  origin  or  ownership,  and  it  may  be  still 
more  difficult  to  show  that  they  were  originally  designed  for 
that  purjiosc:  but  if  it  be  once  shown  that  that  was  the  orig- 
inal design,  and  that  they  have  had  that  effect,  it  may  not 
be  easy  to  assign  a  reason  why  they  should  not  receive  the 
same  protection,  as  trademarks,  as  any  other  symbol  or  de- 
vice.'"^ 

A  review  of  the  cases  indicates  that  the  use  of  numerals 
or  letters  has  been  restrained  sometimes  on  the  theory  that 
they  were  technical  trademarks,  but  never  where  they  were 
merely  used  to  indicate  quality;''  and  where  injunction  has 
issued,  the  facts  show  that  the  infringing  figures  or  letters 
were  used  in  fraudulent  comi)etition.^ 

In  this  connection  it  is  well  to  note  that  "there  can  be  no 
doubt,  and  indeed  it  is  not  disjnited.  that  two  letters  may 
constitute    a    trademark.''**      So    the    American    courts    have 

.3 — Rliaw    Stoekinji    Co.    v.    Mack,  7 — Ranaomo    v.    Bontall,    3    L.    .7. 

12  Fed.  Rep.  707.  Cli.   N.   S.    ir.l;    Cillot  v.   Kottlo,   .3 

4— Lawrence   Mf-;.   Co.   v.   Lowell.  Duer,  f>24;   Ainsworth  v.  Walmsley, 

120    Mass.    32.')-.     Price    &    Steuart.  L.   R.    1    Eq.    'AH;    Oillott   v.   Ester- 

418.  l.rook.  47   Barli.   45.-);   Cox.   340;    4S 

r, — Boardman    v.     Meriden     Brit-  X.  Y.  374:  8  Am.  Rep.  .).')3 :  Broad- 

annia  Co.,  3.")  Conn.  402;   Cox,  490.  luirst    v.    Barlow.    W.    X.    1872.    p. 

6_/„  rr  Eaple  Pencil  Co.,  10  Off.  212;    S.h.    411:    Kinney    v.    Basch, 

Oaz.  981;   Amoskeaj,'  Co.  v.  Trainer,  S.I..   .")42;    Avery   v.   Meikle,   81  Ky. 

101  U.  S.  r.l;  25  L.  Ed.  093;  Stevens  75. 

Linen    Works    v.    Williani    &    John  8 — Kinahan  v.  Bolton,  15   Tr.  Ch. 

Don  &   Co..   121   Fed.   Rep.    171;   af-  75. 
firmed    (52   C.   C.    A.   582;    127    Fed. 
Rep.   950. 


^  \4'2\  HOrKIN'P  ox  TRADEMARKS.  342 

uniformly  lu-Ul  tluit  mtuuijxrauis  or  ^'mups  uf  two  (.r  iiutre 
letters  not  iiulieative  of  (luality  consfilutc  valid  tiadtiiiiiiks ; 
thus  we  lind  that  the  foUow  iii^  iiuirks  liave  heen  hchl  valid: 
"A.  U."  applied  to  ^•i^'ars  and  eolTee ;  "  "IV  H.  H. "  applifd 
to  a  medieine ;  '"  "  H.  H.  1 1."  applied  to  iron  ;  "  "S.  li.  "  applied 
to  coufrh-drops: '-  "(J.  E.  "  applied  to  eleetrie  lamps; '='  "(J. 
F.'"  api>lied  to  velvet  ribbon;"  "O.  F.  C."  applied  to  whis- 
key;"'' ""A.  <".  A."  applied  to  ticking;  "'  'M.  II.  W."  applied 
to  boots;''  "T.  O.  (\"  applied  to  oil-eloth.'""  And  we  find 
that  similar  jrroups  of  letters  and  monograms  have  been 
treated  as  valid   by  the   Entrlish   deeisions.'" 

§142.  The  judicial  test  of  infringement.  -It  may  be  said, 
penerally.  that  the  coiirts  will  api>l>-  to  tin'  facts,  in  the  class 
of  eases  that  we  are  considering,  any  and  all  tests  whieh  are 
necessary  to  determine  whether  or  not  the  competition  estab- 
lished by  the  defendant  is  fraudulent.  In  delivering  the  n\nn- 
ion  of  the  federal  sujireme  court  in  ('oofs  r.  .1/rrnV/r  Thmul  Co., 
Mr.  Justice  Brown  observed:  "The  differences  are  less  con- 
spicuous than  the  general  resemblance  between  the  two.  At 
the  .same  time,  they  are  such  as  could  not  fail  to  impress  them- 
selves up<»n  a  ])erson  who  examined  them  with  a  view  to 
ascertain   who   was  the   real    manufacturer  of  the  thread."-" 

«(_(;odillnt      V.      Aiu.iiiaii      (in)-  v.    \m\\>,  .VI   All>.    I-.    1.    4.").".;    Frank 

n-ry  Co..  71    F.-d.  Ucp.  S7:{.  v.  SJvciht.   I.-.(t  Miiss.  :.s:{ ;  2:i  N.   K. 

l()_Ko8t<T  V.   Hlood   Hahn  ('(...  77  lU'p.    ~^^ 

(Ja.  2KJ;   .'{  S.   K.   Hfi>.  2S4.  17— Walk. t    v.     U.id.    Fed.    Cam* 

11— Hall    V.    Harrows.   4    DcC.   J.  N«  •   17(iS4. 

4    S.    I.jO.  18— Standard  Tal)!.-  ()il  I'loth  Vo. 

12— Burt   V.   Sniitli,  71   F.-d.    R.'j).  v.    Tr.-iit.m    Oil    Cloth    &    Liiiid.-um 

ICl  Co..  71    .v.    1.  F.q.  .'>')■">:   <">:t  At!.   U.'p. 

13 — f;cncral  Kl.-ctric  Co.  v.  Renew  S4(t. 

Lamp   Co..    12S    F.-d.    H.-p.    ir.4.  IJ)— Hopkins    v.    llit.lic.ck,    11    C. 

14_4;irnn     v.     flartrnr,     47     F..1.  H.    N.    S.    O.");    Paul    v.    Harn.ws.    4 


Rep.   4(J7. 


DeO.  .1.  &  S.   l.')();   In  n    Harrows.  L. 


l.r, — n«).  T.   Sta^'^'  Co.  V.  Taylor,  R.    -^    Cl>.    H.    :<•'»•*<;    Cartier    v.    Car- 

n.'i  Kv.   n.'il  ;   27   S.   W.   Rep.  247.  Iil«'.  ^H    H.avan.  21)2;    Moet  v.  Pirk- 

KvLAmoHkeaj.'  Mfj?-  Co.  v.  Train-  erinjr.  L.  R.  H  Ch.  D.  ."172;   Frankaii 

er.    101    V.    S.    r.l;    2.'.    L.    K.l.    Wy.\\  V.     I'op.'.     11     Cap.-    of    C.iod     Hop.-. 

(diHH-'nt    of    Mr.    .luHtiee    CiUrordl.  '200. 

To    tli«-    wime    efT.s't    H.-e    Hiirton    v.  2(»— CoatH      v.       Merriek      Tlin-a.l 

Stratton,    12   F.-d.    Rep.  (ll»tl;    Smitb  Co.,   140  U.  S.   .Wi;    37   L.   I'M.   847. 


;U.}  rNFIilNGEMElNT.  l§  H2 

And  ill  all  rases  the  courl  will  iiisiicct  not  only  liu'  tlifTcrences 
l)iit  the  rcscinblanccs,  as  Ix.tli  must  be  considered  in  ascer- 
tainiiiK  wln'tlirr  tlie  fompctition  Ix'twceii  the  i)artics  is  fair 
or  fi-andiil.'nt.  As  said  by  .Iii<lj;<'  Scvcrcns:  "It  lias  been 
said  that  it  is  the  resemblances  that  should  be  looked  at, 
rather  than  the  difTerenees.  Tint  the  existeneo  of  the  latter 
nc^'utives  the  former,  and  it  is  necessary  to  take  both  into 
view,  in  order  to  pet  a  correct  picture  of  the  whole."-' 

Of  course  the  defendant  can  not  avail  himself  r)f  dissim- 
ilarities which  become  apparent  only  upon  comparison  of  the 
plaintiff's  and  defendant's  packagres  or  marks.  This  is  because 
purchasers  do  not  have  the  opportunity  of  makinp:  compari- 
sons. "A  specific  article  of  approved  excellence  comes  to  be 
known  by  certain  catchwords  easily  retained  in  memory,  or 
by  a  certain  i^icturc  which  the  eye  readily  rccoprnizcs.  The 
jnirchaser  is  recpiircd  only  to  use  that  care  which  persons 
ordinarily  exercise  under  like  circumstances.  He  is  not  bound 
to  study  or  reflect.  He  acts  upon  the  moment.  He  is  with- 
out the  opportunity  of  comparison.  It  is  only  when  the  differ- 
ence is  so  grross  that  no  sensible  man  acting  on  the  instant 
would  be  deceived,  that  it  can  be  said  that  the  purchaser  oujrht 
not  to  be  protected  from  imposition.  Indeed,  some  cases  have 
gone  to  the  length  of  declaring  that  the  purchaser  has  a  right 
to  be  careless,22  and  that  his  want  of  caution  in  inspecting 
brands  of  goods  with  which  he  supposes  himself  to  be  famil- 
iar ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  uphold  a  simulation  of  a  brand 
that  is  designed  to  work  fraud  upon  the  public.  However 
that  may  be,  the  imitation  need  only  be  slight  if  it  attaches 
to  what  is  most  salient ;  for  the  usual  inattention  of  a  pur- 
chaser renders  a  goodwill  ]irecarious,  if  exposed  to  imposi- 
tion. "23 

2l_l>roctor     &     Gamble     Co.     v.  Fed.  Rop.  327-332;   42  C.  C.  A.  370. 

Cilolie    Rpfininj?    Co.,    n2    Fed.    Rep.  Tlic      test     penfrally      applied      is. 

3r)7-3(»2;    34   C.   C.   A.  405.  wlictlier    one    "in    the    use    of    ordi- 

22 — It    has    lieen    held    on    circuit  nary  care"  can  he  deceived.     Sartor 

that    tlie     careless     purchaser     will  v.    Smith.    125   Ta.    t>r>5 :    101    N.    W . 

not  he   protected.      X.   K.   Fairhank  Rep.    515. 

Co.   V.    Luckel,  Kinj;    &    Cake   Soap  23 — Tcnkins.    .1..    in    Pillslmry    v. 

Co.,  88  Fed.  Rep.  «)04 ;  but  the  case  Flour-Mills. Co.,   64   Fed.    Rep.   841- 

was  reversed  on   appeal:    8.^  c,   102  847;    12  C.   C.   A.   432. 


§  H2] 


HOPKINS  ON   TK.VDKMAUKS. 


a44 


Tlio  fort'^iiinjj  extract  \vv\  fully  cxprossos  llio  rharai-tcr 
of  supervision  over  fairness  in  trade  exercised  by  our  courts 
of  eijuity.  When  an  article  has  become  known  by  a  catch- 
word or  a  peculiar  package,  any  one  seeking  to  use  that  I'orui 
of  package,  or  a  mark  or  name  that  suggests  the  catchword, 
must  take  can*  to  kct'j)  within  the  Ixiunds  of  fairness  in  trade 
in  so  doing.-' • 

Mere  colorable  distinctions,  so  arranged  as  to  eseape 
notice,-'*  the  use  of  labels  which  may  be  removed  by  retail 
dealers,  leaving  the  imitated  marks  free  to  effect  deeeption.^" 
and  all  the  other  devices  and  -schemes  of  fraudnlont  competi- 
tion disclosed  by  the  reports,  are  taken  into  consideration  in 
determining  the  right  to  etpiitable  relief.  One  of  the  most 
imjiortant  tests  is  the  existence  of  similarities  of  detail, 
whether  of  design,  form,  size,  color  or  material.  Relief  will 
always  be  granted  when  "it  is  manifest  from  a  comparison 
(of  the  two  articles  in  controversy)  that  one  was  copi«'(l  from 
the  other."-'  The  court  does  not  search  for  dissimilarities, 
but  for  j)oints  of  resemblance.-'* 


24— .Stuart  v.  F.  G.  Stewart  Co.. 
ftl  F»'d.  K.'p.  24.3;  .33  C.  C.  A.  481). 
So  the  uw  of  the  word  "•Iwaiita" 
hai)  Ihh'II  enjoined  as  bein;.;;  a  fraud 
upon  tlie  owner  of  the  trademark 
"Unetda,"  hotli  words  hein;;  applied 
to  biscuit.  National  Hi.scuit  ("o. 
V.  Baker,  n.")  Fed.  Rep.  1.3.").  And 
Ro  of  the  pliraM'  "Candy  Catliar- 
tic"  uwd  by  the  plaintifT  with  tlie 
word  "Cascarets"  and  by  the  de- 
fendant with  tlie  word  "Cascara." 
.St<Tlinp  Remedy  Co.  v.  fJorey.  110 
Fed.   Rep.  .372  37.3. 

25— Taylor    v.    Taylor.    L. 
K(\.  200;    23   L.   .1.   Ch.  2.'.r.. 

26 — Harlow    v.    .JohnHon,    7 
C.    30.'>. 

27 — Shijiman.  .1..  in  Dixon  (^rti- 
cible  Co.  V.  lii-nliiim,  I  Fed.  Rep. 
.'.27 -.'.30. 

28— IIo«t«-tter  V.  Arlam.*.  10  Fed. 
Rep.  83K.sr2.  ThuM  .ludjre  I.a 
comlM-,     in     eouHiderin;,'     conflicting 


R. 


i:    I' 


liquor  labels,  said:  "Inspection  of 
the  lrtl)els  must  carry  conviction  to 
any  unl.iased  and  unprejudiced 
mind  that  the  later  label  was  pre- 
pared by  some  one  who  had  seen 
tlie  earlier  one,  and  that  it  was 
desifjned,  not  to  dilT»Tentiate  the 
".'oods  to  which  it  was  aflixed.  Itut  to 
simulate  a  res<ml)lance  to  com- 
plainant's ;^oods  sudiciently  stronj; 
to  mislead  the  consumer,  althuu;;!) 
containing?  variations  sufficient  to 
ar^rue  about  should  the  desipner 
be  l(ro\ij.'iit  into  coiirt.  This  is  the 
usual  artifice  of  the  unfair  trad- 
er." ('olliiis|ilatt  V.  Finlayson,  Rft 
Fed.  Rep.  (i!13.  In  another  recent 
ease  the  same  court  says:  "There 
are  as  usual  a  luimber  of  minor 
diflTerences  iM-twi-en  the  form  and 
the  dress  of  the  two  packa^ei^ 
which  are  expatiated  upon  in  the 
afliiiiivits  and  (lie  lirief;  but  no 
one     can     look     at     liotli     packafjes. 


345 


INFKINCK.MKNT. 


1§M_' 


"Wlici'c  tlicrc  aft'  iOmid  slron^^  rcsciiihlaiicc's,  the  iiatiiral 
inquiry  lor  tlic  ('(niit  is,  w  iiy  do  they  exist?  If  no  sufficifnt 
answer  appears,  the  iiilCrciicc  is  that  they  exist  for  the  |)ur- 
pose  of  niish'adint;. " -"•' 

No  niattei-  what  minor  differenees  may  exist  in  the  tests 
of  infrinj^ement  ajjplied  by  various  eourts,  it  lias  been  uni- 
forndy  noted  that  tlie  faet  that  purchasers  have  no  oppor- 
tunity of  comparison  must  l)e  considered,  and  the  genuine 
and  alleji^ed  infriiifrinp:  marks  must  1)e  judpfcd  by  the  court, 
therefore,  in  tlie  li^dit  of  tliat  fact.^'^ 

"Where  the  resemblance  resides  in  the  form,  color,  etc.,  of 
the  defendant's  container,  the  usual  defense  is  that  the  con- 
tainer is  common  to  the  trade.  That  defense  is  not  favored 
when  tlie  differences  i)reseiit  "do  not  destroy  the  general  sim- 
ilarity of  ai)i)earance  to  the  ordinary  jiurchaser,'' ^*  and  the 
fact  that  the  containers  were  specially  manufactured  for  the 
defendant  is  of  weight. •'- 

"The  test  of  infringement  *  *  *  is  the  same  as  is 
applied  in  design  patents ;  that  is,  whether  ordinary  i)urchasers 
would  be  mislead  by  the  similarity  between  the  designs  in 
controversy."  ^^ 


without  piTctuviiig  that  there  are 
stroiij;  ri'semhlanct'S,  whicli  could 
easily  have  been  avoided  had  there 
been  an  honest  effort  to  give  de- 
fendant's goods  a  distinctive 
dress."  National  Biscuit  Co.  v. 
Baker,  O.!    Fed.    Rep.    135. 

In  referring  to  conflicting  la- 
blcs,  Judge  Gilbert,  in  a  recent  de- 
cision, says  "these  differences  are 
such  as  are  usually  introduced 
where  the  intention  is  to  make  an 
unfair  use  of  an  established  trade- 
mark, and  at  the  same  time  so 
far  depart  therefrom  as  to  avoid 
the  charge  of  infringement."  Kos- 
tering  v.  Seattle  Brewing  &  Malt- 
ing Co.,  54  C.  C.  A.  76;  110  Fed. 
Rep.   620. 

29 — Liirton,  J.,  in  Paris  Medi- 
cine Co.  V.  W.  H.  Hill  Co.,  102 
Fed.  Rep.  148-151;  42  C.  C.  A. 
227. 


30 — Pillsbury  v.  P  i  1 1  s  b  u  r  y- 
Washburn  Flour  Mills  Co.,  64  Fed. 
Uep.  841-847;  12  C.  C.  A.  432;  Man- 
hattan Med.  Co.  V.  Wood,  Fed.  Case 
No.  9026;  4  Cliff,  461;  lOS  U.  S. 
218;  27  L.  Ed.  706;  Allegheny 
Fertilizer  Co.  v.  Woodside,  Fed. 
Case  No.  206;  1  Hughes,  115; 
Sawyer  v.  Kellogg,  7  Fed.  Rep.  721 ; 
Sawyer  v.  Kellogg,  9  Fed.  Rep.  601 ; 
Liggett  &  Myers  Tob.  Co.  v.  Hynes, 
20  Fed.  Rep.  883;  Hostctter  v. 
Adams,   10  Fed.  Rep.  838-842. 

31 — Brown,  J.,  in  !Moxie  Co.  v. 
Daoust.  124  C.  C.  A.  434;  200  Fed. 
Rep.  434,  436;  reversing  197  Fed. 
Rep.  678. 

32— I  hid. 

33 — Thomas,  J.,  in  Howard  Dust 
less  Duster  Co.  v.  Carleton,  219 
Fed.  Rep.  913,  916. 


$142]  HOPKINS  ON  TRADKM  AUKS.  []-iij 

The  (hhinnr  of  (jturrnl  effect. —  In  an  Auslraliun  case  we 
liiid  one  of  the  best  ami  clearest  of  the  early  statements  of 
the  rule,  that  "We  are  to  consider  whether  the  infrin^'cnient 
of  the  i)laintifi'*s  ri^jhts  has  hcen  i)rove(l.  not  by  taking'  par- 
ticular isolated  points,  l»ut  by  looking  at  the  general  resem- 
blance of  the  i)ackages. "  •"  The  rule  has  been  recognized 
universally,  the  I'nited  States  Supreme  Court  disjjosing  of 
one  case  by  saying  "it  is  manifest  that  the  general  appearance 
of  the  package  •  •  *  is  well  calculated  to  mislead  and 
deceive  the  unwary  and  all  others."'''^  The  reason  for  the 
rule  has  possibly  nowhere  been  better  stated  than  by  the  late 
Mr.  Justice  Brewer,  who  said  "elaborate  descriptions  of  the 
points  of  resemblance  or  those  of  difference  are,  taken  by 
themselves  alone,  always  unsatisfactory.  The  eye,  at  a  glance, 
takes  in  the  whole  of  one  exhibit  and  the  whole  of  another; 
and  the  comparison  thus  made  of  the  two  is  the  surest,  and 
the  only  satisfactory  way  of  satisfying  the  judgment  as  to 
the  existence  of  the  alleged  deceptive  imitation."  •'"=  Of  course 
evidence  of  instances  of  actual  decojition  is  always  admiss- 
ible.^' 

In  conclusion  it  is  imi)ortant  to  bear  in  mind  that  courts 
of  ecpiity  have  always  avoided  laying  down  any  hard  and 
fast  rules  by  which  to  determine  what  constitutes  fraud.  The 
reason  I'oi-  this  absence  of  set  rules  has  been  well  stated  as 
follows:  "Were  courts  of  etpiity  to  once  declare  rules  |)re- 
scribing  the  limitations  of  their  power  in  dealing  with  it,  the 
jurisdiction  would  be  i)erpetual!y  craniix'd  and  eluded  by 
new  schemes  which  the  fertility  of  man's  invention  would  con- 
trive." 3« 

When  one  who  has  been  lawfully  advertising  iiimself  as 
agent  for  a  particular  article  has  his  agency  revoked,  he 
may  be  enjoined   from   the   use  of  the  word  "agency"  even 

34_Stawpll,    C.    J.,    in    Wolf.-    v.  37— Li^'Kctt   A    My.rrt  Tnli.  l"o.  v. 

Hart.  4  Vict.  L.  U.  Kq.   i;}4   (I87ftt.  Fin/i-r.    128    U.    M.    182;    .H2    L.    Ed. 

•Ary—SU-U-ixn  V.   Fl.min;:.  00  U.  S.  .'Jfl.l. 

24'»;  24  L.   Kd.  H2H.  38— UVinHtotk,    Liiliin    A     Co.    v. 

30—1'.     I.<»rillurd    Co.     v.     IVp.-r.  MarkH.    100    Cal.    .VJH. '.:(!). 
80  Kc-d.  Ri-p.   9.')0,  1)58;   30  C.  C.  A. 
406. 


347  INKHINOKMENT.  [§  143 

thougli  he  continues  to  deal  in  tlic  sanio  artielos  as  Ix'forc ; ''" 
and  the  afjfcnt  may  enjoin  llic  iisc  of  a  label  nainiiif^  liini  us 
the  agent   for  the  product.'" 

§  143.  Restraint  of  use  of  misleading  advertisements  and 
the  like.  -Til e  rcMiuirement  of  fairness  in  tf;uie  lias  led  to  the 
injunction  of  the  use  of  eireulars  eontainin^'  ^Mrbled  extracts 
from  a  letter,  publislied  for  tiie  |)nrj)ose  of  dinrmisliintr  j)lain- 
tiff's  sales,  the  part  of  the  letter  ])nl»lished  liaviiif,'  a  meaning 
contrary  to  tliat  of  the  letter  as  a  whole."  The  use  of  the 
autofrra])hi('  siprnature  of  tlie  defendant's  former  distiller  has 
been  enjoined,  when  tlie  distiller  had  withdrawn  from  defend- 
ant's  employment    and   established    a    competing   distillery. *2 

In  testing  the  misleading  character  of  the  advertisement 
complained  of,  it  will  be  considered  as  an  entirety,  rather 
than  analyzed  as  to  its  parts.  "The  question  whether  any 
particular  statement  was  true  or  otherwise  is  not  a  pertinent 
question  :  the  really  pertinent  question  is  whether  the  adver- 
tisements as  a  whole  were  calculated  to  deceive."  ^^ 

In  a  notable  English  case,  the  form  of  injunction  granted 
against  misleading  advertisements  was:  "To  restrain  the  de- 
fendant, his  agents,  servants,  and  work  people,  from  further 
advertising,  or  issuing  to  the  public,  the  posters,  the  cards,  the 
catalogue,  the  advertisements,  and  the  green  card,  and  then 
generally  from  using  the  name  'Singer'  in  connection  with 
sewing  machines  not  of  the  plaintiff's  manufacture,  in  any  way 
calculated  to  induce  the  belief  that  such  machines  are  the 
manufacture  of  the  plaintiffs."  ^^ 

In  a  case  often  referred  to,  the  publishers  of  the  "Times" 
were  granted  an  injunction  to  restrain  a  dealer  from  advertis- 
ing bicycles  for  sale  in  such  a  way  as  to  induce  the  public  to 
suppose  that  the  proprietors  of  the  "Times"  were  connected 

3n_Edison  v.  Hawthorne,  lOf)  42— Coorpo  T.  Stafrp  Co.  v.  Tay- 
Fed.    R«'p.    172-174;    aflirmod   under       lor,  9.1  Ky.  6.")1;  27  S.  W.  Rep.  247. 

same  title.  48  C.  C.  A.  (57  ;   108  Fed.           43— Lord  Parker,  in  A.  G.  Spald- 

Eep.    839.  infl   Bros.   v.    A.    W.    Gamajre,    Ltd.. 

40_Coleman    v.    Flavel.    40  Fed.       32    K.   V.   C.  273,  286. 

Rep.  854.  44 — Romor,  J.,  in  Singer  Mfg.  Co. 

41 — Halstead     v.     Houston,  111       v.  James  Spence  &  Co.,  10  R.  P.  C. 

Fed.    Rep.    376.  297,  309. 


§144]  HOI'KINS  ON   TKADKMAUKS.  lUS 

\\\\h  tlu'  saK'.'"'  Tliis  ilci-ision.  as  was  said  by  Mr.  .lustier 
Koiiior.  in  a  lattT  casi".  was  based  on  the  fact  tliat  tin-  plain- 
tiffs "dill  not  wisli  to  Ix'  tr»'at«Ml  as  vtMidors  of  I'vclcs  •  •  • 
it  was  an  injury  to  tluMu  to  Ix'  so  troatcd,  and  on  that  ^n-ound 
the  learned  jud^je  thou^rht  liiat  tlic  defendant  ow^dit  to  he 
restrained   from  doin^r  what   he  did."  '" 

It  has  been  held  that  the  use  of  the  jihiintitT's  trademark 
in  advertisin};  matter,  althouph  not  ai)i)lied  to  his  mereliandise 
by  the  defendant,  eonstitutes  infringement  of  the  trademark.'^ 

In  determininfr  whether  the  advertisement  is  misleadinfr 
in  eharaeter,  the  rule  adopted  by  Mr.  Justice  Kekewieh  seems 
eminently  proper.  The  eourt  should  not  hear  o|>inion  evi- 
denee  as  to  whether  the  advertisement  "is  likely  to  deceive 
or  not."  but  on  that  issue  is  to  appiv  his  own  eye  and  his  own 
intellifrenee.  and  try  to  put  himself  "into  the  position  of  a 
person  of  averacre  intelli<rence  wishin*;  to  buy"  tlie  advertised 
article.  Rut  fact  witnesses  who  have  seen  the  advertisement 
and  pone  to  th(>  advertiser  in  the  false  belief  that  he  had  the 
plaintiff's  poods  for  sale  are  material  witnesses  and  their  tes- 
timony may  ])e  conclusive  "that  not  oidy  can  persons  be  de- 
ceived, but  that  persons  have  been   deceived."  '^ 

Of  course  there  is  "no  ])roi)ei-ty  in  the  advertisement." 
and  a  defendant  who  copies  i)laintiff"s  advertising  nuittei- 
(specifically,  tlie  phrases  "Why  i)ay  cash  for  seeds?  We  trust 
you")  is  not  "in  any  way  tamixM-iuL'  with  husjiu'ss  or  prop- 
erty" and  will  lutt  be  enjoined.'" 

§144.  Infringement  in  another  jurisdiction.  Where  poods 
bearinp  an  infrinpinp  mark  arc  in  possession  of  the  defend- 
ant, within  tlie  jurisdiction,  thouph  intended  for  exporta- 
tion, the  jurisdiction  of  the  co\irt  is  complete  and  relief  will 
be  pranted."*" 

But  where  the  act  of  infrinpemcnt  occurs  wholly  in  a  f(U'- 
eign  couidry  an  entirely   different  question   is  presented,  and 

4.'-,_Walt«r     V.      AHhton.     L.      R.  48— Siii;;cr    Mfj;.    Co.    v.    Britiflli 

(1002)    2   Ch.   2S2.  Knipin-   Mf^'.   Co.,  2n    U.   P.   C.   :«1.1, 

4(V_\\Vrth.-inicr     v.      Stiwiirt.  .tlH,  :{Hl. 

C'oofMT  4  Co.,  2.1  H.  I'.  C.  481,  48.J.  40— WVrtlu'im.r     v.     Stewart. 

47— Addlfjr     Hourru-    v.     Swnn    A  Cooprr  4  Co.,  23   U.   P.  C.  481. 

Edgar,  Ltd.,  20  H.    P.   C.   lO.I,    120.  ftO— Orr-EwinK  v.  Johnson,   1.3  C. 

I).    434;    7    A.    C.    210. 


349  INPUINOEMENT.  [§  145 

relief  has  been  deniod  ovon  tliouf^'h  llio  oourt  liad  jurisdiction 
over  the  parties,  and  the  mark  involved  had  been  rej^istered 
in  the  United  States;  Judfje  Kirkpatrick  romarkiiig  that  "to 
liokl  tliat  tlie  branding'  of  j^'oods  in  a  iorcifj;!!  country  with  a 
trademark  registered  in  tin-  I'nited  States  constitutes  unfair 
competition  in  trade  would  be  but  another  way  of  extending 
the  tradeniai'k  rij,dits  of  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  beyond 
the  borders  of  the  country."  •'•' 

§  145.  Trademarks  of  variable  sound  and  pronunciation. — 
The  owner  of  a  valid  trademai'k  is,  under  all  the  authorities, 
entitled  to  ecjuitable  i)rotection  against  one  who  subsequently 
adopts  a  mark  calculated  to  create  confusion  of  the  goods  of 
the  respective  i)arties. 

Thus  the  use  of  the  mark  "Iwanta"  was  enjoined  by  Judge 
Lacombe  because  it  was  expressive  of  the  same  idea  as 
"Uneeda"  previously  aj)j)lied  to  biscuit,''-  and  in  a  later  case, 
where  the  owner  of  the  trademark  "Yusea"  sought  to  enjoin 
the  use  of  the  mark  "U-C-A"  Judge  Hazel  said: 

"The  controlling  contention  in  this  action  is  whether  the 
complainant,  having  a  prior  and  exclusive  right  to  the  desig- 
nation 'Yusea,'  has  thereby  also  obtained  an  exclusive  right 
to  the  use  of  the  various  pronunciations  and  the  complex 
Avords  or  syllabic  formations  to  which  this  particular  word 
is  susceptible.  A  moment's  reflection  reveals  the  various  pro- 
nunciations and  composite  words  to  which  'Yusea'  may  be 
adapted.  A  trademark  Avhich  is  variously  pronounced  and  dis- 
torted to  suit  the  purposes  of  trade  and  the  fancies  of  the  man- 
ufacturer in  his  endeavor  to  catch  the  public  eye  may  yet  be 
protected,  within  the  fair  and  reasonable  scope  of  a  trade- 
mark, however  artfully  it  may  be  conceived.  It  appears  from 
the  affidavits  of  complainant's  manager  and  advertising  agent, 
the  person  who  conceived  the  word,  that  the  common  pro- 
nunciation by  the  trade  in  general  is  as  if  it  were  spelt  'You 
see  a,'  and  that  the  mantles  manufactured  by  complainant 
are  commonly  known  as  'You-see-a  mantles.'  This  is  accen- 
tuated by  the  ordinary  pronunciations  that  follow  a  casual 
observation  of  this  comiilex  word.     The  unique  alterations  in 

T)! — ^\'acuum  Oil  Co.  v.  Eajjrlo  Oil  r>2 — National  Biscuit  Co.  v.  Bak- 

Co.,   122   Fed.   R(T).    105.  er,   95  Fed.   Rep.    135. 


§  146]  HOPKINS  ON  TKADKMAliKS.  350 

till-  itronuiu'ialions  nf  tin-  word  luust.  I  tliiuk.  bo  regarded  us 
iiK'idoiital  to  its  use.  Tliis  perhaps  eiihaiiees  its  value  as  an 
advertisiii«r  iiicdium.  Tlicy  do  imf  cliaii^'c  the  rcfristered 
desifrnation,  and  the  word  ■Vusca"  rcniains  tlic  doininatiiijf 
word  in  the  trailenuirk.  •  •  •  'Ihc  tnidcinark.  because  of  its 
varial)le  sound  and  pronunciation,  became  more  prominently 
known  to  the  public,  and  thereby  served  the  purpose  for  whieii 
it  was  conceived;  /.  ' ..  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  public 
to   the   ori^rinal    eoneept  ion."  •''•'' 

§  146.  The  effect  of  a  plurality  of  marks  for  a  single 
article. — It  would  seem  obvious  that  a  trader  mi^ht  acquire 
and  own  as  many  trademarks  as  he  desires.  It  would  .seem 
that  lie  mi^'ht.  if  he  desii-ed,  have  as  many  ditTerent  trade- 
marks for  the  same  article  of  merchandise  as  he  saw  fit.  It 
seems  perfectly  clear  that  a  trademark  which  is  valuable  be- 
cause it  attracts  custom  in  one  community  may  be  utterly 
valueless  in  another. 

The  British  decisions  ai'e  rej)lete  with  instances  of  special 
marks  used  for  colonial  trade,  the  same  article  beinp  sold  in 
Great  Britain  under  a  diffeient  inatk.  As  a  matter  of  fact 
many  articles  of  merchandise  are  dealt  in  under  a  |)lurality 
of  marks  in  this  coimtry,  certain  marks  beiufr  used  in  the 
Northern  trade,  and  dilTerent  marks  on  the  same  mcM-chandi.se 
for  the  Southern  and  Pacific  Toast  trade.  It  would  seem  that 
the  courts  would  be  as  little  ('(tncei'iied  wilh  the  lunnber  of 
marks  owned  and  used  ]»y  a  niaimfaclui'er  as  ijiev  would  he 
with  the  number  of  patents  or  eo|)yri;rlits  he  mi^dit  own  or 
the  number  of  any  (»ther  chattels  it  mijrht  jilease  him  to  accpiire 
and  for  which  he  haply  has  the  nutans  to  pay.  And  yet,  these 
views  which  on  their  face  ap|)ear  manifestly  obvious,  are  in 
conflict  with  the  s(tle  (h'cision  so  far  rendered  upon  this  (pies- 
tion  and  to  which  we  will  now  l)riefiy  advert. 

Tn  Caiulif  v.  Dnn''*  the  complainant  nunuifaetured  "Mo- 
line"  plows  at  Moline,  Illinois,  (^n  ditTerent  (pialities  of  the.so 
plows  they  used  the  marks  "A.  No.  1.*'  "A.  X.  No.  1."  "No. 
1,"    "X.    No.    1."    "No.    M."    and    "P..    No.     1."      'I'he    word 

.S.l-  WilHl.nch   I-i;,'lit  Co,  v.  .Ndani.  .11— ("andcr  v.   Dr.rr.  U\   111.   .\pp. 

107  Fed.  Rep.  Am.  4rt.''>.  4.1U. 


351  INFRINGEMENT.  [§  140 

"Moline"  being  gongraphioal,  tlio  complainant's  case  failed, 
anil  the  letters  and  nnmbers  being  merely  descriptive  of  differ- 
ent qualities  of  the  i)low  did  not  help  the  complainant's  case. 

This  case,  consequently,  appears  (juite  irrelevant  to  the  pres- 
ent (piestion;  but  it  iuis  been  used  as  the  basis  of  tlie  decision 
of  Judge  Jenkins  dealing  directly  with  llie  effect  of  ov.ricr- 
ship  of  a  ])lurality  of  marks  used  on  the  same  article,  in  Avhich 
he  says: 

"The  ])riinipal  (piestion  which  is  suggested  by  the  bill  and 
the  evidence  is  whether  the  manufacturer  of  a  single  article 
lias  the  riglit  to  use.  and  be  protected  in  Ihe  use  of,  more 
than  one  trademark  for  tliat  article.  I  find  little  authority 
ui)on  the  subject,  and  have  given  to  the  (luestion  much  con- 
sideration. Upon  ])rinci])lc,  1  think  that  he  can  not.  A  trade- 
mark must  denote  origin.  A  trademark  is  defined  by  Mr. 
Upton  to  be  the  name,  symbol,  figure,  letter,  form,  or  device 
adopted  and  used  by  a  mainifacturer  or  merchant  in  order 
to  designate  the  goods  he  manufactures  or  sells,  and  distin- 
guish them  from  those  manufactured  or  sold  by  another,  to 
the  end  that  they  may  be  known  in  the  market  as  his,  and 
thus  enable  liim  to  secure  sucli  i)rofits  as  result  from  a  repu- 
tation for  sui>erior  skill,  industry  or  enteri)rise.  Tipton, 
Trademarks,  p.  9,  c.  1.  How  can  that  i)urpose  be  accom- 
plished, if  a  manufacturer  dealing  in  a  single  article  used  a 
thousand  different  trademarks  to  designate  the  article  and 
its  origin?  Such  use  necessarily  produces  confusion,  and  fails 
of  the  single  purpose  of  the  trademark,  to  designate  with  cer- 
tainty the  origin  of  the  product.  Certainly  no  manufacturer 
would,  in  regard  of  self-interest,  indulge  in  such  a  practice; 
for  he  would  thereby  defeat  the  very  purpose  he  sought  to 
accomplish.  This  consideration  has  led  me  to  the  con^'^c- 
tion  that  the  com]ilainant.  the  originator  of  perforated  rolled 
toilet  paper,  would  not  do  that  which  would  blind  the  public 
mind  to  the  originator  and  manufacturer  of  the  article,  and 
would  tend  to  dissipate  its  trade.  It  is  more  probable  (and 
the  evidence,  I  think,  sustains  the  conclusion)  that  its  design 
was,  by  the  various  names,  to  distinguish  between  the  size, 
shape,  and  quality  of  the  paper  manufactured,  and  that  the 
marks  were  not  placed  thereon  as  indicating  origin.  The  only 
authority  which  I  have  been  able  to  find  passing  directly  upon 


§  147]  IIOI'KINS   0.\   TIUDEMAItKS.  352 

this  (juestion  is  tlio  rnso  of  Candrr  r.  Ihcn .  7y\  111.  439,  457. 
In  the  coiK'lusiou  miclifd  l»y  tlic  Suitn-iiK'  Coiifl  <»f  Illinois 
upon  this  partifular  (lucstion.  1  fully  concur,  it  is  remark- 
able that,  with  respect  to  so  simple  a  jiroduct  as  that  in  (jues- 
tion, it  should  be  found  that  so  lar^je  a  number  of  claimed 
trademarks  should  be  used  by  one  numufacturer.  A  court 
of  equity  can  not  be  impressed  by  an  ajipeal  to  j^rotect  that 
which  produces  infinite  confusion.  Tt  may  be  that  in  the 
strufj^le  for  trade  the  whims  of  retailers  must  be  consulted, 
and  that  rivalry  between  dealers  to  present  something  attrac- 
tive to  the  public  eye  must  exist;  but  the  courts  of  equity  do 
not  sit  to  indulfie  the  whims  of  i)urchasers,  or  to  protect  one 
in  creating  confusion.  Tiicy  sit  to  protect  and  to  enforce 
legal  and  equitable  rights.  If  this  bill  can  be  maintained,  the 
extent  of  the  jiroprietorshiji  of  the  complainant  in  the  use  of 
arbitrary  names  applied  to  tlie  subject  of  toilet  paper  would 
be  limited  only  by  the  imagination  of  its  oflRcers."^'^ 

§  147.  Confusion  of  mail  matter  as  test  of  the  right  to  in- 
junction.— The  fact  that  the  use  of  tlie  mails  is  involved  in 
the  majority  of  commercial  transactions  has  made  the  ques- 
tion of  the  confusion  of  mail  matter  one  of  the  tests  most 
frequently  applied  in  cases  involving  firm  names,  corporate 
names,  and  the  like,  to  determine  whether  or  not  the  plaintiff 
is  entitled  to  the  relief  sought.""  Thus  we  find  in  a  case  where 
the  Continental  Insurance  Company  of  New  York,  sought  to 
enjoin  the  Continental  Fire  Association  of  Texas  from  the  use 
of  its  corporate  name.  Judge  Meek  gave  as  one  of  the  prin- 
cil)al  grounds  for  denying  the  relief  sought  that  "on  account 
of  the  marked  dissimilarity  of  the  addresses  of  the  two  com- 
panies, mail  matter  intended  for  one  of  them  will  hardly  be 
misdirected  or  miscarried  to  the  other."  "^^  In  a  more  recent 
ease  Judge  Kohlsaat,  in  enjoining  the  name  "Tiillipuli;in  Out- 
fitters" at  the  instance  of  a  coniphiinant  doing  business  as  the 
"Lilliputian  Bazaar."  based  the  right  or  relief  upon  the  prob- 

:,r, — Albany   Porforat«'d  Wrappinp  AiilMirn  I.ynn     Shoo    Co  ,     100  Mp. 

Pap.T  Co.  V.  John  IIoImtj?  Co  ,  102  401  ;    02   Atl.    Rep.    100. 

Fed.    Rep.    157,    158.                                     67 — Continental      InHuranci-  Co. 

.•»0 — N.     \\.     Lynn     SIum;     Co.     v.  v.   Continental    Fin-   AHH'n,   0(1  Fed. 

it.p.  Hj(i.  Htn 


353  INFRINGEMENT.  [§147 

alilc  coiifiisioii  of  iiKiil  matter,  says,  "It  is  evidciiit  that  ('(jm- 
plaiiiuiit  is  a  inaiiiii'ai'tiircr  and  dealer,  and  that  he  dues  a 
hirj^c  mail-order  hiisincss,  as  (hx-s  also  the  d(;femlant.  it  hardly 
iiee(rs  saN'iiij;  that  the  proficiency  of  Ww  mails  at  this  date  is 
such  that  evei  y  nook  and  (Mu-ner  of  the  nation  as  well  as  of 
Manitoha  is  as  acecssihle  as  were  places  r)0  miles  away  from 
New  YorU  a  few  years  apo.  It  can  not  he  otherwise  than  that 
the  advertising  and  ennvassing  of  these  two  lival  concerns 
pass  and  rei)ass  each  other  ininimerable  times  in  their  journeys 
to  the  centers  of  trade  as  well  as  to  the  homes  of  the  peoi)le 
— mute  contestants  for  the  favor  of  supplyinf^  the  wants  of 
each  customer.  "^''^ 

In  a  New  Voi-k  case,  a  ])laintifT  who  was  the  oriprinator 
of  a  ])ropiietaiy  remedy  sold  to  the  defendant  his  business 
and  jroodwill.  iiieludinfr  the  sole  riprht  to  use  the  names  "Dr. 
David  Kennedy,  of  Rondout,  X.  Y.."  and  "Dr.  D.  Kennedy, 
of  Rondout,  N.  Y."  It  was  subserpuMitly  lield  that  the  defend- 
ant had  the  ri<rht  to  receive  and  open  all  letters  addressed 
to  the  plaint ifi'  hy  either  of  the  forms  of  addresses  named. •''••• 

In  a  subsecpient  suit,  the  j)IaintilT  soufjht  to  enjoin  the 
defendant  from  receiviiifr  and  openin<r  letters  addressed  to 
him  by  luime  at  Kingston,  N.  Y.  In  prrantinp:  the  injunction, 
Betts,  J.,  said:  "It  oup:ht  to  be  an  extremely  difficult  matter 
for  one  jierson  or  corporation  to  obtain  the  ri<rht  to  open  and 
examine  another  i)erson's  private  corres])ondcnce  without  his 
consent.  Thei-e  is  somethinj?  so  repu{?nant  in  such  a  proposi- 
tion to  all  our  ideas  of  coinnmn  fairness  that  to  sim^ily  state 
it  is  to  arouse  antapronism  thereto.  T  am  of  the  oiiinion  that 
this  can  never  l)ecome  the  settled  law  of  this  state  in  any  case 
unless  it  clearly  aiul  unerpiivoeally  appears  that  both  ])arties 
at  the  time  of  makinjr  any  contract,  ajrreement.  or  bill  of  sale 
relatinpr  thereto  clearly  understood  and  ajrreed  that  that  was 
to  be  the  residt  of  the  arraufrement  entered  i'lto."'-" 

In  American  Clay  Mffj.  Co.  of  Pcvufijilrnnin  r.  Anifiican 
Clay  Mfg.  Co.  of  Xew  Jermi,  198  Pa.  189,  47  Atl.  Rep.  936,  the 
plaintiff  was  a  Pennsylvania  corporation,  and  the  defendant 

.')S— Ball   V.   r.cst,    i:).'>  Fed.    l^p.           CO— K.-nnody    v.    Dr.    David   Ken- 

4.34,  437.  iH'dy    Corp.,    (it!    X.    Y.    Supp.    22.">- 

.■)9 — Kennody    Corp.    v.  Konncdy.       "i^O. 
iV>  X.  Y.  Supp.  017. 


§148]  IIOrKlNS   ON    TKAKKMAKKS.  354 

a  corporation  of  New  .Icrscy  authorized  to  do  Imsiiu'ss  in 
PtMinsylvania.  Both  worr  ('ii|j:ajri*d  in  llio  same  line  of  trade 
at  i'ittsbur^'.  and  the  result  was  a  confusion  in  correspond- 
ence and  in  the  drawinj;  and  honoring;  (tf  checks  and  drafts; 
and  the  defendants  were  enjoined.  'There  arc  two  classes 
of  cases,'  says  Mitchell.  .1..  'involving:  judicial  interference 
with  the  use  of  names:  First,  where  the  intent  is  to  fret  an 
unfair  and  fraudulent  share  of  another's  business ;  and.  second, 
where  the  efTcct  of  defendant's  action,  irrc^spective  of  his 
intent,  is  to  pr(»duce  confusion  in  the  pul)lic  mind,  and  con- 
sequent loss  to  the  complainant.  In  both  cases  the  courts  of 
equity   administer  ccjuitablc   reli(>f.'  " '•' 

§  148.  Hotel,  restaurant  and  theatre  names  and  rights  cre- 
ated thereby.  -As  we  have  seen  elsewlicre,  as  a  freneral  nde, 
the  name  of  a  i>lace  of  ])usiness  will  be  protected  as  apainst 
competitors  who  adopt  misleading  sifjns  or  otlier  advertising 
matter  in  (trder  to  divei-t  to  themselves  the  business  t>stab- 
lished  by  the  one  first  adopting  the  name.  It  is  ap|)arent  that 
there  is  tiiis  distinction  Ix'tween  the  names  of  hotels  and  the 
names  of  other  places  of  ])usiness;  as  to  other  commercial 
enterprises  tiiere  may  be  unfair  competition  between  places 
of  business  located  in  different  cities  or  sections,  and  doinp 
a  mail-order  Itusiness.  or  transacting  business  trenerally  by 
mail,  while  as  to  hotels,  no  such  unfair  competition  can  arise 
because  there  can  be  no  confusion  created  by  two  hotels  in 
diflfercnt  cities,  havitijr  the  same  name.  The  mimes  of  hotels, 
moreover,  stand  in  a  class  by  themselves  because  of  the  com- 
plex character  of  the  business  involved.  In  one  of  the  early 
opinion-s.  Campbell,  J.,  in  a  case  involvin«r  the  name  "Irvinp 
House."  drew  this  distinction  in  the  followinpr  words:  "We 
think  that  the  |)rincip1e  of  the  rule  is  the  same,  to  whatever 
subject  it  may  be  applied,  and  that  a  party  will  be  pn>tected 
in  the  use  of  a  name,  which  he  has  a])propriatcd.  ami  by  his 
skill  made  valiujblc,  whether  the  same  is  upon  articles  of  per- 

61 — ArcbhnM.     T..     in    Vnn    TTmi-  hlmll   In-   ncciviMl   liv  <»nt>   party  and 

ten    V,    FF'Hitnii    Ckcoh    A    ('li(i<'(ilaf«>  opcnrd    in    the    prcHctuT    of    n    rop- 

Co..    130    F<fl     R.p.   000.  00.1.      Tbnt  nKintntiv«>  of   tJu-   oflii-r    pnrty.   »oo 

A  docTff   ix    r>r"p<T    wliich    j)r<ivifl<>*  F     (    Cnw   \Vf)rkH   \      F     I     Cjimc  Co. 

that  all    mnil   cloiihtfully   nfldr.--.!  ir,'2  Win    t«'.-    l^".  \     W     I!,  p.   128. 


355  INFRINGEMBNT.  [§  148 

soiiiil  jtropci'ly  wliidi  lio  iii;iy  inanurai-t iir<',  oi"  a|)i)lic(l  to  Jin 
hotel  wlicrc  lie  has  hiiilt  up  a  iirospcroiis  liiisiiiess.  •  •  • 
To  make  llic  application,  if  one  man  has,  by  close  attention 
to  tlie  comfort  of  his  ^ruests.  and  by  superior  energy,  made 
liis  liotel  <l('sii-al)l('  \'i>y  llie  ti'avclri-,  and  caused  its  name  to 
become  popular  throu^rhout  the  land,  another  man  out,'ht 
not  to  !)('  pei-mitted  to  assume  the  same  name  h\  the  same 
town,  and  thus  dej)iive  him  who  first  appropriated  the  name 
of  some  i)ortion  of  the  fruits  of  that  goodwill  -svhich  ht)nestly 
belongs  to  him  alone."''"'  Under  this  doctrine,  the  hotel 
names  "Columbia," '•-  "McCardel  House,"""'  "Osborn 
House,"  "^  "Vonderbank  Hotel,"'-'  "What  f'heer,"  «'' 
"Woods  Hotel,""'  "Metuchen  l?ni."''^  and  "Hotel  Domin- 
ion,""" have  been  recognized  and  i)rotected  in  (Mpiity. 

The  owners  of  hotels  have  further  ])een  protected  by  injunc- 
tion against  the  unauthorized  use  of  the  name  of  the  hotel 
by  persons  running  carriages  and  other  conveyances  for  the 
transportation  of  travelers.  Thus  the  proprietor  of  the  Irving 
Hotel  was  granted  an  injunction  against  the  use  of  the  name  of 
the  hotel  by  the  defendant  upon  his  coaches,  and  upon  badges 
worn  by  his  employes.  In  granting  the  injunction,  Cantel, 
J.,  said,  "The  question  is,  whether  the  defendants  have  com- 
mitted a  fraud.  I  can  not  doubt  that  their  intention  was  to 
mislead,  and  to  induce  travelers  to  believe  that  they  were 
servants  of  the  ]iroi)rietor  of  the  Irving  Hotel."'"  A  similar 
rule  was  made  in  favor  of  the  lessee  of  the  "Revere  House" 
under  practically  the  same  circumstances."' 

More  recently,  the  Supreme  Court  of  New  York  granted 
an  injunction  to  restrain  the  use  of  the  name  of  the  "Holland 

filrt — Howard      v.      ncnri(iiios,      .3  4-40;   rJamMc  v.   Stc|tliciison,   10  Mo. 

Sandf.  72.').  Ajip.   oSl. 

r>2— Wliitfiold  V.   Lov.'lcss,  (i4  OIT.  07— Woods    v.    Sands.    Fed.    Cn»o 

(in/..    442.  Xo.    17,n6.3. 

fi.3— McCardcl    v.    Pcik.    2S    How.  fiS— Buscli  v.  Gross.  71  X.  -T.   Eq. 

Pr.    120.  SO.l:    CA    Atl.    Rpp.    7.")4. 

fi4— "FTudsoii   V.   Oslu.rnr,   -21    L.   T.  (!0— OTirady  v.   McDonald.   72    X. 

X.    S.    .3^0.  J.    R.].    805;    fifi   Atl.    Rep.    17r>. 

fiii — Vonderhank    v.     Schniidt,   44  70 — Stone    v.    Carlan.    Cox.    Cas.- 

La.   Ann.   2fi4.  Xo.   104. 

66 — Woodward   v.  Lazar,  21   Cal.  71 — Marsh    v.    Billings,    7    Cush. 

322. 


§  149]  HOPKINS    ON    TKAl>KMAKKS.  356 

House"  as  a  traih'inarU  I'm-  ci^Mi-s.  At  tin*  liiiic  that  (lie  cijrars 
S(»  inarkrd  wcrt'  iilatM'd  ii|miii  ilir  inMrl<<'t.  llicic  was  no  linlcl 
of  till'  naino  open  for  Imsiiicss  in  tlio  city  of  Now  Yt)rk.  Thr 
plaintitTs  won*  the  |iro|tri('tors  of  a  huildiii^'  in  the  cowrsc  of 
construction,  which  was  to  he  nsed  for  hotel  |iMi|toses.  how- 
ever, and  that  huildint;  was  well  known  thronjrhoiit  the  city 
of  New  York  as  the  "Holland  House."'  The  injunction  was 
pranted  upon  the  j^rround  that  the  defendant  intended  to 
falsely  represent  to  tlie  public  that  the  ei«;ars  were  in  some 
way  coiniected  with  the  hotel  known  as  the  "Holland 
House."'-  \Vh(>re  both  ])arties  used  the  words  "Opera 
House," — "contemporaneously  •  •  •  and  without  ;  iiy 
definite  intention  to  enjoy  such  use  exclusively."  both  places 
of  amusement  beinp  in  the  .same  locality,  a  suit  for  injunction 
was  dismissed.'-' 

The  use  of  the  same  name  by  the  owner  of  another  clas.s 
of  buildiTipr  (for  example,  the  later  use  of  a  name  as  that  of 
a  hotel  which  had  been  adopted  for  an  apartment  house)  will 
not  be  enjoined   in  the  absence  of  i)roof  of  damajre.'^ 

§  149.  Artistic  productions  as  subjects  of  unfair  compe- 
tition.—  lias  the  artist  who  ci'cates  a  distinctive  chai'actei" 
in  a  ]>icture  any  rijrht  to  its  ])rotection  aside  from  the  copy- 
right laws,  assuming'  that  llic  jiicture  is  not  used  as  a  trade- 
mark? Outcalt.  a  (lesijriicr  of  comic  pictures,  exploited  the 
character  of  "Huster  Hi-own,"  in  various  |)ictures.  He  sold 
the  pictures  to  a  ncwspapci-,  by  whicli  1h(>v  wci-e  co|iyri}rhted. 
Ui)on  liis  application  to  enjoin  that  j)aper  from  ])ublishin^' 
comic  sections  embracintr  jiictures  of  "Buster  Brown"  in 
scenes  and  situations  other  than  those  in  whii-li  Outcalt  had 
depicted  him,  dud^'c  Lacombe  dismissed  the  motion  as  based 
u]H\u  a  theory  both  novel  and  unsound.'"  It  is  to  ])e  hoped 
that  the  (iMcstion  will  receive  fuiMlicr  judicial  consideration. 
It  is  far  from  clear  that   the  creator  iA'  such  a  ti;rure  of  comic 

72— Kinj.'Hl.'.v     \      .Inc.t.y.     20    N.  74— .\8tor      v.      West      S2<1      Str 

Y.    Stipp.    44.  H.-alty   Co..    1.V2   N.    Y.    S.   fi.Tl -.    Ki? 

7n — Chndron    npcrii    lloiiw  Co.   v.  .\pp.    Div.    27.T. 

*  I-«Kimir,    71    N.i.r.    7S''>;    !tO    X.    W.  7.'» — Oiitrnlt  v.  N.w  Y.irk  ll.ruld. 

Hep.    049.  1  ««    '■'<<1-    •^<I'     -"•'' 


357  iMiiiN(.i;.MK.\T.  [§  150 

illustrative  |»iir|>(>s(>  has  no  ri^'lils  lliat  a  court  of  equity  can 
rec'oj^ui/i'. 

l$ut  wIkm'c  a  t'liarj^'c  dt'  uiilair  (Munpcl  ilion  is  liascij  upon 
the  rei)roducti()n  hy  the  (Icicndaiil  of  works  of  art  wliich  tin' 
complainant  mifjht  have,  hut  lias  not,  copyrij^'hted,  a  very 
(lili'erent  (juestion  is  i)resentetl.  The  sale  of  the  uneojjyri^lited 
work  by  the  plaintiff  is  a  dcdicaf ion  to  the  |)ublie,  and  the 
defendant  or  any  other  may  copy  the  woi-k  by  any  jjrocess 
without  bein<r  jruiity  of  unfair  e()m])etiti()n.'" 

§  150.  Trade  rig-hts  in  patentable  but  unpatented  articles. 
— Following  the  consideration  of  the  (piestion  of  unfair  com- 
petition as  applied  to  unoopyrijrhtcd  works  of  art,  it  would 
seem  equally  obvious  that,  as  to  those  features  which  are  j)at- 
entable.  the  right  to  ])atental)le  but  unpatented  macliines, 
manufactures  and  designs  would  by  two  years'  public  use  (see 
sec.  4886  R.  S.  V.  S. ;  sec.  4933  R.  S.  IT.  S.  as  to  designs)  pass 
to  the  public,  and  that  the  doctrines  of  imfair  competition 
could  not  be  invoked  to  impair  the  public  right  therein.  Thus, 
in  the  case  of  a  new  style  of  printing  type,  in  denying  equit- 
able relief  Judge  Putnam  said:  "The  type  in  question  has  no 
characteristics  in  particular,  except  that  of  utility;  and,  if 
the  bill  could  be  sustained,  the  i)laintiff  would  obtain  a  per- 
petual patent  for  a  useful  article,  running  indefinitely,  with- 
out any  assistance  from  the  patent  office  of  the  United  States. 
On  putting  the  question  in  this  form,  it  is  so  clearly  met  by 
the  laAv  that  it  needs  no  discussion."'" 

So  where  plaintiff  has  an  application  for  patent  pending 
the  defendant  (until  patent  issues)  has  a  clear  right  to  make 
the  article  which  is  the  subject  of  the  application  :  but  he  has 
no  right  to  copy  every  detail  of  form,  shape  and  appearance 
of  that  article,  and  copy  the  plaintiff's  advertising  matter 
with  its  cuts  and  illustrations.'^^ 

One  who  attempts  to  keep  his  discovery  a  secret,  while 
vending  a  product  made  under  the  process  of  his  discovery. 

70— Bamforth    v.    Douglass    Post  .301,  .30.3;  affirmed  in  Keystone  Typ^^ 

Card    &    Mach.    Co.,    ir.S    Fed.    Rep.  Foundry  v.   Portland   Puh.   Co.,   18«5 

355,  3.^7.  Fed.    Rep.    600;    108   C.    C.    A.    .508. 

77— Keystone    Type    Foundry    v.  78— Stewart  v.  Hudson,  222  Fed. 

Portland    Pub.    Co.,    180   Fed.    Rep.  Rep.   584. 


$  lOlj  IIOPKINS   ON    TRADEMARKS.  358 

over  a  term  of  years,  filiiit;  application  fur  patfiit  only  wlu'u 
the  secrei'v  of  his  invention  appears  to  Itc  in  jt'o|)ai"«ly,  may 
have  his  patent  held  void  u|»on  the  {ground  of  ahandonnient.'" 

§151.  "Tlie  right  to  imitate. "—This  expression  lias  been 
eniploNcd  li\  .Mr.  .Iiislicr  Holmes,  in  referring  to  the  uuinufac- 
ture  of  "Artilieial"'  lluiiyadi  water.  It  is  an  a|)t  and  eom- 
prehensive  j)hrase.  as  pointing  out  the  faet  that  the  thing 
used  hy  the  plaintifT  to  distinguish  his  goods  is  a  thing  of 
eommon  right,  ineapa])le  of  exclusive  ai)proj)riation,  and  hence 
the  defendant  has.  in  a  limited  sense,  "the  right  to  imitate." 
The  language  of  '^]v.  Justice  Holmes  is  as  follows:  "If  there 
is  any  well-founded  doubt  as  to  the  right  to  use  a  personal 
tradename  with  proper  guards  against  deception  to  signify 
what  one  is  imitating,  where  one  has  the  right  to  imitate, 
there  ean  be  none  that  one  is  at  liberty  to  refer  to  a  geo- 
graphieal  expression  to  signify  the  source  of  one's  model. """^ 
But  the  "right  to  imitate"  must  be  exercised  with  great 
caution,  and  evidence  that  actual  decejition  has  resulted  from 
the  attempted  exercise  of  that  so-called  riL'Tit  by  the  defend- 
ant will  incline  a  court  of  equity  very  strongly  against  the 
defendant;  for  example,  the  sale  of  a  whisky  made  in  the 
T^'nited  States  under  the  name  "fanadinn  Tyi)e"  in  compe- 
tition with  "Canadian  Club."si 

^  152.  Use  of  machine  manufacturer's  name  in  sale  of  repair 
parts. — The  fpiestion  of  the  right  of  a  dealer  in  re]tair  parts 
for  machinery  to  describe  those  ]iarts  by  the  name  of  the 
machine  in  Avhose  repair  they  are  used,  gives  rise  to  the  ad- 
justment of  the  dealer's  right  to  truthfully  describe  his  repair 
parts,  and  the  manufacturer's  riuht  to  be  ]irotected  against 
a  misrepresentation  that  the  parts  are  of  his  manufacture. 
The  dealer  in  repair  parts  for  Ford  automobiles  who  adver- 
tised such  parts  prefixed  with  the  word  "Ford"  was  enjoined 
upon  the  doctrine  that  "Wliile  the  defendant  has  a  right  to 

70— Macbfth-PSanH    OIom    Co    v.  In?  9nxl.1in.r  v    Wninr-r.   ^r^  C.  C. 

Cc-nrral  Kl.rfrlc  Cn,  2.11   T><]    Mrp.  A.    321;    l.'.T    F.<1     R<'p.   74.''.. 
1«3  81— Hiriim     Wnlk.r    A     S.mH    ▼. 

«0- Siixl.-hinT  V    Wiit'ti.T,  Jlf,  I'  (Jrubman,  224  Fed,   lUp.  725. 
8.  37 r,,  .ifil;   r>i  L.  Ed.  r,2r>;  aflirm- 


359  INFIlINfJKMKNT,  [§153 

inform  the  public  that  he  is  inanui'ucturing  articles  suitable 
I'or  use  on  Ford  machines,  lie  should  not  be  permitted  to  adver- 
tise them  as  Ford  articles,  but  should  be  refjuired  to  describe 
them  in  sudi  a  wny  as  to  indicate  that  they  are  not  manu- 
factured  by    the   conijjlaiiuxnt.'' **- 

§  153.     Solicitation    of   customers   by   former  employe. — It 

is  still  an  open  (lurstion  wlictlicr  one  who  lias,  as  a  salesman 
or  othei-wisc,  had  the  entree  to  customers,  may  on  entering 
a  eomi)etin<j:  oiujjIoyiMont  solicit  the  trade  of  those  customers. 
On  j)rineiplc,  to  i)revent  a  salesman  from  continuing  to  sell 
goods  to  the  same  trade,  but  for  another  employer,  would  be 
to  impose  a  burden  on  'him  Avhich  ecpiity  should  not  recognize 
or  seek  to  impose.  The  Cleorfjia  court  has  well  said,  in  such 
'a  case,  "We  are  of  the  opinio?i.  however,  that  he  (the  d(>fend- 
ant)  can  not  be  restrained  from  sellinp:  his  commodities,  for 
himself  or  for  any  employer,  in  any  part  of  the  city,  or  to 
any  person,  so  long  as  he  does  not  use  any  property  belong- 
ing to  the  complainant,  or  copies  thereof  that  were  surrep- 
titiously made.  So  far  we  think  ourselves  well  within  equity 
.iurisdiction.  on  general  principles. "  ^^ 

The  protection,  by  injunction,  against  the  use  of  lists  of 
cu.stomers  of  a  former  employer,  has  been  granted  in  a  number 
of  cases,  the  in.iunction  being  made  so  broad  as  to  restrain 
the  employe  and  later  employer  from  calling  upon  the  cus- 
tomers named  in  such  lists  or  soliciting  their  patronage,  under 
circumstances  aptly  described  as  follows:  "It  follows  that 
defendant  tea  company  and  its  officers  and  agents  will  be 
re.strained  from  obtaining  the  benefit  of  plaintiff's  list  of 
customers  by  hiring  drivers  away  from  the  plaintiff  for  the 
purpose  of  having  them  canvass  and  solicit  trade  from  the 
plaintiff's  customers  formerly  served  by  them.  That  this  was 
done  in  the  case  of  Wahl  and  other  drivers  admits  of  no  doubt. 

"The  defendant  tea  company  undoubtedly  has  the  right 
to  solicit  the  trade  of  plaintiff's  customers,  and  to  obtain  a  list 
thereof  by  using  opportunities  for  observation  o]-)en  to  all. 
Plaintiff  has  no  vested   i^rojierty  rights  in  the  trade  of  such 

82 — Brown,    J.,    in    Ford    Motor  8.3 — Fish,  .J.,  in  Stein  v.  National 

Co.  V.  Wilson,  223  Fed.  Rep.  808.  Life  Association,  105  Ga.  821 
Compare  §134,  ante.  (1899). 


j  \y,\]  imiKINS    ON    TKAniCMAKKS.  'M\0 

I'ustomors.  Tlu-  vii-f  of  (Icfriidanl 's  position  is  llial  it  ohlaiiu-d 
the  lists  or  copies  tlioroot  l»y  liiriiitr  the  drivers  ami  made  the 
lists  of  value  to  itself  by  si'iidiii^'  the  drivers  to  transfer,  if 
possible,  the  trade  from  their  fornu'r  emph»yer  to  their  new 
employer.  In  other  words,  allhon^rh  the  end  mi;rht  be  lawful, 
the  means  adopted  were  unlaw  fid.  This  is  a  case  not  of  nudi- 
eious  interference  with  contracts  where  c«|iiily  icfuses  to  in- 
terfere unless  the  scrvici's  are  of  a  \ini(|ue  and  special  char- 
acter, but  of  unfair  competition.  •  •  •  'p|i(>  conduct  of 
defendants  amounts  to  an  nidawfid  obtaining  and  use  of  a 
tradt'  list.""*'  And  in  most  oT  the  cases  in  which  snch  relief 
has  been  graided  it  has  been  based  upon  the  theft  or  surrep- 
titious cojiyiufir  of  the  customer's  list  of  the  former  employer, 
rather  than  upon  any  theory  that,  in  the  absence  of  such  a  ^ 
l>hysical  Xhwa  as  the  stolen  or  copied  list,  there  should  be 
any  denial  of  the  employe's  right  to  solicit  the  trade  of  the 
same  customers  for  another  employer  ;^^'  but  there  are  other 
cases  having  no  such  refinement  to  support  them,  in  which 
the  dri\er-sale.smen  of  laundries  or  bakeries,  in  the  absense 
of  any  written  or  printed  list,  have  been  enjoined  from  solicit- 
ing their  former  trade. ^"  and  these  eases  seem  to  the  writer 
to  be  wholly  vicious  and  ojiposed  to  public  policy.  They  give 
to  the  first  employer  the  power  to  dejirive  the  emidoye  of 
the  right  to  earn  a  livelihood  among  the  i)eople  to  whom  he 
is  known,  so  that  a  contract  of  simi)le  employment  is.  by 
judicial  construction,  converted  into  a  covenant  not  to  re- 
engage in  business  on  a  particular  route  or  with  particular 
peojjle.  There  is  no  consideration  fur  such  a  covenant,  and 
it  is  thought  that  the  liberty  of  th(»  custonu>r.  as  well  as  the 
employe,   is  unwarrantably  alu'idged  by  sm-h  decisions. 

It  must  be  conceded  that  the  courts  have  gone  a  long  way 
in  curl)ing  the  activities  of  former  employes.  Not  only  has 
the   emjjloye   been   enjoined   from   soliciting    the   trade   of  his 

K4  —  I'ouikI,      •'.,      in      W'itkop      A  R(V    I'.mpiri'    Stniin     l-iuindrv     •"«>. 

HolmcH    Co.     V.    C.rtnt    Atlantic    i  v.   I^»ziir,    Iflr)   Calif.    Of);    IM)    I'ac. 

I'arifio   T«'a   Co.,    124    N.    Y     Siipp.,  Hep.  IISO;  Smith  v.  Kornan.  fi  Ohio 

U:,(\     (Sup.    Ct.,    IJMO).  Dec.    n-print    :{2;    Hoosin^'    v.    Dor- 

H.v— St<-v.-nH   4    Co.    V.    Stih'8,    20  mun.    i.M   N.    Y.    S.   'JIG;    148   App. 

R   I.  S'JO.  Div.   824. 


:{(il  INI-HINOEMENT.  [§  15:{ 

foniu'i'  cnslumors.  Ixil  Iroin  sclliiij,'  to  (Mistoiucrs  u  ho,  iiiiso- 
licitcd,  s()uj;lit   to  l)iiy   ""foods  fi-om  him.'*" 

In  foUowiii}^  tliis  line  of  pcocoduro  it  has  been  several  times 
lield  thai  tin-  ciiiphjye  not  only  can  not  solicit  llie  customers 
Avliosc  names  wci-c  originally  pivcn  him  t)y  the  earlier  cm- 
])l()yer,  hnt  tlial  lie  couhl  not  solicit  the  ti'adc  of  such  cus- 
tomers as  iio  had  |ii()cuT-cd  for  the  former  employer  by  his 
own  efforts.^'^ 

In  all  of  the  cases  referred  to,  there  was  no  question  of 
business  secrecy,  and  all  jiroceeded  upon  the  theory  that  there 
was  an  abuse  of  confidence  \\heii  the  salesman  tried  to  ])rofit 
by  tiie  trading  ac(jiiaintance  made  in  the  course  of  his  former 
emjiloyment.  Logically,  it  is  quite  immaterial  whether  the 
solicitor  was  employed  by  a  bakery,  a  laundry,  or  an  insurance 
company;  and  amidst  the  flood  of  false  reasoning  attending 
this  subject  it  is  refreshing  to  find  the  Geor^Ma  court  making 
this  clear  statement:  "The  relation  of  Stein  to  the  association 
•was  not  a  confidential  one  in  the  sense  that  he,  by  reason  of 
it,  acquired  a  knowledge  of  any  business  secrets.  *  •  • 
That  knowledge  of  the  policyholders  which  would  be  useful 
%)  him,  in  the  event  of  his  representing  as  agent  another  com- 
])any,  was  not  confided  to  him  })y  the  association,  if  derived 
from  it  at  all.  Persons  may  have  taken  out  policies  in  the 
association  on  account  of  personal  friendship  for  Stein  or 
confidence  in  his  integrity,  and  tlure  is  no  reason  why  he  should 
not  be  allowed  to  solicit  their  business  for  another  company 
which  he  represents,  his  agency  for  the  association  having  been 
terminated."  ^^ 

In  a  New  York  case  the  injunction  sought  against  an  in- 
surance solicitor  was  denied  in  an  opinion  which  states:  "The 
uncontradicted  evidence  tends  to  show,  and  the  custom  is 
so  universal  that  the  court  may  take  judicial  notice.  *  •  • 
that  the  business  of  a  fii'c  insurance  agent,  at  least  in  the 
smaller  cities  and  towns,  is  to  represent  contemporaneously 
several   insurance    com])anies,    and    consists   in    soliciting   per- 

87_Lov,.n     V.     ?(■(,], 1.-.     1.->S     Tils.  If..-)   Calif.    O.".;     1:^0    T>ai'.    R.-p.    IISO 

l.'iO.  (liascd  on  Calif.  Civ.  Code.  §  1085). 

88— Witkop     &      Holincs     Co.     v.  80— Fish.  J.,  in  Stein   v.   Xation- 

Boyce,  61  N.  Y.  Misc.  12fi;  Empire  al    Life    Association,    105    Ga.    821 

Steam      Laundry      Co.      v,     Lozicr,  (1899). 


§  15iJ]  llol-KINS    ON    TKADK.M AUKS.  3G2 

sons  to  jxTinit  tlu>  ajrciil  to  |il;ic<'  iMsuraiicc  for  them,  or  in 
being  solicited  by  those  (U-siroiis  of  hciii^'  insured,  for  the 
same  purpose.  Only  in  rare  eases  do  those  wlio  seeli  iiisnr- 
anee  express  preference  for  any  one  tire  insurance  company 
over  another,  or  request  that  their  insui'ancc  he  iihiced  in  any 
jiarticular  coyipany.  The  proof  in  this  case  tends  to  siu)\v 
that,  for  the  three  aiul  one-half  years  Shipman  was  the  af^ent 
of  the  plaintiff  and  other  companies,  he  was  rarely,  if  ever, 
requested  to  |)Iace  insurance  with  any  particular  company. 
and  exercised  his  own  judirment  in  determining;  with  which 
of  the  insurance  comjianics  he  i-eprcsentcd  he  would  i)lace  the 
insurance.  •  •  •  'fj^  piiHeyhoIder  was  free  to  renew  with 
any  comj^any  he  mifrht  see  fit  or  not  to  renew  his  policy  at 
all.  Shipman  i)rocured  the  insurance  for  the  plaintilT  in  the 
tirst  j)lace  from  customers  or  i)atrons  of  his  own.  It  is  en- 
tirely lawful  f(^r  the  defendant,  so  lon«;  as  he  does  not  use 
for  that  purpose  the  information  feathered  exclusively  from 
the  ]ilaintiff's  iiro])erty.  to  solicit  these  customers  and  i)atrons 
in  behalf  of  any  insurance  com]>any  he  may  see  tit.  the  plain- 
tiff or  any  other,  so  lonp  as  he  does  not  abridjre  the  enjoyment 
by  the  i>laintiff  of  his  beneficial  interest  in  existing  contracts 
of  insurance  by  inducing  imjiroj^er  cancellations.""" 

It  is  the  writer's  conclusion  that  the  more  offensive  decisions 
touchiiifr  ui)on  the  question  under  consideration  are  due  to 
the  cctnfusion  of  law  with  ethics,  which  is  over-prevalent  in 
modern  judicial  decisions  as  well  as  in  modern  le<;islation.  In 
reaching:  the  conclusion  to  prrant  the  injunction  the  rifjhts  of 
the  cmj)loye  have  ])een  wiped  out.  in  some  instances,  by  treat- 
inp  his  knowledpre  of  the  former  employer's  customers  as 
"confidential  knowledge."  thoufrh  lu)  trade  secret  is  involved, 
and  the  names  and  addresses  of  the  customers  could  be  law- 
fully ascertained  by  anyone  who  mipht  see  fit  to  follow  the 
salesman  in  bis  daily  or  weekly  canvass.  One  opinion  of  this 
type  reads  as  follows: 

"The  oblitration   of  an   employe  not   to  divnlpe  or  use 

confidential  knowledge  pained  in  tl ourse  of  bis  em|)loy- 

ment  to  the  |»rejndice  of  his  em|)loyer  is  the  foundation  of 

00— JlfMikfT.  t  .  in  Vatioiia!  Tir.'  insurance  Co.  V.  t)uUar(l,  97  N.  Y. 
App.   Div.  2:U. 


:}G:{  INKKINCr.MKNT.  [§  154 

every  eoiiti-.n't  of  liiiiii^'.  It  is  uiil'iiii-  for  tlx'  (Icfciidaiit  to 
take  advanta^'e  of  kiiowledtre  imparled  to  him  in  eonfi- 
denee  and  use  that  kiiowled^'c  to  (h-stroy  j)hiiiitilT"s  busi- 
ness. The  defendant  furnished  an  employe  of  plaintiff's 
competitor  with  information  of  idaintiff's  customers  for 
the  j)urp()se  and  wliich  was  used  by  such  emi)loye  in  mak- 
ing (b'liveries  for  such  com))etitor,  aiul  he  claims  the  right 
to  jx'rsonally  go  ovei'  the  route,  call  upon  each  customer 
of  the  i)laintifT  whose  name  and  address  had  been  furnished 
him  for  the  |)urp()se  of  plaintitT's  business,  solicit  orders 
for  plaintiff's  competitors,  take  up  |)laintiff's  trading- 
stam])  books  from  such  customers,  and  issue  a  trading 
book  of  like  stamj)  valiu'  to  the  customer  furnished  by 
plaintiff's  competitor.  If  such  eonduid  must  be  api)roved 
and  adjudged  to  be  right,  projx'r,  aiul  lawful,  there  would 
seem  to  be  no  limitation  ujxin  the  gross  beti'ayal  of  c(»nfi- 
denee  by  an  unscrupulous  employe."'" 

lu  the  case  of  an  ad\(M"tising  solicitor  .ludge  (Irosscup  stated 
very  clearly  what  the  w  riti  i-  conceives  to  be  sound  docti'ine: 
"romi)lainant  chai-ges  that  Mahin  has  enticed  away  its  (dients, 
and  has  been  i)rocuring  them  to  cancel  contracts  with  the 
eomplaiiumt  iu)t  yet  fully  perfoi-iiuMl.  As  to  the  first  part  of 
this  charge,  I  hold  it  was  within  Mahin's  right,  after  the 
connection  ceased,  to  iu)t  oidy  receive,  but  to  solicit,  the  pat- 
ronage of  these  clients.  Whether  he  could  rightfully  advise 
them  to  break  existing  contracts  with  complainant  is  another 
question."  ^- 

§154.  Inciting  breach  of  contract  as  unfair  competition. — 
The  general  jirinciides  of  the  law  of  unfair  competition  extend 
to  those  acts,  done  in  competition,  which  are  designed  to  dis- 
turb the  contractual  relations  between  employer  and  employe, 
or  between  the  plaintiff  and  a  third  party.  Those  principles 
came  into  existence  long  before  the  broad  doctrines  of  the 
modern  law  of  unfair  competition  came  into  existence.  They 
were  established  before  the  day  of  Blackstone,  and  were  origi- 
nally developed  in  cases  involving  the  enticement  of  the 
servant,  or  apprentice,  from  the  master.  They  were  expanded 
to  include  cases  of  inciting  breach  of  the  contracts  of  opera 

ni— Brown.      J.,      in      Witkop     &  02— Proctor  &   ("oilier  Co.   v.  Ma- 

Holmcs    Co.    V.    Boyco,     118    N.    Y.       liin,  'J3   Fod.    Kcp.   875,   87G. 
Supp.  401,  464. 


§  154]  HOIKINS    ON    TKAUKMAKKS.  364 

siiifjors  by  tlio  londiiij;  i-aso  (»f  LkhiIiii  r.  djii,  in  l.*^.')^."^  and 
tin*  law  jjMvoruiiif;  the  suhjcfl  ttf  iiicilcd  lirradi  ^rciiri  ally  was 
suniincd  uj)  l>y  the  lal«'  Mr.  .lust ice  Hrcwi'i-  as  follows:  "It 
has  ht'cn  rcjM'atrdly  held  that,  if  one  nialiciously  iiitcrfores 
in  ]i  contrai't  hftwcfu  two  parties  and  iiidm-cs  oiif  of  tlicin  to 
break  that  contract  to  the  injui-y  of  the  other,  the  party  in- 
jured can  maintain  an  action   ajrainst   the  wron<.'doer. " '" 

Sinee  unfair  coiii|»et  it  ion  hecanie  reco;:iii/ed  as  a  distinct 
division  of  e(|uity  jurisprtnlence  the  courts  have  rec()«rnized 
that  the  eases  of  incited  breach,  whei-e  the  tortfeasor  was  in 
eoniniereial  competition  witli  the  phiintitT,  sluudd  l)e  ehissified 
as  unfair  competition  cases."" 

Obviously,  however,  wlien  a  ])i'eacji  is  incited  by  one  who  is 
not  a  business  eomjietitor  of  the  party  (buna<red  ])y  the  i)reach, 
the  tort  is  not  of  a  kind  to  l)e  coiisi(b»red  in  this  book. 

As  between  competitors,  the  re|)orted  cases  disclose  two 
peneral  classes  of  acts  done  in  pnicurin<;  the  breach.  The  first 
class  of  cases  involves  facts  showino:  no  deceit  or  misrepresen- 
tation, but  the  breach  of  the  existirifr  contract  is  obtained,  or 
soupht  to  be  secured  by  persuasion  or  the  oft'erinjr  of  the 
same  class  of  poods  or  service  at  lower  cost,  or  possibly  at  the 
same  cost.  The  knowledfre  of  an  exist  in};  contract,  and  the 
oflFer  to  one  of  the  contractinp:  i)arties  of  froods  or  service,  the 
acceptance  (»f  which  \\ill  necessarily  induce  the  brciuh  of  that 
existiufr  contract,  has  been  deemed  sufficient  to  create  liability 
in  some  instances.""  And  in  several  cases  one  who  has  caused 
the    breach    of   a    contract    ])y    merely    uririnLr    it    and    olTerint; 

93— Liiml.-y    v.    f'.yi',   2    Kl.    &    l?i.  Am.riciui    Law   ll.x.k  (  o.   v.    Kdwnrd 

216;    75    E.    C.    L.    210.  Tli<)m|.s..ii  C...  SI    N.   V.   Snpp.   22.".. 

I>4 — An;'l<'   V.   (Miipa^ro,   etc.,   T\a'\\-  OLhthovxi.      Sclintiwalii    v.    lia^'uitiH. 

way  Co.,  l.')l  U.  S.   1;  .38  L.  Kd.  .">.'..  ;!2  Okla.  22.];    122   I'ac.   I!.]!.  20:{. 

Oj^Thcy   arc   r«'f<Trcd   to   ns   un-  !•(! — Ilcatli  v.  .Xnnricaii   Hook  Co., 

fair    comiH'tition    in    tlio    followin;;  07    Fed.    Pn-p.    ."•:{;{;    .hid;,'!'    .Jackson 

caws:       Feilrrnl.       f'iti/cns'     Lij;ht,  jtoints    out    lliat    tlic    j*clH)ol-liimrd« 

Heat    A    I'owcr   Co.    v.    Mt)nt;:omiTy  wlio    lin-aclii-d    at    dcfcndant'H   mere 

Linlit  ii.  Water   Tower  Co.,    171    Fed.  Holieitation    eoiild    not    lu-    reeoverod 

Ri'p.  .I.'*."!;   Sperry  i   IIiiteliinHon  Co.  a;rainst;    lienee   plaintiir.   wliieh   had 

V.  I'ommer,  HUI  Fed.  Kep.  .1(l!»,  .'Ml -.  nndouliteiily        sustained        dnmaf^o, 

I^'win   V.    lll«M'de,    2<r2    Fed.    !{i'p.    7.  wcmld      Imim'      n.i      nnn-dy      unleHH 

24.      MtiKHfirhuHi  ItH.      WlieelerSten-  a;;ainMt    tlu'    party    so    iiidncin);    the 

zel   Co.   V.    American    Window   (JhiHM  lireaeh. 
Co.,    2(12    MaHH.     471.       V#i/-     I'orA. 


305 


lNFItl.\(;^!.\ll-N'r. 


§154 


other  ^nods  in  lieu  (»f  those  (-(tiif  i-actt-d  for,  has  Ixmmi  held  liahh* 
to  till'  parly  iiijiircd."" 

But  the  hcttcf  fcasdinii;,'-  is  fliat  tlictc  must  he  cvidciicc  n\' 
force,  iiiisr('|ircs('iilal  ion  ov  fraud  eiiii)h)yed  in  eirectiiit;  the 
brea(di,  or  the  third   jiarly  is   not    linhle.'*"^ 

When  such  forrc,  niisroprosentat  ion  or  fraud  exist  the  lia- 
bility of  the  wroii{;doer  is  well  settled.  II(>  may  he  liahk'  also, 
because  of  offeriuf;  to  indemnify  the  l)reaehin<j^  party  af^ainst 
the  eonsequences  of  his  broach. 

"The  trader  who  has  math'  a  conti-act  with  another  person 
has  a  rifrht,  which  the  law  will  pi-otect.  to  have  that  other  kor]) 
it.  Other  tradei-s  have  a  correlative  rifrht  to  solicit  the  cus- 
tom to  which  the  contract  relates.  Whatever  dama{?e  results 
to  the  first  trader  by  the  mere-  solicitation  is  privilof^ed,  «o 
far  as  the  solicitoi-  is  concei-ned,  in  the  interest  of  proper 
freedom  of  competition.  Were  the  law  otherwise,  the  first 
person  oceu|\vinjr  the  field  of  public  service  in  many  localities. 
l)y  ]irocurinfr  lonpr  contracts  to  take  water,  lifrht.  and  the  like 
from  him,  mi<i'ht  intivncli  himself  in  a  monopoly  there  for 
years,  because  another  tinM-eafter  could  iu)t  solicit  customers, 
thus  bound,  to  chanjje  their  ])atronafre  to  him,  and  thereby 
enable  a  i-ival  enterprise  to  enter  the  field.  The  faithful 
observance  of  contracts,  however,  is  as  essential  to  the  public 
welfare  as  the  rijrht  of  comjietition.  Proj)erty  rights,  iniblie 
and  privat(^  moi'ality.  and  liberty  itself,  are  insecure  wlion 
the  law  ein'ourages  the  non-ol)servance  of  contract  oblifrations. 
Hence,  while  the  law  allows  the  trader  by  mere  solicitation  to 
persuade  custonu-rs  to  change  their  business  r^lation.s.  it  does 
not  i)ermit  such  a  solicitoi-,  even  in  the  interest  of  competition, 


07 — Fcfliral. — Sperry  «Sc  Ilutoli- 
inson  Co.  v.  Associated  Morcliants" 
Stamp  Co..  2ns  Fed.  Rop.  20."); 
Marjilavd.  Cumliorlaiul  Glass  Mfp. 
Co.  V.  DcWitt.  1-20  Md.  381;  87  Ail. 
"Rep.  027;  Massachusetts.  WilieolOT- 
f^tonzel  iCo.  v.  Anierieaii  Window 
Glass  Co..  202  Ma.ss.  471. 

98 — Alabama. — Tcnnosscc  Coal 
Co.  V.  Kelly,  ir>3  Ala.  .348;  Califor- 
nia. Boysoii  V.  Thorn,  08  Cal.  r)78; 
33    Pac.    Hep.    402;    Indiana.      -lack- 


son  V.  Mor<.'an,  40  Ind.  App.  376; 
04  X.  E.  Rep.  10-21;  Kcnturkif. 
Chambers  v.  Baldwin.  01  Ky.  121: 
Bourlier  v.  Macauley,  01  Ky.  135; 
1.)  S.  W.  Rep.  60;  Missouri.  Glen- 
coe  Sand  &  Gravel  Co.  v.  Hudson, 
138  Mo.  439;  40  S.  \V.  Rep.  93; 
\rir  York.  Ashley  v.  Dixon,  48 
X.  Y.  430;  yorth  Carolina.  Swain 
V.  Johnson,  l.il  N.  C.  93;  65  S.  E. 
Rep.  619;  Xorth  Dakota.  Sleeper 
V.  Baker,  22  X.  D.  386. 


§  156j  iiorKiNs  ON  tuai>i;makks.  :j(JG 

to  go  furtluM",  iiitt'r\  t'liiii^'  ai*tivt*ly  botwi'iMi  the  coiitrui'ting 
piirtios,  as  a  (Ittiiiiiiaiit  |»t;»'iu'y  in  producing,'  a  Itrcadi  by 
promise  of  iiKK'iuiiily  to  one  df  lliciii  to  induct'  tlu'  lucacli. 
When  tlif  sttlit'itor  kiiowiiij^ly  aixi  iiitt'iitioiially  jjocs  beyond 
mere  soliritation  to  indui'e  another  man's  eustomer  to  do 
business  witli  him,  and  promise  to  hohl  that  other  man's  eus- 
tomer harndess  for  l)reaeh  of  eoidraet  with  liim.  h(!  transcends 
the  ri^dits  of  tlie  hiw  of  competition,  has  no  'suflicient  justifi- 
cation." .md  tliereby  becomes  liabh*  to  him  wliose  customer  is 
taken  over.  Such  conduct  is  an  unhiwful  interference  with 
anotiier  man's  rijjhts.  for  whicli  he  may  maintain  an  action 
and  recover  nominal  dama^M-s.  altliou^di  the  contract  be  not 
actually  breached   in  consecpience  of  the  solicitation.""'* 

§  155.  Contracts  relating  to  stock  quotations. — In  the  ease 
of  stock  market  (piotations.  the  contract  ix'in^'  between  a 
stock  ex(dianprc  and  the  teleprraph  companies  and  bindinj;  tlie 
latter  to  certain  channels  of  distribution,  tlie  United  States 
Su])reme  Court  (by  a  vote  of  6  to  r{)  has  decided  that  injunction 
will  lie  ajrainst  the  telefrraph  companies  and  the  uimuthorized 
recijiients,  from  the  companies,  of  such   cpiotations.' 

In  the  seventh  circuit  it  had  l)een  held  by  the  circuit  court 
of  api)eals  that  the  exchanire  had  a  i)roperty  ri^dit  in  the 
quotations.2  a  conclusion  reaffirmed  by  the  supreme  court  in 
a  later  case."' 

^  156.  Appropriation  of  "blind"  advertising  as  unfair  com- 
petition.— 'I'hc  le«ral  relationship  of  advert isin«:  to  \ho  l)usi- 
ness  in  wliieh  it  is  employed  is  not  yet  clearly  established. 
The  publication  of  a  catch-word  or  catch-phrase,  as  the  open- 
ing of  an  advertising  campaign,  is  a  frequent  expedient.  The 
name  of  the  advertisei-  and  the  name  of  the  product  do  not 
appear   in    the    preliminary   advertising.    wlios(>   purpose    is   to 

f»n — TonoH.  J.,   in   CitizonH'  Lipbt.  h.v    Co.,    1.10    F.-.l     R.p.    .'■>n7.    M^; 

TTcat   &    Pow.T   f'o.    V.   Montirnmcrv  r>i  C.  C.  A.  fifin. 

T/it.'ht  A   \Vnt<r   Pf.w.T  Co.,  171    Trd.  .»— "Tt     i«    ontnMislicd     tliat     tli.- 

ft.'iS.  .'(60  (f.  C.  inOOK  «|iiiitntioiiH  aro  pr(>|M'rty  nn<l  nro  on- 

1 — f'birat'o     Iloanl    f)f    Tra<l<-     v.  liti.-d  to  (In-  protection  of  tho  law." 

rhrinfi.'  Ornin  A   Stock  Co..   lOS  IJ.  Mr.    .IiiMticc    McKcnim.    in    Tliint    v. 

S    23rt;    40  T.     I'd     inni  \c\v  York  Cotton   K\clianj;c,  20r)  U. 

2— Board  of  Trad--  v.  L.    A    Kin-  S.   322.  3.1:1 :    .M    I..   Kd.   82:.. 


367  INFUINOEMENT.  [§  156 

arouRO  curiosity.  When  that  theoretical  euriosity  is  aroused, 
the  names  of  the  poods  and  the  advertiser  are  discdosed  to  the 
impatient  puhlic.  The  first  steps  in  sueli  a  eanipaij,Mi  arc 
styh'd  "blind"  advertising?. 

Obsessed  by  the  idea  that  its  proi)er  field  I'or  new  customers 
was  among  the  dissatisfied  customers  of  others,  a  St.  Louis 
laundry  published  the  word  "Stopnrkicken"  (which  it  be- 
lieved to  be  "an  attractive  misspelling  and  contraction  of 
the  phrase  'stop  your  kicking'  ")  on  signboards  and  printed 
cards.  Before  the  key  was  ])ublishod,  an  enterprising  print- 
ing concern  distributed  cards  ])oaring  the  advertised  word, 
followed  by  its  own  name.  This  act  obviously  destroyed  the 
value  of  the  laundry's  advertisement.  An  action  for  damages 
resulted  in  a  nominal  verdict  and  judgment  for  the  jjlaintiff 
was  reversed  on  appeal.  The  reversal  was  predicated  upon 
the  grounds  that  there  was  no  trademark  right  in  the  word 
so  advertised,  and  as  it  had  not  been  used  in  connection  with 
a  disclosure  of  the  plaintiff's  name  or  business  it  had  not  been 
associated  in  the  mind  of  the  public  with  the  ]ilaintifT's  busi- 
ness. There  was  also  no  competition  at  all  between  clothes- 
washing  and  the  sale  of  printed  matter,  and  therefore  no 
unfair  competition. '^ 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  the  contemptible  appropriation 
by  another  of  such  "blind"  advertising  can  not  be  restrained 
or  punished  :  the  wrong  and  injury  are  manifest,  and  there 
should  be  a  remedy.  But  the  successful  action  will  not  be 
grounded  on  unfair  competition  unless  the  parties  are  com- 
petitors. "If  there  is  no  competition  there  is  no  unfair 
competition."  ^ 

4— Westminster    Laundry    Co.    v.  Fed.  r,.30;  12.-1  C.  C.  A.  192;  Investor 

Hesse   Envelope   Co.,    174    Mo.   App.  Publishing  Co.  v.  Dobinson,  S2  Fed. 

238;  ir>fi  S.  W.  Rep.  707.  Rep.     fid;     Forney     v.     Enpineerinji 

."i — Carland,  J.,  in  Carroll  v.  Du-  News  Publishinf»  Co.,  ^^7  Hun.  ^SS ; 

luth    Superior    Mill.    Co.,    2.32    Fed.  10   X.   Y.   Supp.   814;   Hanover  Star 

Rep.  675,  r>81    (C.  C.  A.  8)  ;   follow-  Milling  Co.  v.  Allen.  208   F.-d.   Rep. 

ing   Borden    lee   Cream   Co.    v.    Ror-  f)!.-?;   12.5  C.  C.  A.  515;  affirmed.  240 

den    Condensed   Milk   Co.,   201    Fed.  V.  R.  40.3;   Simplex  Automobile  Co. 

510;     121    C.    C.    A.    200;    Corning  v.    Kahnweiler.   162   App.  Div.  480; 

Crlr.ss  Works  v.   Corning  Cut  Class  147  N.  Y.  Supp.  617;  Astor  v.  West 

Co..  107  N.  Y.    173;   no  X.   E.   Rep.  82d    Street    Realty    Company,    167 

449;    Apollo   Bros.   v.    Perkins,   207  App.    Div.    273;    152    N.    Y.    Supp. 


§   ir>7!  HOl'KINS    ON    TKADHM.UtKS.  \iiiS 

^  157.  The  appropriation  of  ideas,  aside  from  patent,  trade- 
mark or  copyright,  as  unfair  competition.  In  niiiny  nt'  tlif 
preoedijip  sections  in  tliis  chapter  we  have  examined  the  hoi-- 
ilcrhmd  of  industrial  i)roperty  ri^jhts.  The  ever  rcfiiniii<; 
<liu'sti(tns  presented  to  tlie  courts  are,  has  the  phiintitT  a  prop- 
erty ri^ht  in  tliis  particuhir  tiling',  jiiid  is  ihcrc  an  invasion 
of  that  particuhir  rij;lit  ?  The  whoh'  hody  of  tlie  hiw  of  unfair 
competition  is  founded  on  the  law  of  property.  We  return 
inevitahly  to  considerations  of  the  terms  "property"  and 
"ri<rhts."  and  the  expansion  (tf  those  terms  to  meet  new  needs 
are  a  stron<r  test  of  the  adaptability  of  e(|uity  to  instant  enier- 
pencies.  Sir  Frederick  Pollock  has  tentatively  defined  the  law 
of  projierty  as  "the  systematic  expression  of  the  de<ri"ees. 
and  forms  of  control,  use.  and  enjoyment,  that  are  recofrni/.ed 
and  protected  l»y  law.""  with  tiie  suiiirestion  that  it  nuiy  turn 
out  to  cover  more  than  this,  if  we  jrivc  tli»^  widest  acceptable 
sense  to  the  word  i)roperty. 

In  the  absence  of  copyright,  a  j)roduecr  of  talkinp-machine 
records  souprht  to  enjoin  a  competitor  from  selling  records 
copied  from  those  made  by  the  jdaintiff.  his  jirodnct  beinp 
advertised  as  "duplicates  fi-om  the  ori«riiuil  records."  Judpe 
rhatfield.  in  prrantiufr  the  injunction,  appreciated  the  novelty 
and  difficulty  of  the  questions  raised,  and  the  lengths  to  which 
his  decision  miprht  he  used  as  in  support  of  other  claims  of 
property  ripht,  more  or  less  remote  from  the  specific  riprht 
challenped  before  him.  TTis  conclusions  were  reached  as  fol- 
lows : 

"Reference  has  been  made  to  the  rights  of  a  photofrrajiher 
who  should  make  a  film  for  movinpr  pictures,  of  some  historical 
or  unique  occasion,  and  should  sell  the  film  to  |)arties  who 
should  reproduce  it  in  a  movinfr-])icture  machine.  Other  j^ar- 
ties  mipht  make  pictures  from  tho  film,  or  from  the"  exposure, 
and  a  question,  in  sf>me  respects,  similar  to  the  present,  mi^dit 
be  involved.  A  dressniakinp  establishment  mijrht  employ  hitrh- 
priccd  dc.sitrners.  and  their  jtroduct  iiii^dit  be  copied.  ,ind  the 
designs  thus  appropriatcil.  Architects  mipht  build  houses 
and  utilize  extrcjiiely  valuable  methods  and   ideas,  and  others 

rt31  ;    Sartor    v,    SrliHfl«-n,    )2."t    Tkwii.  (I— Firnt    Hook    i>f    .FiiriHpniilciKM', 

607;   if'i  V    w.  .'■,11.  (  h    vrr. 


3G9  INKKINGEMKNT.  I  §  l-''"'' 

biiil(liii{^  houses  niit^Iit  follow  llicsc  ideas.  Seiilplors  mi^'lil 
carve  statues  of  ^I'eat  eoniniereial  value,  and  stone  carvers 
might  copy  these  sculptures.  If  can  not  now  he  determined 
how  far  such  appropi'lation  of  ideas  could  he  prevented;  hut 
it  would  seem  that  where  a  product  is  placed  upon  the  nuirket, 
uiulei-  advertisement  and  stat<'iiien1  that  the  snhstitute  fir 
imitatinjj:  i)roduet  is  a  dujjlieatc  of  the  orif,Miud,  and  where  the 
commercial  value  of  the  imitation  lies  in  tlie  fact  that  it  takes 
advantage  of  and  appropriates  to  itself  the  eommereial  rpiali- 
ties,  reputation,  and  sala])le  properties  of  the  orifrinal.  equity 
should   frrant  relief."" 

Reduced  to  its  final  analysis,  the  doctrine  of  this  ease  is  that 
if  I  nuike  for  sale  a  copy  of  another's  unpatented,  uneoi)y- 
rifrhted  j^hysieal  ])rodnction,  T  do  so  at  my  peril,  having  regard 
to  the  novelty,  cost  of  production,  and  other  distinctive  fea- 
tures of  the  origiiud.  The  right  to  multiply  copies  created  by 
this  decision  would  seem  to  make  copyright  statutes  super- 
fluous. The  case  would  seem  to  present  a  typical  damnum 
absque  {ujuna.  and  to  establish  an  extremely  doubtful  prece- 
dent. 

This  subject  has  been  discussed  in  a  number  of  cases,  the 
Fanotijyui  case  being  one  of  rather  extreme  views.  These 
cases  can  not  readily  be  classified,  but  fall  roughly  into  two 
divisions ; 

First,  cases  where  the  injunction  has  been  granted  upon 
the  finding  of  fact  that  the  copying  of  the  plaintiff's  mer- 
chandise resulted  in  the  sale  of  defendant's  merchandise  as 
and  for  that  of  the  plaintiff.^ 

7 — Fonotipia  T.imitod  v.   Bradloy.  v.   Goorpo  Frost  Co.,   17fi  Fed.  Rpp. 

171   Fed.   Rep.   051.  064.  .■{•■?«;    100  C.   C.  A.  258;   Stewart   v. 

8_Fonotipia  Limited  v.  Bradley.  Hudson.  222  Fed.  Rep.  584;  U  .S. 
171  Fed.  Rep.  051 ;  Fox  &  Co.  v.  Expansion  Bolt  Co.  v.  Kroncke 
Glynn,  101  Mass.  .344;  78  N.  E.  Hdw.  Co.,  225  Fed.  Rep.  .38.3 ;  Rush- 
Rep.  80;  0  L.  R.  A.  (N.S.)  100(1;  more  v.  Manhattan  S.  &  S.  Works, 
SteifT  V.  Binp.  215  Fed.  Rep.  204;  10:5  Fed.  Rep.  030;  90  C.  C.  A.  209; 
Rtrause  v.  Weil.  101  Fed.  Rep.  527;  10  L.  R.  A.  (N.S.)  2G0 ;  Rushmore 
Enterprise  Mfjr.  Co.  v.  Landers,  v.  Saxon  (C.  C.)  158  Fed  Rep.  400 ; 
Frary  &  Clarke,  131  Fed.  Rep.  240;  Baldwin  v.  Grier  Bros.  Co..  215 
65  c!  C.  A.  587 ;  Yale  &  Towne  Mf^'.  K.d.  Rep.  735;  Grier  Bros  Co.  v. 
Co.  V.  Alder,  154  Fed.  Rep.  37;  83  Baldwin,  210  Fed.  Rep.  735;  135 
C.  C.  A.    140;    E.  B.  Estes  &  Sons  C.  C.  A.  433;  Moxie  Co.  v.  Daoust, 


§  i:>Tj 


HOl'KI\>    U.N     IKADK.M  AKKS. 


;{7o 


SfcouJ.  rases  whcrr  tlir  iiijuiirtivo  relief  has  l)eeM  denied 
upon  the  jjrouiul  tlial  the  defeiuhiiit  has  tlie  absolute  rij^jht 
to  copy  the  plaint  iff  s  nu'rehandiso  so  long  as  he  "does  not 
pretend  that  the  vopy  is  an  tu-ij^Miial  |>roduet  of  the  eoniplain- 
ant.'""  The  ultinwite  distinetion  between  this  group  of  eases"* 
and  the  fornuT  is  that  unfair  eonij)etition  is  found  to  exist  in 
the  one  group,  and  finuul  absent   in  the  other. 

The  eases  uiuler  consideration  are  strongly  analogous  to 
those  involving  geogi-aphical  or  otherwise  descriptive  names 
which    have   ae(piircd.    through    user,   a    secondary    meaning." 


K.- 


4.U.    \-2^  (.'.   (' 


'2(Ki    Fi-(1. 

:n«. 

0 — Kcvstoiir  Type  Foundry  v. 
Portland  l»uh.  Co..  I(i8  C.  C.  A.  "lOS; 
186    Pod.    Rep.    (WO. 

10 — Diamond   Match   Co.  v.   Sa{r>- 


to  insist  upon  tin-  second  comer's 
addin;,'  some  arbitrary  mark,  it- 
self not  essential,  liy  way  of 
distinction.  The  case  is  in  es- 
sence no  dilTerent  from  thow 
of  the  secondary  user  of  descriptive 


naw  Match  Co..  74  C.  C.  A.  ftO;  142       or  jjeo^'raphical  names.     Tlie  plain- 


Fed.  Rep.  727 ;  Rathhone,  Sard  &. 
Co.  V.  Champion  Steel  Ranjie  Co.. 
110  C.  C.  A.  r)9();  180  Fed  Rep.  20; 
37  L.  R.  A.  (N.S.)  2r>8;  Pope  A. 
M.  Co.  V.  McCrum-nowell  Co.,  112 
C.  C.  A.  31)1,  40  L.  R.  A.  (N.S.) 
463;  191  Fed.  Rep.  979;  Rice  &  Co. 
V.  Redlich  Mf^r.  Co.,  122  C.  C.  A. 
442;   44   L.    R.  A.    (N.S.)    1057;    202 


tiff  in  both  cases  finds  himrt«'lf  in 
such  a  position  that  his  customers 
have  come  to  associate  his  make 
with  some  feature  whicli  in  its  ori- 
;;in  did  not  rei>resent  him  at  all.  It 
can  make  no  dilTerence  that  in  cases 
of  genuine  secondary  User  the  fea- 
ture is  itself  a  symbol,  representa- 
tive.    I)ut     representative    of    some- 


Fed.    Rep.    \'>ry;    Armstrong    Seataj,'      thin;,'  else  tlian   tlie  plaintifT's  man- 


Oyster  Co.  V.  Smith's  Island  Oyster 
Co.,  130  C.  C.  A.  fi.'.fi;  224  Fed.  Rep. 
100;  Kisenstadt  Mfg  Co.  v.  .T.  M. 
Fisher  Co.,  232  Fed.  Rep.  9r)7 ; 
Flaf;}.'  Mfj;.  Co.  v.  Ilolway.  178 
Mass.  83;    59  N.  E.  Rep.  607. 

11 — "In  such  cases  the  first  <|ues- 
tion  is  always  whether  the  points 
of  similarity  are  essential  features 
<»f  the  tiling  Hold.  When  tliey  are, 
the  rijiht  to  copy  them  is  necessar- 
ily involved  in  the  riyht  to  sell 
that  particular  thin;,';  if  the  plain- 
tiff is  afTrTti'd,  it  is  his  miwhanee 
that  his  manufacture  has  not  be- 
<-ome  aHHociated  with  somi-  arl>i- 
trnrv   and   uneswntial    feature.     Yet 


Jifaeture.  wliiie  in  ca.ses  like  this 
the  feature  was  not  ori^'inally  a 
synil>ol  at  all.  In  each  cas«'  the  fea- 
ture has  becom*'  a  symbol  of  the 
maker,  and,  when  others  use  it,  he 
runs  the  chance  of  losing  his  cus- 
tomers. There  is  e(|ual  reason  in 
each  case  to  comjiel  the  8«'cond 
eomt-r  to  add  some  distin^'uishinj; 
nuirk  to  tlie  fiature  to  avoid  its  ac- 
(|uired  meanjn<.'.  Nor  does  it  mat- 
ter in  substance  whether  the  fea- 
ture lies  in  the  case  or  container 
or  in  the  very  thin;;  its<'lf.  Coca 
Cola  Co.  V.  Oay-Ola  Co.,  200  Fed. 
720;  119  C.  C.  A.  164;  Id..  211  Fed. 
ft42:      128     C.     C.     A.     440;     Hiram 


•ven     here     it      is     often     jioH.nilile       Walker    &    Sony    v.    Grubman     ( 1). 


371 


INI-'KINUKMKNT. 


§157 


IIciicc,   the  in'ineiplos  applied  arc  llmso  wliicli   wc  have  here- 
tuioro  coiisicicrcd. 

In  examining  these  eases,  it  is  eiirious  to  note  liow  far 
some  eourts  have  gone  toward  attempting  to  establish  a  (juasi 
rigid  of  property  in  ideas,  whieii  has  no  existence  at  common 
law,  and  which,  if  it  did  exist,  would  obviate  all  necessity 
for  patent    or  cojiyright   statutes. '- 


C.I    222  I'Vd.    Hep.  478.     Tlic  limita 
tion    in    ui)i)lic'iili()ii     must    lu'    tlic 
feasibility    of    a    murk    wliidi    !^liall 
not  be  too  burdmsomc. 

"In  cases  like  Enterprise  Mfj^. 
Co.  V.  Landers,  Frary  &  Clark.  131 
Fed.  Rep.  240;  (iri  C.  C.  A.  ns? :  Yale 
&  Towne  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Alder,  l.')4  Fed. 
Hep.  37;  83  C.  C.  A.  149;  and  (;rier 
Bros.  Co.  V.  Baldwin,  210  Fed.  Rep. 
735;  13')  C.  C.  A.  433,  tiien-  were  fea- 
tures added  by  the  defendant  wliieh 
could  have  no  purpose,  and,  what 
is  more  to  the  point,  no  efTect,  ex- 
cept to  mislead  tlie  buyer  into  sup- 
posing the  ^'oods  were  of  tlie  plain- 
tifT's  make.  Tliey  could  be  sub- 
fraeted  from  the  article  without 
affecting  those  features  which  con- 
trolled the  buyer's  choice.  Such 
cases  as  Riishmorc  v.  ^lanhattan 
Screw  &  Stamping  Works,  lt!3  Fed. 
Rep.  030;  90  C.  C.  A.  290;  10  L.  R. 
A.  (N.S.)  200;  Lovell-McConnell 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  American  Ever-Ready  Co., 
19.-)  Fed.  Rep.  931  ;  llf)  C.  C.  A.  T.IO; 
and  Rushmore  v.  Badu'er  Brass  ^Iff,'. 
Co.,  198  Fed.  Rep.  379;  117  C.  C.  A. 
255,  avowedly  rest  upon  the  same 
basis,  yet  the  doctrine  was  in  those 
cases  pressed  very  far,  since  the 
desipn  of  a  motor  lamp  or  horn 
may  well  be  a  part  of  the  reason 
why  the  buyer  chooses  them.  To 
deny  the  second  comer  the  ri;.'bt 
to  use  that  design  seems  rather 
to  step  beyond  the  principle  which 
protects  only   such   symbols  as  are 


nprcHentativc  of  the  plaintifT's 
manufacture,  noi"  does  it  seem  an 
tiitinly  ade(piate  answer  to  say 
tliat  tlie  features  enjoined  are  non- 
functional. It  is  only  when  the 
meclianical  operativeness  of  the 
thin;;  is  certainly  all  that  deter- 
mines the  buyer's  ciioice  that  such 
a  criterion  is  safe.  Mar;,'arete  Steifl", 
Inc.  V.  Bin^'  ( D.C. )  215  Fed.  Rep. 
204."  Learned  Hand,  J.,  in  Cham- 
I)ion  Spark  Vhi<r  Co.  v.  A.  R.  Mosler 
&  Co.,  233  Fed.  Rep.  112,  115. 

12 — "Tlie  defendants  have  made 
e.xact  copies  of  the  complainants' 
photo^'raj)lis  by  the  half-tone  pro- 
cess, and  are  selling  the  copies 
upon  post  cards  at  a  much  lower 
price  tlian  tlie  ori^'inals  can  be 
sold.  They  have  been  engaged  in 
this  business  for  more  than  a  year. 
At  first  they  printed  and  sold  their 
half-tone  cards  with  the  name 
"Bamforth  &  Co."  thereon,  as  well 
as  the  titles  of  the  pictures;  but, 
upon  the  advice  of  counsel,  the  use 
of  tlie  complainants'  nam<'  was  soon 
discontinued.  No  cards  bearing 
their  name  had  l)ecn  printed  for 
several  months  before  the  bill  was 
filed,  and  the  defendants  disclaim 
any  intention  to  resume  its  use, 
conceding  that  such  action  on  their 
part  was  improper,  and  that  a 
tlireatened  continuance  thereof 
should  be  enjoined.  But  they  claim 
the  right  to  go  on  with  the  re- 
production of  the   subjects  and   the 


§ir>s] 


llolKINS    (i\     lU.VDK.M  \|{K> 


372 


§158.  Threats  as  unfair  competition.  That  tlucatcMicil  acts 
wliii'li  wouKl  triitl  til  iiijiirc  ur  (lr>ti(iy  tlic  wnmvrcd  iicrsoii's 
businos.s,  as  wt-ll  as  luisrlcss  tlirt'ats  t'ouiidt'd  on  in*  intention 
or  liasis  of  ai'tion.  may  nndcr  appropriate  rircninstaiu'cs  be 
t'njoinfd.    is   \\v\\   ostahlislu'd. 


titli's  «>f  »uiii|ilaiiiiiiits'  Dinls.  tak- 
ing thi'  position  tliiit  tlioHc  cardH 
an"  uiu-o|tyri;.'hti'«l  pliotojiraphs 
which  liavf  Jni-n  drdicatotl  to  the 
piililio  l>y  n'p»'at«'d  nah's,  and  may 
tlii-n-forr  Im"  copied  fn-t-ly  hy  any 
p«'rson  and  hy  any  procesa. 

"In  my  opinion  tliis  position  can 
not  1h>  suco'ssfully  assaih'd.  No 
•pu'Stion  und«T  tin-  hiw  t>f  tradf- 
niarks  or  t!u-  law  of  unfair  competi- 
tion is  now  involved.  Tlicse  carils 
arc  uot  tra<lcniarks,  citluT  sinf^ly 
or  c<dlc-ctivcly.  in  any  sense  of  tlie 
word.  Tht-y  do  not  identify  and 
d i at in^ii it'll  the  complainants'  pro- 
duct, liut  are  the  product  itself; 
and  tliere  can  he  no  (piestion  of 
unfair  competition,  liecause  the 
ctimplainants  have  no  le;:al  ri;rht 
to  the  exclusivi-  production  and  sah-. 
It  would  he  useless  to  elalK)ratp  a 
Buhject  Bo  well  understood.  A  photo- 
;.'raph,  if  it  he  also  an  artistic  pro- 
(hiction,  the  rt'sult  of  ori^rinal  in- 
t<  ih-ctual  c-onception  on  the  jtart  of 
the  author,  may  he  copyrij.'lite(l 
with  the  same  c-lfect  us  if  it  were 
a  IxMik;  hut,  without  this  protec- 
tion of  the  federal  statutes,  neither 
the  Ixjok  nor  the  photo^'raph  can 
continue  to  i>e  the  author's  exclu- 
sive pr«»perty.  after  it  has  heen 
jirinted  and  offered  to  tlie  juiMic 
for  sale.  No  authorities  need  lie 
cited  for  so  plain  a  projiosition. 
The  copyri(;lit  statutes  Wfiuhl  have 
Is-en  unnecessary  if  the  author  had 
I»een  aide  to  protect  the  fruit  of  his 
mental    efforts    in    any    other    way; 


and,  if  he  declines  or  omits  to  avail 
hiiniM'lf  of  tile  jirotection  thus  pro- 
vided, he  is  conclusiv»-ly  jiresumed 
to  have  pres<'nted  to  the  puhlic  the 
])rodu(t  of  his  creative  juiwers,  al- 
thou;,'li  he  may  have  had  no  inten- 
tion of  making;  such  a  nitt.  No 
doulit  a  photo;rrapli  mif;ht  he 
adopted  as  a  trademark  to  distin- 
;:uish  a  manufactured  article; 
liiit.  how  a  photo;.'rap)i.  if  it  he  also 
a  work  of  art  and  tlu-refore  ca- 
pahle  <if  co|)yri<;ht,  can  lu'  the  suh- 
je<t  of  unfair  competition,  I  am  un- 
alile  to  uinlerstand.  The  only  pos- 
silile  way  to  compete  with  such  a 
]>iiot<ij.'raph  is  to  reproduce  it,  and 
any  <ine  may  do  this  lawfully  after 
it  has  heen  jiuhlished,  unless  the 
protection  «if  the  federal  statutes 
concerning;  copyrij;ht  has  previous- 
ly heen  ohtained.  The  question, 
tluTefore,  does  not  helonp  to  the 
rcfrion  <if  unfair  competition,  hut 
concerns  the  suhject  of  copyrij;ht 
alone.  If  the  photo<,'raph  is  artis- 
tic and  lias  heen  copyri'.'hted,  its 
reproduction  is  forhidden.  If  no 
cop\ri;.'ht  at  all,  or — what  comes  to 
the  same  thin;,' — no  valid  copyright, 
has  heen  ohtaine<l,  the  author  has 
no  e.\elusive  ri^rht  in  the  product  of 
his  artistic  skill,  and  to  copy  is 
therefore  not  to  compett-  unfairly 
in  a  le^'al  sense,  hut  to  c»)mpete 
with  the  full  sanction  <if  the  law," 
.f.  H.  Mcl'herson,  .1..  in  Mamforth 
V.  I)ou;;lass  I'ost  Card  \  Machine 
Co.,    IftS    Fed.    Kep.    3.0.'),   357,.. 


373  LNFKINGEMIINT.  [§158 

A  tlirc'it  lo  rofnso  to  soil  rroods  to  ono  iiiidor  oontraot  with 
ji  third  party,  il'  lie  proceeds  to  prrronii  liis  contract  is  action- 
al)l('.''  So  of  a  threat  to  ruin  a  ciistonicr  of  another-  if  he 
jx'i'sists  in  <h'aliii<;  with   that   other.'' 

A  thi'cat  to  dismiss  the  men  undei'  him  if  liiey  continiir-d 
to  deal  ^\ith  a  certain  mendiant  was  lieid  to  sustain  a  jud(^- 
ment  foi-  dama^res  in  a  suit  of  the  iiiercliant  against  a  railway 
foreman,  wiio  had  a  I'ival  merchant  as  a  tenant.'"'  In  Texas, 
however,  it  was  held  that  a  corjxjration  having  a  company 
store  on  which  it  issued  ehe(d<s  to  its  einjjloyes  in  lieu  of  i)ay, 
•was  not  liable  foi*  tiii-eatenin^'  to  discliarpre  any  employe  who 
might  deal  with  a  comjx'ting  merchant."' 

Intimidation  of  a  comi)et itoi""s  selling  force  by  threats  may 
l)e  enjoined,''  as  well  as  threats  by  a  hoard  of  fire  insurance 
underwriters  to  boycott  persons  holding  jiolicies  issued  by  the 
plaintiff  cori)oration.''*  Threats  made  in  the  course  of  a  con- 
spiracy of  competitors  to  ruin  the  plaintiff's  business  are 
actionable.'-' 

Threats  of  suits  for  patent  iufringenieni,  are  j)cculiarly  sub- 
ject to  the  scrutiny  of  courts- of  equity,  for  the  reasons  con- 
cisely stated  in  a  typical  case  by  Judge  Quarles  : 

"If  such  a  campaign  be  skillfully  conducted  for  a  series 
of  years,  as  seems  to  have  been  the  case  here,  the  com- 
petitor is  helpless.  His  orders  are  countermanded,  old 
customers  desert  him,  through  fear  of  litigation,  or  demand 
bond  of  indemnity  as  a  condition  for  placing  orders.  Ilis 
business  is  melting  away.  Everywhere  the  trade  is  appre- 
hensive of  'peremi)tory  measures'  if  they  buy  goods  of  an 
infringer.  lie  appeals  to  the  jiatentee  to  bring  suit,  aiul 
offers  to  enter  an  appearance  in  any  court  having  juris- 
diction, but  all  to  no  purpose.  Customers  will  not  listen 
to  his  explanations  or  denials,  and  unless  he  can  get  relief 
in  a   court  of  equity,  his  business,   which   rejiresents  20 

1,3— Sclioinvald     v.     Rafrains.     122  17— Drake  ITdw.  Co.  v.  Wroupht- 

Pac.    Rf'p.    20:?:    .32    Okla.    223.  Iron    Ranfro    Co..    7H    X.    Y.    Supp. 

14 — Standard    Oil    Co.    v.    Doyle.  1114;     Economist     Furnace     Co.     v. 

lis   Ky.    f.r)2.  Wronplit-lron    Ran-o    Co.,    86    Fed. 

1.5— Graham  v.  St.  Cliarles  St.  R.  Rep.   inin. 

Co..  47    T.a.   Ann.    214.  18— Continental  Tns.  Co.  v.  Board 

16 — Rohison   v.    Texas    Pine   Land  of  Fire  Underwriters,  67   Fed.   Rep. 

Aas'n,    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),   40    S.   W.  .310. 

Rep.  843.  m— Rourke   v.   Elk   Drug  Co.,   75 

N.   Y.   App.   Div.    145. 


§  158]  ll«tlKINS    ON    TKADK.MAUKS.,  374 

years  of  olTort.  may  be  fMlircly   niiiicil  l>y  a  competition 
wliifh    is   malii'ious   ami    unfair. " -" 

It  is  tho  ^I'lK'ral  nilo  that  a  iiotii'o  wariiiii};  the  public  or 
spccitio  dealers  or  users  of  a  suit  for  patent  infringement  is 
not  actionable  unbss  it  appears  that  the  notices  were  not 
pivcn  in  ^ood  faith,  or  that  they  were  t'litirely  without  founda- 
tion in  the  scope  of  the  defendant's  patent.'-'  The  determiim- 
tion  of  the  question  of  hona  fules  in  the  niakiii;::  of  such  threats 
is  obviously  of  j^reat  difficulty  at  times.  "The  <piestion  whether 
the  patent  owner  is  acting  in  jjood  faith  in  advertising  his 
claims  to  tlie  mainifacturer's  customers  by  circulars  or  let- 
ters can  seldom  be  determined  from  the  contents  of  the  com- 
munication alone,  and.  like  all  (piestions  of  intent,  must  gen- 

20— |)ittj,'<'n  V.  l^ncinc  I'lipt-r  Iv  must  liiivc  liccii  to  intimidutf 
(liMuls  Co.,  1«4  Fi'd.  Rt'p.  8.');  af-  dealers  from  Idiyiii;;  of  tlie  coni- 
firmed  !•(}  V.  C.  A.  A'.V.i;  171  Ke<l.  |ilaiimnt,  or  dealing  in  slatea  of 
|{ep.  ti:U  {V.  (.'.  A.  7);  .Iud};e  lUod-  liis  maiiufactiire,  Itecause  of  the 
{,'ett  Htated  the  rule  more  fully  in  an  alIej,M-d  infrin^-enient  of  the  Cood- 
early  case:  "Tlie  proof  in  this  rich  patent.  No  business  man 
case  also  satisfies  me  that  these  wants  to  incur  the  dan^jers  of  a 
threats  made  liy  deft-ndants  were  lawsuit  for  the  profits  wliich  he 
not  made  in  <;ood  faith.  Tlie  may  make  as  a  jobbtr  in  handling; 
proof  shows  that  defendants  ^'oods  char^'ed  to  bo  an  infrin^^e- 
brou'.'ht  three  suits  ajniinst  Kmaek's  ment  of  anotlier  man's  patent.  Tlie 
customers,  for  alli-p-il  iiifrin;:e-  incliiuition  of  most  business  men 
ment  of  the  Goodrich  patent  is  to  avoid  litijration,  and  to  fore^^o 
by  s<dlin^'  the  Emack  slates;  tluit  even  certain  profits,  if  tiireateneil 
Kmack  assumed  the  defense  in  these  witli  a  lawsuit  wiiidi  would  be  em- 
cases,  and,  after  the  proofs  were  barrassin;;  and  vexatious,  and  mi/^ht 
taken,  and  the  suits  ripi'  for  hear-  mulct  tliem  in  dama;.'e9  far  beyond 
inj:,  tlie  defendants  voluntarily  dis-  their  profits;  and  hence  such  ju-r- 
missed  thi-m,  tlie  dismissals  beinj^  sons,  althou^rli  ]ia\  in;,'  full  faitli  in 
entered  under  such  circumstances  a  man's  iiite;,'rity,  and  in  tlu'  nn-rit 
as  to  ftilly  show  that  tlie  (bfrn-  of  his  ^'oods,  would  naturally  av«)id 
dants  knew  that  they  could  not  siis-  dealiiij,'  with  him  for  fear  of  pos- 
tain  the  siiits  upon  their  merits;  siidy  becoming,'  involved  in  tlie 
that  said  siiits  were  broujiht  in  a  tlireat<'ned  liti^'alion."  Kmack  v. 
mere  spirit  of  Itravado  or  intimida-  Kane,  ."11  Feil.  Ib-p.  11. 
tion,  and  not  with  the  hona  fidr  21— ('lij)  Har  Mf;,'.  Co.  v.  Steel 
intent  to  submit  the  (piestion  of  in-  Protected  Concrete  Co.,  200  Fed. 
frinpement  to  a  jiidi<ial  dtciMion.  IJep.  S74 ;  I'nited  Klectric  (^o.  v. 
•      •     •.  Creamery     I'acka^'e    Mf^'.    Co.,    20:« 

"The   effect    of    the   eirculars    wnt  Fed.    Hej).   fi.'l ;    Everett    I'iano  Co.   v. 

out  bv  the  defendant  Kane  certain-  bunt,  00  Ills.   App.   372. 


;j7r>  INI-'KINGBMKNT.  [§  159 

crully  be  (IcteiiuiiH'd  by  tlic  extrinsic;  I'jicts."--  The  coiif  iiiiifd 
circulation  of  llircats,  couph'd  witb  faibirc  to  \)v\\i^  a  suit  to 
(Ictorininc  tlir  (iin'stions  of  llic  validity  of  tlic  jialnit  and  its 
alk'f^rd  iiifriii^'ciiiciit  arc  jointly  consicb'rcd  as  controllinj,'  evi- 
dence thai   tlic  threats  arc  not   u\i\(\r  in   jro<»d   faith.-'' 

§  159.  Private  actions  for  damages  under  the  federal  anti- 
trust acts.— The  Shri-nian  act  (.Inly  L'.  ls!)(),  2b  Stat.  I;.  209. 
ch.  b47)  provides: 

"§7.  Any  ixM-son  \\ho  sliall  be  injured  in  liis  business  or 
l)ro|>erty  by  any  othci-  pci-son  or  corporation  by  reason  of 
anything;  f()rl)iddcn  or  declared  to  be  unlawful  by  this  act. 
may  sue  therefor  in  any  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  in 
the  district  in  which  the  defendant  resides  or  is  found,  with- 
out respect  to  the  amount  in  controversy,  and  shall  recover 
three-fold  the  damages  by  him  sustained,  and  the  costs  of  suit, 
including  a  reasonable  attorney's  fee." 

The  cases  arising  under  this  section,  so  far  as  reported,  are 
less  than  60  in  number,  and  but  a  small  percentage  have 
resulted  in  judgments  for  the  plaintiff.  But  the  section  has 
been  interpreted  and  enforced  according  to  its  terms,  both 
as  to  entry  of  judgment  for  treble  the  amount  of  the  verdict, 
and  the  addition  of  an  amount  fixed  l)y  the  trial  court  as  a 
reasonable  attorney's  fee.^^ 

The  right  of  action  depends  upon  the  fundamental  question 
whether  the  acts  complained  of  come  within  the  condemnation 
of  the  act.2f'  Next  it  must  appear  that  the  plaintiff  has  been 
injured  in  person  or  property  by  reason  of  the  illegal  eon- 
tract  or  combination. 2*' 

The  following  plaintiffs  have  been  held  entitled  to  main- 
tain the  action.  One  who  has,  by  reason  of  the  agreement 
and  combination  of  th(>  defendants.  bciMi  coiii])elled  to  jiay  an 

22— Wallace.     J.,     in      Adriance.  in;:   11')   F.d.   Rep.   27;    ".2  ('.  C.  A. 

Plrtt    &    Co.    V.    National    Harrow  r.21  ;    03   L.    H.    A.    :.S. 

Co..  r^g  C.  C.  A.  lfi.3;    121  Fed.  Rep.  2;")— Whit  well    v.    Continental    To- 

827.  82*1    (C.  C.  A.  2).  liacco    Co..    12.')    Fed.    Rep.    4:>4 ;    HO 

2.3— Electric    Renovator    Mi^.    Co.  C.  C.  A.  200;   04  L.   R.  A.  080. 

V.    Vacuum    Cleaner    Co.,    ISO    Fed.  20 — Monarch    Tohacco    Works    v. 

Rep.   7ri4.  American     Tobacco    Co.,     165     Fed. 

24 — Monta^nic    &    Co.    v.    T.owry.  Rep.    774. 
193  U.  S.  38;  48  L.  Ed.  608;  alTirm- 


§  159]  HOPKINS    ON    Tll.\l)KMARKS.  376 

wiireusonabU'  aiul  cxri'ssivr  piicf  for  mcrcliaiulist'-"  or 
freight;-''  ii  mtpricf  liook  dfalfr  wlio  was  iiiiaMc  to  buy 
hi)oks  because  of  tbe  uf^rei'inent  of  the  publisliors'  association 
not  to  sell  to  price-cutters;-'"  one  who  was  unable  to  buy 
window  glass  of  the  (juality  and  grade  necessary  to  supply 
his  customers,  and  thereby  lost  trade  and  custom;'"'  a  munic- 
ipal corporation  forced  to  pay  an  excessive  price  for  iron 
pipe  ;•'"  a  corporation  not  actually  cn<rajred  in  business  at 
the  time  of  (b^fendant's  combination,  that  combination  being 
formed  to  prevent  the  plaintiff  from  re-engaging  in  business  ;•''- 
a  manufacturer  injured  ])y  the  boycott  of  a  la])or  organiza- 
tion." 

Defendants  who  have  participatiMl  in  the  wrongful  com- 
bination will  not  be  heard  to  complain  that  others  in  that  com- 
bination should  be  joined  as  eo-dcfendants." 

Although  the  jurisdiction  of  the  federal  courts  is  exclusive,'''' 
the  suftlcicncy  of  tlie  declaration  will  be  tested  by  the  local 
practice  in  civil   actions. ■'■'■      It   is  not  sufficient  to  follow   the 

27 — Unitod  States  Tobacco  Co.  v.  NOtliin^'  ((iiitaintil   in  tln'  .inti  trust 

Ann-rican     Toliat-co     Co.,     H).*?     Fed.  laws    shall    In-    constnu-d    to    forliid 

H»'[).  701.  tln'  cxistciivM'  and  op«'ration  of  labor, 

28 — Thomson      v.      Union      Caath*  a;:ririiUural,  or  horticultural  or<:an- 

Mail   S.   S.    Co.,    HtG   F»'d.    Rt-p.   2r>l.  i/ations,  instituted  for  tin-  |iurpo(M>s 

20 — Mint's    V.    St-rilintr.    147    Fttl.  "f     nuitvuil     lnl|>.     aiitl     not     havinp 

Rop.    027  capital      stock      or     conducted      for 

30 — Wlu'clcr-Stcnzcl    Co.     v.     Na-  profit,  or  to  forbid  or  restrain  indi- 

tloDal     Window     Glass     Assn.,     ir)2  vidual    meinliers    of    such    orpaniza- 

Fed.   Rep.  804;   81   C.  C.  A.   C'lS;    10  tiona    from     lawfully    carrvinf;    out 

L.    R.   A.    (\.S.)    072.  <1<<'   lefjitiniate   olijeets   thereof;    nor 

31— Chattanooga   Foundry  &    Pipe  sliall     siich     ..r-^ani/.atituis,     or     the 

Works    V.    Atlanta.    203    V.    S.    300;  niemlx-rs    thereof,    be    held    or    con- 

.-,1    I^.    Kd.    241.  strued  to  be   illegal   eonbinations  or 

32 — rennsylvania    Su^-ar    Kef.   Co.  conspiracies    in    restraint    of    trade, 

V.    American    Su}.'ar    Kef.    ('»..    \f>(>  under    the    antitrust    laws." 

Fed.   Hep.  2'»4.  '^I  —  Atlanta         v.         Chattanoopa 

33— IxMWe    V     LawK.r,   208    U.    S.  Foundry  &  Kipeworks,  127  Fed.  Rep. 

274;    r>2    I..    Kd.   4H8.      Con^'resfl  waa  23;    01    C.    C.    A.    387;    04    L.    R.    A. 

fairly   prompt    in   atti-mptin;.'  to  re-  721. 

lirve  labor  uniniiH  from  any  liability  3.'.— l.oewe     \       l.awlor.     \M)    Fed. 

i»f  this  kind  in  the  fuliire.     The  Clay  Hip.    033. 

t<»n    Act    pr«ivi<leM:   -"8  0.      That    the  30-  Monarch        Tobacco       Co.       v. 

lalKjf    c»f    a    human    bein^»    is    not    a  .Anu-rican     Tobacco     Co.,     lOr.     Vod. 

commodity    or    arti<l<-   of  commerce.  Hep.    774. 


377  INFKINGLIMKNT.  (§159 

words  of  (ho  statute;  the  dcclarat ion  should  statf  the  sub- 
stantial facts  constituting  the  alleged  condjination  or  contract,''^ 
and  the  acts  done  which  resulted  in  dama^'-cs  to  the  plaintitfs 
business  oi-  pj-opci-t y.  '"^  Where  hotii  an  iiidaw  I'ul  contract  and 
an  unlawful  coiul)iiuition  or  conspiracy  arc  relied  on,  they 
should  be  pleaded  in  sei)aratc  count*;.'''' 

The  Clayton  Act  (of  October  IT).  1014,  liS  Stat.  L.  730j  has 
a  similar  pi-ovision  : 

"§4.  That  any  person  who  shall  be  injured  in  his  busi- 
ness or  property  by  reason  of  anything  forbidden  in  the 
anti-trust  laws  may  sue  therefor  in  any  District  Court  of 
the  United  States  in  the  disti-ict  in  which  the  defendant 
resides  or  is  found  or  has  an  agent,  without  respect  to 
the  amount  in  controversy,  and  shall  recover  three-fold 
the  damages  by  him  sustained,  and  the  cost  of  suit,  includ- 
ing a  reasoiud)ie  attorney's  fee." 

37— Cillcy   V.  I'nitcd   SIhu-   Macli.  :{!•— lliw  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  134 

Co.,    ir.2   Fed.    Ri'|).   72(i.  Fid.  Kc-j).  4G4. 

38— Ric-i'  V.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  134 
Fed.  Rep.  4G4. 


rTT.\PTT:T7  TX. 
REGISTRATION. 

§160.  Introductory. — Tlie  Eii^'li.sli  Patents,  l)osi<:iis  and 
Trademarks  Act.  1SS3-1888,  provides  that  there  can  Itc  no 
institution  of  proceedings  to  prevent  or  to  recover  daniafjes 
for  the  infrin{;ement  of  a  trademark  capable  of  rej,'istration 
unless  it  has  been  refristered.'  This  jirovision  does  not  occur 
in  the  Acts  of  Congress  of  1881  or  1905,  and  coidd  have  no  force 
or  effect  if  it  did,  as  there  can  lie  no  valid  trademark  legis- 
lation by  congress  except  under  and  l)y  virtue  of  the  commerce 
clau.se  of  the  federal  constitution  (clause  .'}  of  sec.  VIII).  As 
stated  by  Mr.  Justice  ]\Iiller:  "WIkmi,  therefore,  congress 
undertakes  to  enact  a  law  which  can  oidy  be  valid  as  a  regu- 
lation of  commerce,  it  is  reasonable  to  expect  to  find  on  the 
face  of  the  law,  or  from  its  es.sential  miture,  that  it  is  a  reg- 
ulation of  commerce  with  foreign  nations,  or  among  the  sev- 
eral states,  or  with  Indian  tribes.  If  not  so  limited,  it  is  in 
excess  of  the  ])ower  of  congress." - 

§161.  The  invalid  registration  acts. —  In  order  to  obtain  a 
substantial  idea  <it'  llic  ditticiilt  ics  wliicli  have  attended  our 
national  legislation  upon  Iradcniarks,  it  is  only  necessary  to 
read  the  text  of  the  several  ciuictments  of  congress,  which 
are  collated  in  the  appeiulix  to  this  book.  The  Act  of  .July 
8,  1870,  was  based  upon  an  entire  niiscoiu-eption  or  disregard 
of  the  jjower  resident  in  congress.  Both  it  and  the  subserpient 
penal  Act  of  Avigust  14.  iSTi!,  were  framed  with  the  evident 
intention  of  i»roviding  a  uniform  trademark  law  for  the  sev- 
eral states.  As  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  annotations 
to  those  acts,  in  the  appendix,  their  validity  was  (pu'stioned 
and    negatived    upon    circuit,''    and    it    was    linally    scttU'd    by 

\.-.\(\    iiikI     >7    \  ict.,   V.    Cu,   8  77;  2- -'!'ra<l.inark    CanrH.     lli(»    I'.    S. 

Tlazzopulo   V.    Kaiifiminn.  2:{   Sol.  .1.        S2;    2.">    I..    IM.    ."..')(>. 
810;     fMKwlfrllf.w     v.     Prinrr,    I>.     U.  .'5 — I^cidcrHdorf    v.     Flint.    S    ]\'inB. 

35  Ch.   D.   ».  •J27,  r«<l.  (uKi-  Nd.  S,21!». 

378 


379 


REUISTiJATKJN. 


§1G2 


the  supreme  court  that   they  wcic  uiiconstitutional  and  tliere- 
iOrc  void.' 

§  162.  The  power  of  congress  to  protect  trademarks.  "The 
(•(Himicrcc  clause  of  tlic  tVdci'al  ('(institution  presents  the  re- 
luarkahh'  instance  ol'  a  national  power  which  was  conij)ara- 
tively  uiiiiii])OftaMt  for  eifrhty  years,  and  which  in  the  la.st 
tliirty  ycai's  has  l)een  so  dovelo])ed  that  it  is  now,  in  its  nation- 
alizing tendency,  perhaps  the  most  iiiii)oi-tant  and  con.spic- 
nous  iH)\vpr  jjossessed  by  tlio  federal   frovernmont."  •"' 

With  the  judicial  detorniination  that  tlie  Act  of  Jnly  S, 
1870,  was  void,  canio  tlie  realization  by  eonpress  that  Avithin 
the  scope  of  authority  contained  in  the  words  "The  conprress 
shall  have  |iower  *  *  *  to  rejrulate  commerce  with  for- 
eifxn  nations,  and  amon^  the  sev(M'al  states,  and  witli  the  Indian 
tribes,"  must  rest  the  fouiulation  foi*  its  future  trademark 
legislation.  With  this  fact  before  it,  congress  proceeded  to 
the  enactment  of  the  Act  of  March  3,  1881,  embodied  in  the 
snpidement  to  the  Revised  Statutes  as  see.  322.  No  reason 
appears  for  the  fact  that  under  that  act  protection  and  the 
benefits  of  registration  were  extended  only  to  "owners  of 
trademarks  nsed  in  commerce  with  foreign  nations  or  with 
the  Indian  tribes,"  and  not  to  owners  of  trademarks  used 
in  interstate  commerce.  But  such  is  the  fact,  which  it  was  left 
to  future  legislation  to   ?-emedy.'"' 


§  163,  The  constitutionality  of  the  present  registration 
act. — It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  during  the  period  from  ]\Iarch 
3,  1881,  to  Febniary  20,  1905,  the  question  of  the  constitution- 
ality of  the  Act  of  1881  was  never  passed  njion  by  any  court. 


4— Trademark  Cases.  100  V.  S. 
82,  25  L.    Ed.   .5r,0. 

.') — Prontico  &  E<;an,  Cominoroe 
riaiiso  of  tli(^  Fod(^ral  Constitution, 
p.   1. 

6 — '"The  laws  of  tlic  Uiiitid 
Rtatea  now  in  force  *  *  *  re 
late  only  to  trademarks  specially 
used  in  commerce  with  foreiirn  na- 
tions, or  with  the  Indian  tribes. 
Act  of  :March  .1.  18S1  (21  St.  at 
Large,    Ch.     137,    §1).      Thev    are 


particularly  restricted  so  as  not 
to  {jive  cofjnizance  to  any  court  of 
the  United  States  in  an  action  or 
suit  between  citizens  of  the  same 
state,  unless  tlic  trademark  in  con- 
troversy is  used  on  jroods  intend- 
ed to  i)e  transported  to  a  foreign 
country,  or  in  lawful  commercial 
intercourse  with  an  Indian  tribe." 
\Mieeler,  J.,  in  Luytics  v.  Hollen- 
der,  21  Fed.  Rep.  281. 


§  163]  IIOIKIN.S    ON    TKADEMAHKS.  380 

« 

Tlu'  ("oiirt  ttf  Appi-als  of  tlic  SeviMith  ("iriMiit.  speaking'  by 
•lud^'i'  .ItMikins.  lu'Ul  lliat  tlu>  validity  of  the  Art  (»f  Issl  was 
"  fairly  dtuibiriil. ' '  ' 

In  tlio  same  rase,  the  I'liitt'd  States  Suprciiic  (Oiirl  expressly 
(leeliiied   to   pass  u|)ou   the   (piostion  of  eoiistitutioiialitN'.'' 

S(j  tlie  Aet  of  18S1.  more  limited  in  its  seo|»e,  and  essen- 
tially a  mere  retristration  aet,  has  been  superseded  by  an  aet 
of  mueh  wider  seo|)e,  while  as  yot  the  power  of  eon^rress  to 
create  any  enactment  whatever  relative  to  the  re^'istration 
of  tradtMnarks  was  not  only  nndetormined,  bnt  clonded  l)y  the 
doubt  expressed  in  the  lanjzua^'e  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of 
the  Seventh  Circuit.  The  labor  performed  t»y  that  couii  in  the 
dovelojiment  of  the  law  of  unfair  competition  entitles  its  dic- 
tum'to  high  resj)eet ;  and  because  of  the  doubt  which  that 
court  ha<l  seen  tit  to  i'xj)ress,  as  well  as  the  likelihood  that 
the  liroad  scoi)e  of  the  present  tradenuirk  act  would  cause  its 
constitutionality  to  be  determined  at  no  distant  date,  it  may 
be  well  to  note  the  argument  which  suggested  itself  as  that 
which  must  be  overcome  if  the  present  act  was  to  be  held  con- 
stitutional. 

It  being  conceded  that  the  jurisdiction  of  congress  over 
the  subject  of  trademarks,  if  it  has  any  at  all,  aside  from  the 
treaty-making  power,  ai'ises  solely  by  authority  of  the  com- 
merce clause  of  the  federal  eon.stitution,  it  was  urged  that  un- 
less trademarks  themselves  are  the  subjects  of  interstate  com- 
merce, the  jurisdiction  of  congress  fails. 

A  trademark,  as  we  have  seen  elsewhere,  is  an  incorj)or(^al 
hereditament,  having  no  independent  life  or  existence  of  its 
own,  but  existing  oidy  as  appendant  to  tho  goodwill  of  a  busi- 
ness, or  as  an  integral  jtart  of  that  goodwill.  When  the  trade- 
mark is  applied  to  afi  article  of  commerce,  that  article  nniy 
be  the  sid)ject  of  interstate  commerce,  but  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  the  trademark  aflixed  upon  the  article,  or  the 
package   containing   the   ai'ticle.    is    itself  being  d(>alt   witli   as 

7— IMinoiH     Watch     Chbc    Co.     v.  fiO.'.  ««J7  :     «.'>    h.    Ed.   .16.').      .\n<l    .h.i' 

FAc'in   Natinnal   Watcli   Co.,  04    F.<l.  Wnrn.T  v.  Scarl.'  &   Ili-ntJi  Co..   liM 

Rpp.    fir,7«r.!i;     H7    OfT.    Claz.    2:»2:{ ;  I'.    S.    HJ.'i^nr) ;    4S    L.    V.t\.    14.');    af 

3.'i  C.  C.   A.  'I'M.  lirminv'  Scarl.-  A  Il.n-tli  Co.  v.  War 

8— Kl{.'in    National    Watrh    C...    v.  n.r.  .^)0  C.  C.  A.  .121;    112  Fed.   K<-|). 

lUinoiH  Watch  Case  Co.,   17'.»  U.   S.  074. 


381  llEGISTRATION.  [  §  163 

a  subject  of  interstate  tralTic.  This  distinction,  it  has  been 
nrjrt'd,  is  amply  supported  by  the  iant,'iiaf,'e  of  the  supreme 
I'ourt  in  Champion  v.  Ames,  188  U.  S.  oL'l.  17  L.  Ed.  4!)li,  where 
it  is  said  that  "TiOttery  tickets  are  sithjrrls  of  trafjii<-,  (uid  there- 
fore of  commerce.'^ 

The  status  llius  lixcd  upon  loltct-y  tickots  as  tli(>  subjects 
of  interstate  conunci-cc  is  curiously  distiutruishcd  from  poli- 
cies of  fire  aiul  mai-iuo  iusuranco  by  tho  supremo  court;  but 
the  lau^Mia^M-  wliicli  tliat  li-ibuual  lias  more  than  once  employed 
in  referciu'c  to  iusui'aucc  ))olici(^s  is  instructive  as  indicatitif; 
its  probable  attitude  toward  trademarks.  Thus  in  one  of  the 
later  insurance  cases,  ^Ir.  Jiistice  McKenna  says  :  "The  contract 
of  insuraiu'e  is  not  an  instrumentality  of  commerce.  The  makiiifr 
of  such  a  contract  is  a  mere  incicbuit  of  conimerci;il  inter- 
course." " 

The  distinction  between  lottery  tickets  and  insurance  pol- 
icies is  one  which  has  not  only  baffled  the  layman,  but  aroused 
much  discussion  between  members  of  the  bar:  but  in  the  lan- 
jruapre  of  the  suj^reme  court  in  the  lottery  cases,  and  in  the 
insurance  cases,  the  court  has  uniformly  held  that  nothinpr 
which  is  not  an  instrumentalit\'  of  commerce  can  come  within 
the  purview  of  the  interstate  commerce  clause  of  the  consti- 
tution. 

In  ^yiUwm!i  v.  Fenrft.  170  V.  ?5.  270.  45  L.  Ed.  ISH.  IMr.  Thief 
Justice  Fuller  has  emphasized  "the  difference  between  interstate 
commerce  or  an  instrumentality  thereof  on  the  one  side,  and  the 
jnere  incidents  which  may  attend  the  carrying  on  of  such  com- 
merce on  the  other." 

It  would  seem  clear  that  the  sharpest  attack  upon  the  con- 
stitutionality of  the  present  act  would  be  alonjr  the  line 
of  the  cases  referred  to.  and  if  the  court  determined  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  that  trademarks  were  mere  incidents  attendinpr 
the  carrying:  on  of  interstate  commerce,  it  would  necessarily 
follow  that  the  present  act.  as  well  as  its  predecessor,  has 
been  founded  upon  a  misconception  of  the  jurisdiction  of  con- 
press.  Without  weiirhiiifr  the  arjrument.  or  pursuinjr  it  in 
the  li*rht  of  other  decisions  of  the  supreme  court,  such  as  those 
which  relate  to  bills  of  ladinjr  and  the  like,  and  without  ven- 

9 — New  York  Life  Insurance  Co.  v.  Cravens,  178  U.  S.  38fM01 ;  44  L. 
Ed.  1116. 


§163]  UOI'KINS   ON    TRADEMARKS.  382 

tiiriii^'  a  jxTsorial  o|iiiiioii  upon  tlio  merits  (tf  the  ar;;um(Mit. 
it  will  sutlii'O  to  say  that  the  present  act  is  of  extremely 
tloubtful  eoiistilutionality.  and  that  sec.  17.  ^Mvill^'  jurisdic- 
tion to  certain  eoui'ts  over  trademarks  r(>tristered  in  accord- 
ance with  tiie  ]iro\  isions  of  the  act.  without  I'c^'ard  to  the 
amount  in  controversy  (a  provision  incorporated  from  sec.  7 
of  the  Act  of  ISSl)  offers  the  opportunity  of  readily  raising 
the  constitutional  question.  It  is  manifestly  desirable  that 
the  question  should  be  raised  and  finally  disposed  of  in  the 
near  future,  that  it  may  be  definitely  settled. 

This  arfrument  is  stibstantinlly  embodied  in  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives durinpr  the  Forty-sixth  Conp^ress.  as  a  result  of  the  de- 
liberations of  that  eommittee  upon  a  resolution  to  amend 
the  constitution,  and  a  proposed  ])ill  for  Avhieh  the  Act  of  1881 
was  sid)sequently  substituted.  The  proposed  amendment  to 
the  constitution  is  embodied  in  the  committee's  report,  a  por- 
tion of  which  is  as  follows:  "The  bill  seeks  to  re-enact  sub- 
stantially the  trademark  lepri.slation  of  1870  (Rev.  Stat.,  sees. 
49:17-4047.  inclusive)  save  that  it  is  confined  to  forei<;n  and 
interstate  commerce.  Its  theory  is  that  by  thus  separatinp 
them  from  interstate  commerce  the  objections  of  the  supreme 
court  as  to  constitutionality  will  })e  removed. 

"The  resolution  to  amend  tin-  constitution   is  as  follows: 

" ARTICLE  X\l. 

"Section  1.  Congress  for  promotion  of  trade  and  manufac- 
ture, and  to  carry  into  effect  international  treaties,  shall  have 
power  to  jrrant,  protect,  and  re^rulate  the  exclusive  rijrht  to 
adopt  and  use  trademarks. 

"It  is  based  Jipon  the  idea  that  such  le^'islation,  thouirh 
confined  to  foreipn  and  interstate  commerce,  is  uru-onstitti- 
tional.  or  its  advocates  may  only  fear  that  that  may  be  so. 
and  wish  the  amendment  rr  (ihiouJntitr  cnutela.  and  to  pive 
confidence  to  those  usinp  trademarks. 

"If  the  Conpress  of  the  Tainted  States  now  has  power  to 
pass  such  laws,  the  amendment  \vo\dd  be  useless.  Has  it  that 
power? 


383  REGISTKATION.  [§  163 

"After  careful  ('onsideration  wo  arf  <»i"  lli*'  ((pinion  tliat  it 
lias  Mof.  The  sui)reni('  comi-I  in  the  forc^'oin^'  opinion  avoided 
det'idin{^  that  (pu'stion.  A  ti'adciiiark  is  a  convenience  of  com- 
merce.    Its  pur])ose  is  to  idcnlily  the  thiiif,'  to  be  sold. 

"Hut  it  is  no  more  than  the  j,'uaranty  in  \vritin<.',  or  hy  some 
■words,  si^n,  or  device,  attaclied  to  the  thin^  to  he  sold,  that 
it  is  what  the  seller  represents  it  to  be  by  such  writing,  etc. 
By  themselves  they  are  not  merchandise.  Their  only  use  is 
to  attach  to  merchandise  for  such  identification.  They  are 
not  necessary  to  commerce.  On  the  countless  thinfi^s  sold  in 
this  country,  forei};n  and  domestic,  there  are  no  trademarks 
but  on  about  8.000. 

"In  Paul  V.  Virginia  (<S  Wallace  168,  19  L.  Ed.  359),  the 
court  held  that  congressional  control  did  not  cover  i)olicies  of 
insurance  sent  from  one  state  of  the  Union  into  another  where  a 
j)remium  was  paid  therefor.  They  .said  the  i)olicies  were  but 
'mere  contracts  of  indemnity  r.gainst  loss  by  fire.'  "We  think 
trademarks  mere  contracts  of  indemnity  against  lo.ss  by  fraud. 

"Thus  the  supreme  court  has  held  a  contract  to  be  with- 
in federal  control  in  Ahiii/  r.  California:  That  .was  a  bill  of 
lading  for  goods  to  l)e  shipped  out  of  the  state.  But  that 
decision  rested  solely  upon  the  ground  that  'a  bill  of  lading 
or  some  other  instrument  of  the  same  imi)ort  is  necessarily 
always  associated  with  every  shipment  of  articles  of  commerce 
from  the  ports  of  one  country  to  another.  The  necessities 
of  commerce  require  it.'  (See  Aim)/  r.  California.  24  Howard, 
170,  16  L.  Ed.  644.)  And  that  decision  rests  not  on  the  power  of 
congre.'W  over  commerce,  but  on  the  prohibition  against  the  states 
taxing  exports,  etc.  The  l)ill  of  lading  was  but  evidence  of 
the  contract  of  shijiping.  Taxing  it,  taxed  the  exported  ar- 
ticle. And  in  the  Prnsarola  Tfieqraph  Conipanjf  v.  Western 
Vvion  rdeqraph  Company  (96  T^  S.  9.  24  L.  Ed.  710)  the  court 
pronounced  the  telegraph  'one  of  the  ne<'essities  of  commerce.  It 
in  indispensable  as  a  means  of  intercommunication,  but  especially 
so  in  commercial  transactions.'  We  think  this  last  case  could 
better  stand  on  the  ])ower  'to  establish  postoffices  and  post- 
roads.'  Yet,  if  put  on  the  commerce  clause,  like  Almy  v.  Cali- 
fornia, it  is  based  on  the  necessity  of  the  thing  legislated 
upon   to   foreign   or   interstate    or    Indian    commerce.      As   we 


§  1G4J  I>  )I'KINS    ON    TIIADKM  \KKS.  384 

havo  saiil.  t ijuh-marks  an"  imt  lu't-i'ssary  to  siu-li  coiuinorce. 
Hut  evi'ii  if  tlu'v  uort*.  our  opinion  woiiltl  be  uni'li.in^'cd.  In 
tho  case  of  Stffft'us,  (jUott'd  al)ovi'.  tlio  court   said: 

"  "It  is  not  t'vrry  spofit's  of  property,  wliicli  is  tlio  sub- 
joi't  of  connui'm'.  or  wliicli  is  used  oi-  even  essential  in  eora- 
nieree.  whiidi  is  l>ri>u^'bt  by  this  »dausi'  of  the  constitution 
(^cttUMuerce  idause  )  witliin  the  control  of  coufrress.  The  barrels 
and  casks,  tiic  bottles  and  l)oxcs  in  which  alone  certain  articles 
of  connnerce  arc  kept  for  safety,  and  by  \vhi»-h  their  contents 
are  transferred  from  the  seller  to  tho  buyer,  do  not  thereby 
become  subjects  u\'  conjrressional  ic'.'islation  more  than  other 
I)roperty.' 

"lint  while  we  tliink  (•on<rress  can  not  so  lc«;islate  with 
repard  to  trademarks  under  tlie  power  'to  re^rulate  commerce 
with  forciiLMi  nations,  and  amon^'  the  several  states  and  with 
the  Iiulian  tribes'  (art.  1,  sec.  S.  constitution),  trademarks, 
in  commerce  with  foreijin  nations  and  with  the  Indian  tribes, 
can    be   protected   uiuler  the   treaty-makin<r   i)ower. "  '" 

It  therefore  appears  that  the  Act  of  ISSl  was  jiassed  on 
the  theory  that  it  came  within  the  treaty-making  power  of 
con«rress.  The  present  act  can  not  be  sustained  upon  that 
theory;  it  nnist  be  sustained,  if  at  all,  as  a  regulation  of  inter- 
state eomnieree." 

§  164.  The  advantages  of  registration.  Tlie  local  ret,'istra- 
tion  statutes  of  the  several  states  ai'e  too  juimerous  and 
involved  to  be  treated  here.^'-  The  federal  courts  can  not 
enforce  ri<rhts  created  by  state  rej;istration,  at  least  as  to 
allefred  infrin«rements  occurring:  outside  the  state  in  wliieli 
registration  was  had.'"' 

As  to  federal  refjistration,  .Iiid^'c  llawlev  has  said  that 
"rcfristration  under  the  Act  of  l>sl  is  of  but  little,  if  any, 
value,  except  for  the  purpose  of  creating  a  permanent  record 
of  the  date  of  adoption  nnd  use  of  the  trach'mark,  or  in  cases 
where  it   is  necessary  to  give  jurisdiction  to  the  I'nited  States 

10 — Con.   Record.  Vol.    10,  jmrt  '2.        jol  .  TliaddiniH  DavidH  Co.  v.  DavidB, 

p.  i.'-.u.  2:\:\  V.  s.  4(U;  :.a  l.  im.  ion;. 

11 — Sif     UoHHtnuiui     V.     CariiiiT,  12 — Sec  Appi-ndix   K. 

128    r.    r.     A.    7:»;     211     l-Vd.     lU-p.  13— HihlMiii    v.   W.nv.r,    l.l.T    Fod. 

R.p     fi07. 


385 


REGISTRATION. 


[§164 


courts."''  As  a^'iiiiist  ;i  citizen  ui  tlic  same  state,  a  re^jis- 
traiit  iindci-  that  act  liiid  not  even  the  rif^'ht  to  sue  in  a  court 
of  the  I'liitcd  States,  nnK'.s.s  it  couhl  he  sliown  that  hoth  the 
orij,Mnal  and  inri'in^rint;  marks  were  hcinf^  used  in  coiuriierce 
with  t'orci^Mi  nations  oi-  the   Indian  ti-ihcs.''* 

The  certiticate  oi'  registration  is  oidy  prima  facie  evidence 
of  ownershij)  of  tlie  trademark  registered,  and  is  not  conclu- 
sive or  binding  upon  the  courts  as  to  the  right  of  a  party  to 
its  exclusive  use.*" 

No  right  is  created  by  the  registration  of  a  generic  name,'" 
nor  by  the  registration  of  a  mark  unrestricted  as  to  form  or 
color,  as  "a  colored  streak  applied  to  or  woven  in  a  wire 
rope."  '** 

Obviously,  a  trademark  applied  to  a  patented  article  dur- 
ing the  life  of  the  patent,  can  not  be  saved,  by  registration, 


14 — Iltiim'asy  v.  Brauschweiger 
&  Co.,  Sit  Fod.  Rep.  OfU-diiS.  Quoted 
and  followed  in  Sh-epy  Kye  Mill- 
ing Co.  V.  C.  F.  lilanke  Tea  & 
Coffee  Co.,  83  Off.  Gaz.  in05.  To 
the  same  effect  see  Einstein  v.  Saw- 
hill,  65  Off.  Gaz.  1918;  Sherwood 
V.  Horton,  Cato  &  Co.,  84  Off.  Gaz. 
2018. 

1.-)— llyder  V.  Holt,  128  U.  S.  525; 
32  L.  F(l.  520;  Luyties  v.  llollender, 
22  Blatchf.  4'13;  Schumacher  v. 
Schwenke,  26  Fed.  Rep.  816;  Gravely 
V.  Gravely,  42  Fed.  Rep.  205; 
Prince's  Metallic  Paint  Co.  v.  Prince 
]Mfg.  Co.,  53  Fed.  Rep.  493. 

16 — Hennessy  v.  Braunschwei- 
ger,  supra  :  Brower  v.  Boulton,  53 
Fed.  Rep.  389;  Glen  Cove  Mfg.  Co. 
V.   Taideling.   22   Fed.   Rep.    824-S26. 

In  the  latter  case  Judge  Wal- 
lace observed :  '"The  act  of  con- 
gress makes  the  registration  of 
the  mark  only  prima  farir  evi- 
dence of  ownersliip.  §  7.  The 
inquiry  is  therefore  always  open 
as   to   the   validity   of   the    title    to 


a  trademark  evidenced  hy  th*;  reg- 
istration. Tlie  registration  could 
not  confer  a  title  to  tiie  trademark 
upon  tiie  complainant  if  some  oth- 
er corporation  or  individual  had 
acquired  a  prior  right  by  adoption 
and  use;  nor  could  it  vest  defend- 
ant with  a  title  as  against  the 
complainant's  common  law  title. 
In  this  view  the  only  office  of  a 
registration  is  to  confer  jurisdic- 
tion upon  the  court  to  protect  a 
trademark  when  tlie  proprietor 
has  obtained  the  statutory  evi- 
dence of  title,  and  the  only  func- 
tion of  the  commissioner  of  pat- 
ents is  to  determine  whether  an 
applicant  has  a  presumptive  right 
to      tiie      trademark."  To      the 

same  effect  see  D«itsch  v.  Geo.  R. 
GiI)Son  Co.,   155  Fed.   Rep.  383. 

17 — Licbig's  Extract  of  Meat  Co. 
v.    Walker,    115   Fed.    Rep.    822-826. 

IS — A.  Leschen  &.  Sons  Rope  Co. 
V.  Broderick  &  Bascora  Rope  Co., 
134  Fed.  Rep.  571;  67  C.  C.  A.  418; 
201   r.   S.   166;    50  L.   Ed.   710. 


§165J 


IIOIKINS   ON    Tll-KDEMARKS. 


386 


from  becoming'  jiuhlui  juris  \\\m>\\   the   rxpiraliuu  ul"  the  pat- 
ent.'» 

The  cfrtifu'ati'  of  rcj^ist ration  is  only  prima  fmic  evidence 
of  an  aihnission  on  the  part  of  the  ^rovernnient  that  the  appli- 
cant for  ret?istration  is  the  owner  of  a  valid  trademark,  is 
not  a  prant  of  any  ri^ht  or  privih'^je,  and  tloes  not,  therefore, 
conclude  a  third  party;-"  hut  it  is  eonelusive  as  a^ijainst  the 
registrant,  as  limit inj;  and  restrietin^r  what  he  can  claim  as 
his  trademark.-'  Notwithstanding'  its  rejjistration  under  the 
act.  the  trademark  of  an  insolvent  will  be  conveyed  by  a 
general  assi<rnment  for  the  benefit  of  creditors,--  and  it  has 
been  held  under  all  the  various  bankruptcy  and  insolvency 
laws  that  all  trademarks  of  the  bankrupt  or  insolvent  pass 
to  the  trustee  or  assiprnee.-'' 


§  165.  The  disadvantages  of  registration. — As  indicated  in 
the  precedin<r  s(M-tion.  re-ristration  under  the  act  was  held 
to  "operate  as  evidence  tending  to  show  what  was  really 
claimed."-'  Judfre  Aeheson  has  said  "it  would  be  a  per- 
version of  tiie  ri^ht  to  rejristration  under  the  Act  of  Congress, 

•  •  •  and  would  amount  to  a  fraud  on  other  traders,  to 
permit  the  plaintiff  now  to  assert  broader  i'ifjhts  in  the  anchor 
as  a  trade  syndjol  than  his  public  rejjfistry  in  ISH.j  di.sclosed. 

•  •  •  Sec.  10  gives,  no  eountenance  to  the  idea  that  a 
person,  availing  himself  of  the  benefits  of  the  act,  may  regi.ster 
as  his  trademark  a  peeuliar  representation  of  a  common 
emblem,  exhibiting  sjjccial  aiul  distinguishinj»  features  and 
a  particidar  eoml)ination.  and  yet  afterwards  elaim  the  emblem 
pure   and    siinj)le,    without    rcfrard    to  such    features   or   combi- 


19— St«TnlMT^'  Mf;:.  Co.  v.  Mill.r, 
Du  Hrul  &  Pi't.Ts  Mfjr.  Co.,  If.l 
Fc<l.  H<-p.  .318;  88  ('.  C.  A.  .308. 

20— Unit<d  StaUn  v.  Braun,  .'JO 
Fi'd.    Rep.   77r>. 

21— K«)lil<r  Mft;.  C«».  v.  Bfoshoro 
(2),  .'iO  Fed.  H.p.  T>12\  Riclit<r  v. 
RcynoldH,  .W  Fid.  Krp.  .'i?? ;  8  ('. 
C.  A.  220;  AdamH  v.  HciR.].  .31 
Fod.  R<-p.  27ft,  281 ;  KohlcT  Mfj?.  Co. 
V.  BwHhon-  (1),  .'■).3  F.'d.  Hep.  202, 
264;   HichU-r  %'.  .\nr]i<ir  H»m«<ly  Co., 


r.2  F.d.  Rip.  4.").'.;  PittsburRh 
Cnishfd  Stt'd  Co.  v.  Diamond  Stool 
(•(..,   S.-i   F.d.    Rop.   637. 

22 — Sarra/in  v.  \V.  R.  Irby  Ci^ar 
Co..  «1.3    F.-d.    Rop.    024. 

2:{ — Warren  v.  Wnrnii  Tlircad 
Co..  1.34  Marts.  247;  Wilm.r  v. 
Thomurt.  74  Md.  48.''.;  22  Atl.  Rop. 
403. 

24 — .ShiraH,  Circuit  .FuHtioo,  in 
Kohlor  MfR.  Co.  V.  n.M-8lioro,  8  C. 
C.  A.  21  f);    .M)   Fod.    Rop.   .^72.  .')7fl. 


387  RE(;isTRATi<>N.  [§  1G5 

nation.  To  tolerate  this  would  he  to  <lefeat  the  very  {Mirpuse 
of  the    act."  -■• 

ill  a  hiter  case,  Judjjo  Adams  held  that  by  failing?  to  ineliide 
the  lettei-  S  as  part  of  a  refjistored  mark,  the  re^'istrant  "must 
be  hehl  1o  have  abandoned  this  feature  of  ils  mark,  if  it  had 
ever  eniplnyed  it.  1o  the  public,  and  thereby,  to  have  disclaimed 
any  exclusive  rifrht  to  it;"-'"'  and  a  similar  rnlinj,'  has  been 
made  by  the  Court  of  Ajtpeals  of  Kentucky.-"  Judf^e  Keed 
has  vei-y  pj-operly  held  that  Avliere  certain  parts  of  the  mark 
shown  and  desci'ibed  in  a  re<rIstration  are  recited  to  be  essen- 
tial, the  other  i)arts  will  be  held  not  to  be  a  part  of  the  trade- 
mark.-** It  is  consefpieutly  well  established  that  rejristry  of 
less  than  the  whole  trademark  is  tantamount  to  an  abandon- 
ment of  the  remainder.-" 

By  sec.  28  of  the  Act  of  190.').  it  is  provided.  "That  it  shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  refristrant  to  prive  notice  to  the  public  that 
a  trademark  is  rep-istered.  either  by  aflRxinpr  thereon  the  words 
'Rejristered  in  V.  R.  Patent  Office.'  or  abbreviated  thus.  'Re?. 
IT.  S.  Pat.  Off..'  or  when,  from  the  characthr  or  size  of  the 
trademark,  or  from  its  manner  of  attachment  to  the  article 
to  which  it  is  appropriated,  this  can  not  be  done,  then  by 
affixira:  a  label  eontaininpr  a  like  notice  to  the  packajre  or 
receptacle  wherein  the  article  or  articles  are  inclosed;  and  in 
any  suit  for  infringement  by  a  party  failingr  so  to  srive  notice 
of  repristration  no  damajres  shall  be  recovered,  except  on  proof 
that  the  defendant  was  duly  notified -of  infrin<?ement,  and 
continued  the  same  after  such  notice." 

This  section  is  directly  modeled  upon  the  corresponding 
section  of  the  patent  statute,  which  is  as  follows: 

Sec.  4900.  "Tt  shall  be  the  duty  of  all  patentees,  and 
their  assipus  and  lepral  representatives,  and  of  all  per- 
sons makinp:  or  vendint;  any  patented  article  for  or  under 

25 — Richtor    v.    Anchor    Remedy  27 — Opo.   T.  Stagg  Co.  v.  Taylor, 

Co..  r>2  Fed.  Rep.  4.").!,  4.")8;  affirmed  0.")  Ky.  fi.ll :  27  S.  W.  Rop.  247. 

under  the   style  of   Riclitcr  v.   Rey-  28— L.    H.    Harris    Drup    Co.    v. 

nolds,  8  C.  C.  A.  220;   .■>0  Fed.  Rep.  Stucky,   4()   Fed.   R.-p.   (i24.  62.".. 

.'577.  20— P.    C.    Weist    Co.    V.    W.M-ks, 

2fi— PittslnirfT   Crushed    Steel    Co.  177   Pa.   412;    3.')  Atl.   Rep.  G03. 
V.  Diamond  Steel  Co.,  8-5  Fed.   Rep. 
637,    638. 


§  166]  HOI'KINS    t>N    TU.VPKMARKS.  388 

tlioin.  to  givo  sunU'it'iit  notice  to  the  puhlio  that  the  same 
is  putrntod;  iMtlior  hy  tixiiijj  tluTeon  tho  word  pati'iitod,' 
topethor  with  tho  day  ami  year  the  patent  was  {jrranted; 
or  when,  from  the  character  of  tlie  article,  this  can  not 
be  done,  hy  lixinj^  to  it.  or  to  the  jiacUji^'c  wherein  (»ne  or 
more  of  then)  is  enclosed,  a  lahel  containinj;  the  like  notice; 
and  in  any  snit  for  infrin^'cMuent.  by  the  party  failinji:  so 
to  nuirk.  no  danuifres  shall  be  recovered  by  the  plaintiff, 
except  on  proof  that  the  defendant  was  didy  notified  of 
the  infrin^rement,  and  continued,  after  such  notice,  to 
make.  use.  or  vend  the  article  so  patented." 

Under  the  latter  section.  ]\lr.  .lust ice  (li-ay  has  said  "one 
of  these  two  thinjrs.  nuirkinjr  the  artii-les,  or  notice  to  the 
infrinjrers,  is  made  by  the  statute  a  prerequisite  to  the  pat- 
entee's riprht  to  recover  damages  a}rainst  them. 

Each  is  an  afTlrmative  fact,  and  is  something?  to  be  done 
by  him.  •  •  •  |^y  the  elementary  jiriiu'iples  of  jjleadinfj, 
therefore,  the  duty  of  alleprinfr.  and  the  burden  of  proving 
either  of  these  facts  is  upon  the  plaintiff."'"' 

Therefore,  by  repristration  under  the  Act  of  IBOf).  the  reg- 
istrant has  this  burden  imposed  .upon  him. 

§166.  Interferences,  The  rules  established  by  the  decis- 
ions of  the  i)atent  office  in  relation  to  interferences  \inder  the 
Act  of  ISSl  are  of  value  in  like  jiroceedinfrs  under  the  pres- 
ent Act.  See,  8  of  the  Act  of  ISSl  jirovided  that  "In  an  aj^pli- 
cation  for  repistration  the  commissioner  of  patents  shall  de- 
cide the  presumjitive  lawfulness  of  claim  to  the  allcfjed  trade- 
mark ;  and  in  any  dispute  ])etween  an  applicant  and  a  pre- 
vious refristrant.  or  between  applicants,  he  shall  follow,  so 
far  as  the  same  may  be  applicable,  the  jiractice  of  courts  of 
erpiity  of  the  United  States   in  niialofr<uis  eases." 

§167,  Between  a  reg-istrant  and  an  applicant,  the  burden 
of  proof  is  on  the  applicant,  for  the  reason  that  the  certifi- 
cate umler  sec  16  of  the  act  is  prima  facie  evidciu'c  of  owner- 
ship.^' Tn  such  a  ease,  Allen,  commissioner,  has  held  that  the 
nf)plicant  must  establish   "a  date  of  use  in   tlu'  I'nitcd  States 

.10 — Diinlui)  V.  SrlmfifM.  l.">2  V.  S.  f".   v.    T.ntnl.irt    riinrmnool  Co.,  103 

244.   24R;    38    ]..    VA.    420.    427.  OIT.  Ca/.  2172.     S.m-  8  7.  Act  of  100.^.. 

.11 — .«?hrrwoo<l    V.   Ilnrton.   Cnto  A  hikI  Patiiit  Oflin-  RuU-  44.  .Xppi-ndix 

Co,  R4  OfT.  fJaz.   2(ilO.    Sihl.y   Soap  K, 


389  KK(iISTUAT|().N'.  [§  168 

prior  to  the  date  of  the  (iIImt  ])arty'8  ref^istration," '^  and 
that  rejfistration  hy  the  applieant  under  the  Act  of  1870 
"ainouiils  t<»  nothiiipf  mow,  than  a  jxihlicalion,"  "'* 

§168,  The  preliminary  statement.  In  painit  intfrfer- 
eiiees  a  formal  |ircliniiiiary  stalcnicnt  is  required  I'l-oin  each 
of  the  parties.  lu  trademark  interferences  the  statement 
aeeompanyiuf;  the  api)licatinn  for  refjistration  performs  the 
sanu'  functions  and  is  treated  as  a  ])reliniinary  statement. 

'IMie  rule  of  the  I^atent  Office  in  rehition  thereto  formerly 
])rovi(ied  that  each  ai)plicant  and  rej^istrant  would  he  lield  to 
the  date  of  ad<)])tion  a]le<i:ed  in  tlie  statement  filed  with  his 
application.  But  even  under  that  rule  Duell,  commissioner, 
held  that  evidence  of  use  antedatinj^  that  set  up  in  the  appli- 
cation of  the  party  ()tl^'erin*l^  it  nuiy  he  considered  and  such 
weight  gfiven  to  it  as  "may  h*e  ])roper  under  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case."-"^*  Suhsequently,  on  an  aj)ji]ication  for 
leave  to  file  an  amended  statement,  Allen,  commissioner,  in 
denyiufr  the  application  held  that  an  amendment  could  be 
filed  after  the  determiiuition  of  the  question  of  priority.^^' 

Manifestly,  however,  evidence  offered  to  prove  a  date  earlier 
than  that  set  up  in  the  statement  must  be  rejrarded  with  some 
sus]iicion.  Tn  the  lanpruafre  of  Allen,  commissioner,  "it  is 
to  be  presumed  that  this  statement  filed  with  the  application 
for  repristration  was  made  after  ])ro]ier  iiupiiry,  and  while  it 
is  not  biiuliufr  u])on  the  ]inrties  to  an  interference  proceeding 
it  is  still  entitled  to  considerable  weight."-''^ 

§  169  The  issues  in  interference,  opposition  and  cancellation 
proceedings. — 'I'hc  purpose  of  an  interference  is  to  determine  the 
question  of  priority  of  adoption  and  use  as  between  the  parties 
to  the  interference.  Evidence  of  prior  use  by  a  stranger  to  the 
interference  will  not  be  considered.^" 

""  .32 — Brodcrick  &  Bascom  Bopo  11.1 — Vandcn  Bcr^di  &  Co.  v.  Bel- 
Co.  V.  A.  Lcsclicn  &  Sons  Bopo  Co.,  niont  Distilliiif,'  Co.,  it!)  Off.  C.a?. 
100  OfT.  Ciiz.  .Wll.  1<;24. 

.3.3— Ajiorl.ach    &    Sons   v.    Hall    &  :{(>— Aucrhaoli    &    Sons   v.    Hall    & 

Haywanl   Co..   Ill    Off.   Caz.   800.  Hayward  Co..  Ill  O.  G.  800. 

34 — Manitowoc  Mf<;.   Co.   v.  Dick-  37 — Carey   v.   New   Home   Se\vin;r 

crman,   .'57    Off.    Gaz.    1721,  Machine  Co.,  101  Off.  Gaz.  44? 


§  169]  norKiNs  on  tkadkmakks.  390 

An  interforpMco  in  fact  exists  where  the  marks  are  so  sim- 
ilar as  to  be  ealenlatetl  to  deceive  the  pulilic,  and  are  used 
iipon  elasses  of  jroods  so  closely  related  that  when  hearing 
the  same  mark  one  would  suppose  that  they  arc  the  product 
of  the  same  manufacturer.''** 

Cancellation. — Si-ction  l;{  of  tiie  Act  of  VJOf)  provides  "That 
where  any  person  siiall  deem  himself  injured  hy  the  registration 
of  a  tradcnuirk  in  the  Patent  Oflice  he  may  at  any  time  apply 
to  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  to  cancel  the  repistration 
thereof.**  This  provision  applies  only  to  registrations  untler  the 
Act  of  lOO'i.''"  The  petition  for  cancellation  must  .show  that 
the  petitioner  has  been  injured.^"  The  Patent  Office  has  no 
authority  to  cancel  a  certificate  of  registration  except  under  sec. 

i:j.-" 

Oppositions. — Section  6,  Act  of  1005,  provides  that  any  person 
who  believes  he  would  be  damaged  hy  the  registration  of  a  mark 
may  oppo.se  that  registration.  Section  7  provides  for  notice  to 
the  ap|>licant.  The  notice  of  opposition  must  allege  facts  show- 
ing an  interest  on  the  part  of  the  opposer  from  which  danuige 
may  be  inferred.'-  The  applicant  may  plead  "••''  or  demur** 
to  the  notice  of  opposition. 

38— H.    A.    CorlMii   &    Son    v.    Mill  42 — Undorwood  Tj-powriter  Co.  V. 

er,   Kol  lliei»[).  Cries..  &    Co..   !»8  Off.  A.  B.  Dick  Co.,  KW  Off.  Caz.  730. 
C'a7..    H.^r..  43— I)«'it8cli    v.    Loon.n.    141    Off. 

30— Funk.-    V.     Hai.lwiii.     1-27    Off.  (^a/,.    llf.l. 
«;az.   3!t2.  44  — \V.  A.  Caiii.-s  &  Co.  v.  Kiicoht 

40— K.    Mrllli.-nny'K  S..n«   v.   N.w  &    Son.    120    Off.    C.nz.     11(53.      For 

IImtiu  (ii..   1.'{3  ( nr.  C.a/.  no.'i.  j)rartici'    in    opposition    proceedings 

41— Caw   V.   Oiiirk,    \:U\   Off.   (la/..  s.'e  not.'s.   §8  (>,  7.   Act  of   1905,  Ap- 

l.^>31.      For   |»ractic.'    in   canci-llation  pendix  E,  post. 
proc<'«*<linyH  !».•.•    not.'H,    S  13,   Act  of 
lOOrj,  Appendix  K,  post. 


CHAPTER  X. 

COURTS,  PARTIES  AND  PROCEDURE. 

§170.  Introductory.  Tlic  person  who  has  Ix'cn  itijurod  by 
trademark  infriiifreirkcnt  or  other  unfair  competition  usually 
has  some  latitude  in  the  selection  of  .'(  forum.  Ir>  some  of 
the  states  the  courts  have  exhibited  a  willingness  to  furnish 
redress  for  this  species  of  fraud,  in  others  this  indication  is 
lacking.  The  prospective  plaintiff  will  choose  between  the 
state  and  federal  courts,  where  federal  jurisdiction  exists, 
with  a  view  to  selectinpr  the  one  in  which  the  law  of  the  sub- 
ject is  well  settled,  and  in  which  the  uisi  priiis  judge  has  not 
exercised  his  inventive  genius  in  devising  excuses  for  fraud. 

The  plaintiff  may  be  able  to  invoke  the  criminal  process 
of  the  state  courts,  under  a  particular  statute.  A  search  war- 
rant may  be  obtainable  under  such  an  act,  and  aid  in  the  prep- 
aration of  a  subsequent  civil  suit.  The  nature  of  the  unfair 
competition  may  be  such  as  to  warrant  the  filing  of  informa- 
tion with  the  Federal  Trade  Commission. 

"Wliere  federal  jurisdiction  exists,  by  reason  of  registration 
of  the  trademark  infringed,  or  by  reason  of  diversity  of  cit- 
izenship (the  amount  in  controversy  being  sufficient),  the  action 
is  usually  brought  in  the  federal  court,  and  by  bill  in  equity. 
Ilenee  this  chapter  will  be  devoted  largely  to  a  consideration 
of  federal  practice  and  procedure  in  the  class  of  cases  under 
discussion. 

§171.    Jurisdiction  of  United  States  district  couri;s.— Sec. 

7  of  the  Act  of  ISRl  provides  that  courts  of  the  United  States 
shall  have  original  and  appellate  jurisdiction  in  cases  involv- 
ing a  registered  trademark,  without  recrard  to  the  amount  m 
controversy.  Tt  has  been  held  in  this  connection  (prior  to  the 
statutes  of  1887  and  1898.  which  raised  the  "amount  in  con- 
troversy" necessary  to  federal  jurisdiction  from  $:'iOO  to  it:2.000'i 
that  the  federal  courts  were  not  limited  in  their  trademark 
jurisdiction  to  cases  in  which  the  defendant's  profits  had  exi 

391 


§171]  HOPKINS   ON    TKADKMAUKS.  IW2 

ceoiloil  five  huiulrcil  ilollars.'  Aiul  a  latrr  decision  has  held 
tliut  "Tho  statuti'  of  K'^Sl.  wliich  drives  them  (i.  c,  owners 
of  rcpistered  tradi'iuarUs)  the  lijrht  to  eonuneiice  u  suit  with- 
out allefrint;  the  anioiiiit  in  eontroversy,  was  not  repealed  l)y 
the  statutes  of  18S7  and  1888.  whieh  make  it  necessary,  in 
order  to  pive  jurisdiction  to  the  United  States  Circuit  Court, 
that  the  amount  involved  he  two  tiiousand  dollars."-'  The 
Judicial  Code.  sec.  24.  made  the  amount  $.'}.000;  the  circuit 
court   is  abolished. 

In  cases  where  there  is  diverse  citi/enship  it  does  not  appear 
to  he  necessary  to  allepo  that  the  plaintiff  uses  his  trade- 
mark on  poods  intended  for  commerce  with  foreipn  nations 
or  with  the  Indian  tribes;  hut  it  has  been  held  that  the  fed- 
eral courts  have  no  jurisdiction  in  a  trademark  action  be- 
tween citizens  of  the  same  state  unless  the  pleadings  affirm- 
atively show  that  the  complainant  uses  his  trademark  on  poods 
interuled  for  commerce  with  forcipn  nations  or  witii  the  Iiulian 
tribes.-"'  It  was  necessary,  under  the  Act  of  1881,  where  both 
parties  were  citizens  of  the  same  state,  to  aver  that  the  defend- 
ant had  applied  the  simulated  nuirk  to  goods  intended  to  be 
used  in  such  foreign  conimerce.  or  trade  with  tiie  Indian 
tribes.'  although  the  reasoning  of  one  of  the  cases  tended 
to  show  that  logically  no  such  averment  in  the  pleadings  is 
necessary.-'  It  was  not  necessary  to  show  that  (Mther  party  had 
used  the  mark  in  c(Munu*rce  with  foreign  nations  or  with  the 
Indian  tribes;  where  the  parties  were  of  diverse  citi/enship.'' 

Of  course,  in  eases  involving  the  i-iglit  to  an  unregistered 
trademark,  jurisdiction  can  only  be  ac(|uired  by  the  federal 
courts  because  of  the  diverse  citizenship  of  the  parties."  and 
the  amount   in  controversy,  which  must  be  over  ^iVOOO  exclu- 

l—SymnndtJ    v.    On't-nc,    28    Fed.  faiytios    v.    TTolloiuliT,    27    Blntrlif. 

Rr.p.    «.34.  n.}. 

2— rjlotin  V.  OHwald,  «.'•,  F.d,  H.p.  1— Ornvclv    v.    rJrnv.ly,     r.2    Off. 

l.'.l:    Oiirliin.l    A     IlnlHton.    F.dcrni  Haz.   l.'i.lft:   42  Fod.  Rop.  2nr»;   War- 

Prartiri-.   I  122;    Hcnm-Bsy  v.   TIcrr-  ni-r  v.  S.-arlo  »1   TTin-tli  Co.,   101   V. 

mann.   m    Fi-d.    Rop.    noo.  S.    Ift.'i;   4R  L.   Fd,    14:.. 

3_Rvdor  V.  TTolt.  12R  T'.  S.  .'i2.');  ry— Clcn   Covo   Mfj:.   Co.   v.    I.ndcl 

32  L.  Kd.  .120;  r.len  f'ovp  Mfjr.  Co.  inp.   22   Fod.    R.p.    823. 
V.     I.nd<'lin;».     22     Fi'd.     Rrp.     R2.1;  A — HmncBHy     v.     Rrnunpohwoipor 

Hravfly    v.    Cravily.    r.2    Off.    f!az.  A  To.,  89  Fed.   Rip.  0(14. 
l.-i-IH;  42  F.d    R.-p.  2n.''>;  SclnimiirlHT  7— Until.'  v.    Finlay.  .Mi   l-'.-<l.    it.-p. 

T.     Schwenk*-,    20     Fed.     Hop.    818; 


'Ad'.i  coLKTs,  i'.\ifrii:>    \\i>  ntocKDrui;.  (§1^1 

sive  of  interest  and  eosts ;  as  to  tiadcinarks,  their  jiirisdir- 
tion  is  concurrent  with  that  of  the  state  (-((nrts,  JJy  virtue 
of  the  Aet  of  ('on<rress  of  March  :i,  1887,  eh.  ."{T:},  as  corrected 
])y  the  Aet  of  vXn^nist  1:5.  ISSS,  cli.  HfiO,  suit  can  not  he  hron{,'ht 
aj^ainst  a  corporation  for  infrin^'enient  of  a  tradeniari<  except 
in  the  district  where   it  is  incorj)orated.*^ 

Where  a  l)ill  was  hrou<rht  to  restrain  infrin^^'enient  of  a  rep:- 
istered  traih-niarlc  and  to  restrain  the  defendants  from  unfair 
competition  in  simulating  the  form,  size,  color  and  shai)e  of 
coufrh-droi^s  niainifactured  by  the  eoiMjjhiinants  (l)oth  parties 
bein<jc  citizens  of  the  same  state),  the  United  States  Circuit 
Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Second  Circuit  held  that  the  fact 
that  the  trademark  had  not  been  infrinj^ed  deprived  the  cir- 
cuit court  of  jurisdiction,  and  that  court  had  therefore  erred 
in  granting  an  injunction  to  restrain  the  unfair  competition 
complained  of.*^ 

In  a  suit  for  injunction  tlie  "amount  in  controversy"  is 
the  value  of  the  object  to  be  gained  by  the  bill,  and  not  the 
amount  of  damages  already  suffered  by  the  complainant.'" 
In  actions  for  infringement  of  trademark  or  for  unfair  com- 
petition, therefore,  the  amount  of  profits  sought  to  be  recovered 
does  not  determine  this  jurisdictional  question.  In  trademark 
cases  it  is  the  value  of  the  trademark  that  determines  and 
fixes  the  "amount  in  controversy."  '' 

In  a  suit  for  the  protection  of  a  tradename,  not  a  trade- 
mark, from  unfair  competition,  "it  is  the  value  of  that  name, 
as  measured  by  the  damages  to  it,  not  only  i)resent  but  pros- 
pective, which  determines  the  amount  in  controversy."  '- 

106;    Burt   v.    Smitli,   71   Fed.    Rep.  10— Glenwood  Liglit  &  Water  Co. 

161;   Prince's  Metallic  Paint  Co.  v.  v.  Mutual  Lipht  Co.,  230  U.  S.  121; 

Prince  Mf<,'.  Co.,  'i3  Fed.   Rep.  493.  60    L.   Ed.    174;    Mississippi   &    Mo. 

8— /«  re  Keasbey  &  Mattison  Co.,  R.    R.   Co.   v.   Ward,   2   Black,   48r>; 

160  U.  S.  221;  40  L.  Ed.  402;   Gar-  Market   Co.    v.    HofTnian,    101    U.   S. 

land    &    Ralston,    Federal    Practice,  112;    2.')    L.    Ed.    782;     Symonds    v. 

§  161.  Creene,  28  Fed.  Rep.  834;   Whitman 

n— Burt    V.    Smith,    71    Fed.    Rep.  v.  IIuLlx-ll,  30  Fed.  Rep.  81. 

161.    To  the   same   effect   see   Gold-  11 — Symonds   v.    Greene,   28   Fed. 

stein  V.  Whelan,  62  Fed.  Rep.  124;  Rep.    834;    Hennessy    v.    Herrmann, 

Luyties  v.  Hollender,  30  Fed.   Rep.  80    Fed.   Rep.   660. 

632.  12— Archhald,    .T.,    in    Draper    v. 

Skerrett     (2),    116    Fed.    Rep.    206, 
207. 


§171] 


HOPKINS    t>N    TKAnF.MAKKS. 


n94 


This  must  ho  spocilii'ally  plcadi'd.  bccjuiso  "tlic  r('(|uisitp 
vnliio  of  tin'  innttiM-  in  coiitrtiviM'sy  is  a  jurisdictional  i'ai't, 
and  it  must  norcssiirily  he  avorrod  in  the  (l<'clarati(»n  or  hill. 
There  are  no  presumptions  in  favor  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
federal  courts,  as  they  are  specially  constituted  with  juris- 
diction in  certain  cases:  and  the  facts  upon  which  it  rests 
must  appear  in  some  form  in  the  record  of  all  suits  prosecuted 
before  them.  They  have  no  jurisdiction  except  such  as  the 
stat\ite  confers."  '•' 

Thus  where  a  tradename  (not  a  technical  Iradomark)  is 
alleped  to  be  of  a  certain  value,  but  there  is  no  averment  that 
the  defendant's  acts  will,  unless  restrained,  tend  to  destroy 
it  or  put  its  value  in  jeopardy,  the  hill  is  demurrable." 

When  the  i)arties  are  citizens  of  different  states,  so  that  the 
case  comes  within  the  freneral  prant  of  jurisdiction  in  the 
first  part  of  the  Act  of  March  3,  1887,  the  defendant,  by  enter- 
ing a  general  ai)i)earance  in  a  suit  brought  against  him  iu 
a  district  of  which  he  is  not  an  inhabitant,  waives  the  right 
to  object  that  it  is  brought  in  the  wrong  district.'.''  But  a 
corporation,  by  doing  business  or  appointing  a  general  agent 
in  a  district  other  than  that  in  which  it  is  created,  does  not 
waive  its  right,  if  seasonably  availed  of,  to  insist  that  the  suit 
should  have  been  brought  in  the  latter  district."' 


13 — narland    &     Uiilston,    FcdiTul 
Practice,  8    122. 

14 — "Tlu'  d<'murrcr  raisoa  also  a 
qucHtion  fif  jurindiction.  Tlu-  liill 
all<*);f8  tliat  comitlainnnt'a  tradc- 
namc,  'Winchester,'  is  worth  in 
t'Xci'BS  of  $r),lHK),  Itiit  makcH  no 
charjji*  as  to  tlic  amount  •)f  pn-scnt 
or  proHjM'ctivc  dama;;»'  to  coni 
|ilainant  ariwint;  out  of  dffmdant'rt 
action,  <'xc('i)tin^  tin-  Btatrmenta 
that  dcfcndant'H  a<tn  an-  oalcuhitcd 
to  d«*c«'ivi-  and  niish-ad  intcndin;,' 
purchawrH  of  coinphiinant'H  prod- 
uct, 'to  the  j/rtat  losM,  injury  and 
damap-'  of  complainant,  and  tluit 
iinlcHH  auch  uctM  <if  defendant  are 
clifckcd  'the  reputation  of  tiie 
complainant      and      itH      rifleH     will 


still  fiirtiur  sutler  ;.'reat  and  ir 
reparalile  dama;.M'.'  There  is  no 
averment  that  comi)lainant'rt  trade 
name  will  i)e  deHtroyed,  nor  that  it 
irt  in  jeopardy.  Tlie  court  can  not 
aHsume,  in  the  alisence  of  allepa- 
tions  to  tliat  elTect.  tluit  the  trade- 
name will  he  destroyed,  or  that 
<iimpl«inanl's  danni'/ert  are  in  ex 
cess  of  !j!2,()0()."  Kohlsaat,  .1..  in 
Winchester  Hi'peatin;,'  Arms  Co.  v. 
Hutler  Bros..  12S   Fed.  Hep.  070. 

If) — In  rr  KeaHl)ey  &.  Mattison 
Co.,  UU)  V.  S.  221  22'.i.  U)  I,  Kd. 
402. 

1(1— /ii  rr  KeaslK-y  «t  Mattison 
C..,  Kilt  r.  S.  '221  2'2!»;  40  I>.  Kd. 
1(12.  This  reverses  the  ruling  in 
(!rav   V.  TaperSIo<'ve  Pulley  Works, 


395  COURTS,    PARTIES    AND    I'KOCEDURB.  [§  172 

The  Court  of  Appeals  ol"  the  District  of  C'oliiiiibia  had  no 
jurisdiction  of  trademark  cases  under  see.  3  of  the  law  of 
1881."' 

Federal  jurisdiction  in  cases  of  imf.iir  competition  must 
of  course  be  predicated  ui)on  the  ^'cim  ral  iMiIes  fixing  the  juris- 
diction of  the  federal  courts,  so  that  those  courts  can  not 
entertain  such  an  action  arising  between  citizens  of  the  same 
state  except  in  so  far  as  the  resi)ondcnt's  wrongful  acts  affect 
commerce  with  foreign  nations  or  the  Indian  tribes;  at  least 
that  is  the  exjiress  holding  of  the  Circuit  C'ourt  of  Apj)eals 
for  the  Seventh  Circuit.''' 

While  federal  jurisdiction  attaches  to  a  suit  between  cit- 
izens of  the  same  state  based  upon  infringement  of  a  trade- 
mark registered  under  the  Act  of  1905,  a  charge  of  unfair 
competition  joined  therewitli  can  not  be  entertained  if  the  case 
fails  as  to  the  trademark,  and  that  part  of  the  bill  will  be 
dismissed.'-'  But  if  the  jurisdiction  thus  acquired  is  not  lost 
by  reason  of  the  charge  of  infringement  of  the  trademark 
failing,  the  court  will  have  jurisdiction  to  enjoin  "all  wrong- 
ful acts  in  connection  with  the  infringement  which  augment 
and  aggravate  tlie  wrong."-" 

§  172.  Jurisdiction  of  the  state  courts.— The  state  courts 
have  a  jurisdiction  concurrent  with  that  of  the  federal  courts 
in  trademark  cases.^i     It  may,  at  times,  be  advisable  for  a 

1(5  Fed.   Rep.  430-443,  wiierc  it  was  20— Van      Valk('iil.nr<;h.      .1..      in 

held  that  the  service  of  an  aprent  of  Jacoway    v.    Youn;,',    22S   Fed.    Rep. 

a   foreign   corporation   was   hindinp,  (130,    (i33 

the  infrinjjiment  having  been  perpe-  21 — Small    v.    Sanders,    118    Ind. 

trated  in  the  district  where  the  ac-  10.");   20  X.  E.  Rep.  20(5.     It  is  well 

tion    was    instituted.  settled  law  that  the  jurisdiction  of 

17 — Einstein    v.    Sawhill,    fif)    Off.  state   and   federal    courts  over   suits 

Ciaz.   1018.  for   infriufrement   of    trademarks   is 

18_lllinois    Watch    Case    Co.    v.  concurrent.      The    act    of   March    3. 

El<rin  Nat.  Watch  Co.,  04  Fed.  Rep.  1881,    conferrinjr    jurisdiction    upon 

667.  672:  S.'i  C.  C.  A.  237:  afTmned.  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  in 

170  U.  S.  Of).'):  4.')  L.  Ed.  3(5.").  no    way    impaired    the    jurisdiction 

10— Plant.'n  v.  Oedney.  140  C.  C.  of  the   state  courts.   7n   rr  Keashey 

A.   1:    224    Fed.    Rep.    382,   380:    re-  &     Mattison    Co.,    160    U.    S.    221: 

versinp     Planten     v.     (icdney,     211  40    L.    Ed.    402:     Reetler    v.    Brodt, 

Fed.    Rep.    281;    Sprier    v.    Fislier,  (C.   P.)    4   Oliio  N.   P.  26.3;   G  Ohio 

222  Fed.   Rep.   964,  967.  Dec.  248. 


§  173]  lUMKINS   ON    TRVnEMAKKS,  .396 

noii-n\siilont  plaint ilT  who  lias  siH'iireil  state  registration  fur 
liis  mark  ov  label  to  sue  in  the  state  eourt  in  preference  to 
the  federal  eourt  ;  this  will  he  (leteniiiued  hy  the  eharaeter 
of  the  nuitter  for  whieh  state  refristratiou  has  been  secured. 
Several  of  the  states  have  by  statute  extended  the  definition 
of  trademark  to  include  tickets,  labels,  wrappers,  and  other 
wrappings  or  packages  not  properly  trademark,  and  fre(iueiitly 
it  will  be  a  benefit  to  a  complainant  to  avail  himself  of  such 
statutory  provisions.--  The  courts  of  every  state  of  the  Union 
have,  with  the  exception  of  California,-''  always  been  open 
to  the  owners  of  trademarks  seeking  redress  and  jirotection 
against  jiiracy,  without  rc(piiring  state  registration  as  a  i)re- 
recpiisite. 

§  173.     Jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  Trade  Commission. — In 

the  jtrcstMit  work  wc  are  interested  in  the  recently  formed 
Federal  Trade  (dnimission  only  to  the  extent  that  it  is.  by  its 
enabling  act.  given  jnrisdicti(»n  over  issues  of  unfair  compe- 
tition. The  term  "unfair  competition"  had  been  incorporated  in 
our  legal  vocabidary  long  before  the  enactment  of  the  law  cre- 
ating that  c(»mmission.  and  had  an  established  meaning  among 
lawyers,  definite  though  elastic.  The  act  referred  to  con- 
demned "unfair  methods  of  competition  in  commerce"  as 
nidawfid.  and  empowered  the  commission  "to  jirevent  i^ersons, 
partnerships,  or  corporations,  excejit  l)anks  and  common 
carriers  subject  to  the  acts  to  regulate  commerce,  from  using 
unfair  methods  of  competition  in  commerce." 

As  to  what  it  meant  by  the  term  "unfair  methods."  congress 
was  silent.  Thus  far  we  have  no  otiicial  expression  from  the 
commi.ssion  itself  to  elucidate  its  understaiuling  of  the  term. 
But   the    first   chairman    of    the   commission    has    devoted    liis 

22 — "Tin-     phnisc     trudinmrk     nn  |>n'8si<)n     p-mTally      (lonotiii;;     nny 

iiwd  in  tliiH  cliaptcr  inchidcH  every  ;.'()ods   of    some    partieiilnr    clnsfl    or 

(leiwription    of    word,    letter,   device,  deHcription    or    tlie    desi;rnntion    or 

emtdem,      HtHmj),      imprint,      liriind,  name    for    iniy    mill,    Imtel,    factory 

printed     ticket,     liiliel     or     \vrHj)per  or    other    lniMines!*."       §  'M\(\,    IVnal 

nMiially     nfllxed     l>y    any     mechanic,  Code  of   New   York,    ISO.'J;    .Montana 

niamifactiirer.     <lnij;;.'iHt.     men-liant  Code,    ISOTi,   vol.    1,    $  .'UCiO. 

or   tradenman,   to   denote   any   j.'o(>dH  2.1 — Whittier  v.   Diet/.  Oft  Cal.  7H. 

to  Ix?  imported,  manufactured,  pro-  Thi«  exc«'ption  to  the  rule  Iuih  ninoo 

dtici-d.  compounded  or  nidil  hy  him,       I n    n-moved    hy    Htututory    enact* 

other  than   any   name,   word   or  ex-  merit. 


397  COURTS,  I'AUTiKs  .\M>  I'lcocKinKio.  [§  17:J 

report  of  1915,  writti'ii  as  Coiiiniissioiici-  of  ('orj)oratioi).s, 
lai't^cly  to  ail  oxliaiistivc  review  of  liow  the  term  "unfair 
coinpetilioii "  and  ollici-  similar  terms  "have  lieeii  ajijjlied  by 
ccononiie  writers  and  by  l)usiiiess  men,"  and  has  stated  tliat 
the  term  "unfair  methods  of  eomijctition"  is  probably  incap- 
able of  exaet  detinition  in  hiief  terms.^^ 

The  proceeding's  of  the  commission  are  instituted  by  the 
commission  itself.  The  action  is  entitled  "Federal  Trade  Com- 
mission V.  (the  defendant),"  and  the  rules  adopted  by  the  com- 
mission i)rovide  that  the  party  seeking  to  have  a  complaint 
issued  shall  make  an  application  therefor  in  writing,  contain- 
ing a  short  and  simjile  statement  of  the  facts  constituting  the 
alleged  offense,  and  giving  the  names  and  addresses  of  the 
eonijilaining  party  and  the  party  complained  against.  The 
application  is  not  served  U])on  the  defendant,  who  instead  is 
served  \\\\h  tlie  complaint  drawn  by  the  commission.  The 
commission  is  then  in  the  position  of  a  prosecuting  officer, 
who  issues  the  comj^laint  in  his  own  name  as  complainant, 
and  ])roceeds  to  tiy  the  cause  himself.  The  rules  provide  that 
an  answer  to  the  complaint  shall  be  made  Avithin  thirty  days 
after  sei'vice,  which  service  may  be  had  either  by  personal 
service  or  by  registered  mail.  It  will  be  noted  on  examining 
the  rules  (printed  in  the  appendix  of  this  book)  that  the 
defendant  must  answer;  indeed,  a  provision  for  a  demurrer 
would  seem  to  be  idle  when  the  complaint  is  drawn  by  the 
same  high  authority  that  is  to  try  the  issues. 

Does  this  uni<iue  tri1)unal,  to  act  at  once  as  j^laintiff,  ]iros- 
ecuting  officer  and  trier  of  the  facts,  afford  the  defendant 
"due  ])rocess  of  law?" 

The  judgments  and  orders  of  the  commission  are  ineffec- 
tive until  revaevved  by  the  circuit  court  of  appeals  of  any 
circuit  where  the  defendant  resides  or  where  "the  method 
of  competition  in  question  was  used."  Its  findings  of  facts 
may  be  reversed  if  not  supported  by  the  testimony,  and  the 
original  order  may  be  modified  or  set  aside.  The  judgment 
of  the  court  of  appeals  is  subject  to  review  by  the  supreme 
court  only  upon  certiorari,  as  provided  by  sec.  240,  the  Judi- 

24 — Davios,  Trust  Laws  and  Unfair  Competition,  p.  301. 


§  174]  UOI-KlNi>  ON    TR.\l>i:.MAKK>.  398 

I'ial  C'oiU\     The  orders  of  tin-  (•(niiiiiissitui  can  be  ciiforced  only 
by  the  I'irruit  I'ourt  of  iippnils. 

tj  174.  The  elements  whereon  jurisdiction  must  be  predi- 
cated. Lord  Chancellor  Hrjidy.  in  the  Irish  lli-:)!  Court  of 
Cliam-ory.  in  ]>!);{.  speaking  of  tradcnuirk  causes,  .said:  "In 
sueh  splits,  in  order  to  found  the  jiirisdietion  of  tlii.s  court, 
there  nuist  be  established,  first,  the  existence  of  the  trademark; 
next,  the  fact  of  an  imitation,  whether  a  direct  imitation,  or 
one  with  such  variations  that  the  <'ourt  must  rejjard  them 
as  merely  colorable:  and  thirdly,  the  fact  that  the  imitations 
were  made  without  license,  or  anything:  that  this  court  could 
repard  as  ac(piiescence  in  tlieir  use."-'  Mr.  Sebastian  refers 
to  the  remark  of  Vice-chancellor  Bacon,  in  Kn^dand.  that  "the 
law  of  Scotland  does  not  in  this  respect  differ  from  the  law 
of  England"  ■-'•  (referring  to  tradenuirks).  as  establishing,  in 
conjunction  with  the  above  dic'ta  of  the  learned  Irish  chan- 
cellor, the  fact  that  the  jurisdictioiuil  princii)les  in  the  three 
kingdoms  are  the  .same.-"  The  Supreme  Court  of  New  York 
has  held  it  error  to  dismiss  a  eomjilaint  ujion  the  jileadinps 
and  the  openin":  of  counsel  where  the  comi)laint  showed  the 
ownershi|)  of  a  tol)acco  sample  ticket  used  in  trade  by  the 
jtlaintiffs.  aiul  the  wrongful  use  of  an  imitation  thereof  by  the 
defendants.-'^  Vov  rt'asons  discussed  elsewhere,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  confer  jurisdiction  that  it  be  allefred  that  any  one  has 
in  fact  been  misled  or  deceived  by  the  use  of  the  simulated 
mark.  P>ut  the  |)lcadin<rs  must  be  drawn  to  suit  the  exigen- 
cies of  the  case;  aiul  where  the  facts  plainly  showed  that  the 
sinndated  mark  did  not  and  could  not  deceive  either  the  jobber 
or  retailer,  and  the  fraud,  if  any.  was  upon  the  \dtinmte  pur- 
clias(>r.  the  eoiisinner.  it  was  i)roper  to  aver  the  fact  that  the 
infrinpcUM'tit    was  calculated    to   deceive   the   consumer,-''   and 

2.'» — Kiiialiiin  v.  Hidton.  I'.  Ir.  Cli.  20 — Dnmininiid     Tohaoco     Co.     v. 

7.'i-70.      Sc*'  alwt   Tlii-flfonl    Mulicin.-  'I'lnslcy    Tf>l)no<'o    Co.,    .')2    Mo.    App. 

('(I.  V.  Curry.  !•(]  C.a.  H!i.  H».  2.'..  Tlic  c<mrt  ncld.^:    "The  con- 

2fl — SinjffT  Mfj.'.  Co.  v.  T^m>;;   (.'I),  hiiiii<t    of    tin*    particular   artiolo    i« 

L.   K.   IR  Cli.   I).  :M».'i-401.  «<>  III'  ciitiHidiTi-d   almost  oxriusively 

27 — S<'l»aMtian,    TradcniarkH     (  Hli  in    determining;    tlu>   question    of   in- 

Kd.  t ,  170.  frin;;i-mirit.  lii-rauw,   in   tlw   case   of 

28 — I.indi-  v.   liinMil.  22  Hun,    (2!t  mi    attempted   deceptinn,   lio    is   snh- 

N.    Y.   Sup.   Ct. ),   <)()!.  htantially    tin-  only    parly    likely   to 


399 


COURTS,    I'ARTIICK    AND    l'ItOCEa)i;KK. 


§175 


it  is  probably  always  a  better  course  to  aver  tliat  tiie  imita- 
tion is  caU'iilated  to  deceive  the  ultimate  purchaser. 

The  real  and  simulated  marks  should  be  submitted  with 
the  bill  of  complaint  or  accurately  described  in  appropriate 
terms,  the  main  test  of  the  allefi^ed  resemblance  beintj  inspec- 
tion by  the  court;*''"  with  the  qualification  that  the  resem- 
blance need  not  be  such  as  to  deceive  persons  seeing  the  two 
marks  side  by  side.''^ 

§  175.  The  parties  plaintiflf. — The  action  to  prijtect  a  trade- 
mark may  be  brought  by  its  owner  or  a  licensee.'*^  The  better 
rule  ajipears  to  be  that  the  owner  of  the  trademark  or  trade- 
name is  a  necessary  ])arty.  Thus  the  exclusive  eonsifrnees  of 
goods  bearing  trademarks  belonging  to  a  foreign  consignor 
were  held  not  entitled  to  maintain  suit  for  infringomont  with- 
out l)ringing  in  the  consignor  as  a  party  plaintiff;  •'^''  although  the 
owner  of  a  tradename  which  he  had  assigned  the  right  to  use 
for  a  term  of  years  was  adjudged  capable  of  maintaining 
an  action  for  injunction  against  its  infringement  without  join- 
ing his  assignees.'"  Trusts,  constructive,  implied  or  expressed, 
may  arise,''"'  in  whicli  case  tlie  name  of  the  trustee  would  be 
necessary  in  all  suits  at  law  affecting  the  legal  title  to  the 
trademark,  and  it  would  bo  his  duty  at  all  times  to  protect 


lie  (li'ccivcd.""  Citin;^  Sykcs  v. 
Sykea,  3  B.  &  Cr.  541;  Farina  v. 
SilviTloc-k,  1  K.  &  J.  500;  Rose  v. 
Loftus,  47  L.  J.  Cli.  570;  Singer 
]\IfM:.  Co.  V.  Loo-  (.3),  18  Ch.  D. 
nn5-412. 

30 — Drummond  Tobacco  Co.  v. 
Tinslcy  Tol)acco  Co.,  52  Mo.  App. 
10,   26. 

31 — McCann  v.  Anthony,  21  Mo. 
App.  83 ;  Drummond  Tobacco  Co. 
V.  Tinslcy  Tobacco  Co.,  52  ^lo.  App. 
10. 

32— Kidd  V.  Johnson,  100  U.  S. 
f)17;  25  L.  Ed.  700;  Kidd  v.  Mills. 
5  OfT.  Gaz.  337.  Where  there  is  an 
exclusive  licensee  he  must  be  made 
a  party,  or  no  injunction  can  issue 
Wallach  v.  Wigmore,  87  Fed.  Rep. 
469. 


33— Richards  v.  Butcher,  02  L. 
T.    867. 

34 — Warwick  Tyro  Co.  v.  New 
^fotor  Co.    (1010),  1  Ch.  248. 

3.-)— /»  re  Mitchell,  L.  R.  28  Ch. 
D.  fiOO.  Thus  where  the  use  of  a 
trademark  is  improperly  obtained 
by  one  mem1)er  of  a  partnership 
for  his  own  use,  he  beinf;  bound 
to  obtain  it  for  the  partnership, 
he  is  held  to  be  the  trustee  of  the 
mark  for  the  benefit  of  the  firm. 
Weston  V.  Ketcham.  30  X.  Y. 
Sup.  Ct.  54.  Compare  Ex  parte 
Lawrence  Bros..  44  L.  T.  X.  S.  08; 
20  W.  R.  302:  Tti  re  Rust.  20  W.  R. 
303;  hx  re  Farina.  20  W.  R.  301; 
The  three  cases  last  named  are  cases 
in  M'hich  one  partner  registered  a 
mark  in  his  own  name  bv  mistake. 


§175] 


IIOI'KINS    i)N    TK  AIH.M  \HKS. 


400 


uml  ilofoiul  llu'  title  or  allow  his  iiaiiir  to  be  used  for  that 
purpose,  under  the  established  priiK'ii)les  of  law  atTeetinjjf 
trusts.'" 

It  is  not  iieeessary  that  all  the  ])arties  havinj,'  an  interest 
in  a  trademark  join  as  jiarties  j)laintilT.  Thus.  \'iee-Chau- 
eellor  Shadwell  held  that  survivinj;  partners  eould  nuiintain 
an  aetion  for  an  infrinj;enient  of  the  lirnrs  trailenuirks,  not- 
withstanding tlie  (iH't  that  the  persoiud  representatives  of  a 
deeeased  ])artner  niifzht  have  some  interest   in  tiiem.-'" 

Parties  liavinj;  distinct  interests  in  the  devices  embodied 
in  an  infrinjrinjr  lalx-l   may  join  as  eomplainants  in  equity.^" 

Individuals  and  corporations  having  a  common  interest  may 
join  as  ])arties  complainant  in  a  bill  in  equity  to  restrain  an 
unfair  competition  in  trade.  Thus  in  one  case  we  find  seven 
corporations  located  in  the  city  of  ^linneapolis  joined  in  u  bill 
to  restrain  the  fraudulent  use  of  names  jjeculiar  to  their  busi- 
ness and  locality,  by  a  dealer  in  Chicago,^*  and  the  owners 
of  two  separate  "Hlue  Lick  Water"  springs  in  Kentucky 
joined  in  a  bill  to  restrain  the  use  of  the  words  "Hlue  Lick 
Water"  by  a  third  j)arty  who  liad  no  right  to  their  use.'*'^ 
During  the  period  of  administration  the  personal  represen- 
tative of  the  deeeased  owner  of  a  trademark  liolds  the  mark, 
as  we  have  seen,  although  it  has  been  held  in  one  case  that 
it  may  pass  without  administration.'"  Where  there  is  an 
administratf)r,  it  is  liis  duty  to  defend  the  trademark  from 
infringement,  and  he  can  recover  all  accrued  j^rofits  and  dam- 
ages from  the   infringer,   as   actions  to   restrain    infringement 


36— IVrry,  Trusts  (4tli  <•<!.  i .  § 
520. 

37_Hin<'  V.  Lnrt.  10  -hir.  KtO; 
R«-h.    80. 

.38 — .l«>wiHh  rolonization  Absh.  v. 
Solf.mon,    12.')    Fed.     H<p.    004.    00:>. 

.30 — PillHhiiry  -  WaHhlmrn  Flour 
MilU  Co.  V.  Kaj:!.-.  30  C.  ('.  A.  380. 
86  Fi'd.  H«'p.  608.  S«'«-  alHo  ('.ravel 
Roofers'  ExHianp-  v.  Turnlmll,  61 
Off.   fJaz.   441. 

40_Xortlirutt  V.  Tiirni  V.  HH  Ky. 
314;  41  S.  \V.  H.p.  21.  S.m-  bIho 
Society  of  ArooiintantH  v.   Corpora- 


tion of  Apoountanta,  20  Scot.  Sobs. 
Caa.  (4th  sit.),  7'>0,  in  which  thrn* 
chartered  societies  joined  in  an 
action  to  prevent  the  uw  of  the 
letters  "C.  A."  (Chartered  Ac- 
coniitHntH)  liy  the  defendant,  those 
litters  liavin;,'  lnM-n  used  only  to 
(IeHi;.'iuite  niemlx-rs  of  the  three 
eonipliiinin;,'  soeieties.  See  also 
IVatfs  Appeal.    117    Pii.   St.   401. 

41— Pratt's  Appeal.  117  Pa.  St. 
401.  StM-  Steward  v.  Kinstein,  64 
()(T.  (hi?..  ir>33. 


401 


COURTS,    rVKTIKS    AM)    n{()( 'KDI '  KK 


[§175 


and  rcfovcr  profits  and  dainatxcs  arc  held  not  to  fomc  witliin 
the  rule  ticllo  personalis  mnrilur  cum  inrsonn.^-  'I'lic  owner 
of  real  estate  and  iiiipr-ovements  thereon  may  have  sueh  a 
ri^dit  in  a  trademai-k  used  to  identify  the  prodiiets  of  his 
tenants  as  to  entitle  him  to  prevent  his  tenants  from  nsin{^ 
the  mark  aftei'  tli('_\-  have  removed  \u  othei-  |)remises.''''  One 
wiio  has  an  exclusive  I'ijrht  to  use  a  ti"a(h'mark  for  a  limited 
time  may   maintain   a   suit   for  infrinji^ement.*' 

Upon  tlu'  dissolution  of  a  eopartnership,  "either  member 
may  use  the  deviecs  or  symhols,  unless  he  has  divested  himself 
of  the  ri«rht."  '•'' 

Where  copartners  dissolve  partnership,  each  retaining  the 
rifjht  to  use  the  trademarks  of  the  firm,  each  ean  assert  his 
rijrht  to  the  exclusive  use  of  such  trademarks  as  to  all  per- 
sons excci)t  his  associates  in  ownership."'  l>ut  in  all  eases 
■where  the  right  to  a  trademark  is  vested  severally  in  two 
or  more  persons,  either  of  them  will  be  enjoined  from  adver- 
tising: or  claiming:  that  he  is  the  "sole  proprietor,""*'  or  that 
his  is  the  "only  {genuine"  article.''^  And  where  title  is  so 
held,  either  of  the  parties  entitled  to  its  use  may  alone  main- 
tain a  suit  in   etjuity  ajrainst  an  infring:er.^'* 


42 — WOciiitr,  Administration, 

§299;  Oaki'V  v.  Dalton,  L.  R.  3;') 
Ch.  D.  700;  .{.-.  W.  R.  700;  Ilateh- 
ard  V.  ^U-itv,  L.  R.  18  Q.  B.  D.  771; 
Gibk'tt  V.  Read.  9  :\Iod.  4:)9 ;  Croft 
V.  Day,  7  Boav.  84. 

43— Atlantic  Milling  Co.  v.  Rob- 
inson, 20  Fed.  Rep.  217 ;  Arm- 
strong V.  Kloinliaiis,  S2  Ky.  SO.*?; 
Harper  v.  Pearson.  ."5  L.  T.  X.  S. 
.■)47 ;  (armieliael  v.  Latimer,  11  R. 
T.  39.-);  Motley  v.  Downman,  3  My. 
&  ("r.  1:  Dickson  v.  MeMaster,  18 
Ir.    Jur.    202. 

44 — One  who  lias  l»y  contract  a 
right  to  furnisli  articles  l)earing  a 
tradename  ("OtTicial  American 
League"  l)ase  hall),  may  maintain 
an  action  for  infringement  in  his 
own  name;  the  decree  of  in  junc- 
tion will  be  limited  in  duration  to 


the  f)eri(id  of  tin-  contract.  A.  J. 
Reach  Co.  v.  Simmons  Hdw.  Co., 
].").-.  Mo.  App.  412:  13.")  S.  W.  Rep. 
.•")03. 

4."» — Patterson,  J.,  in  Baldwin  v. 
\(in  Micheroux,  2.")  N.  Y.  Supp. 
S.")7.  To  the  same  effect  see  Hu- 
wer  V.  Dannt-nhoffer.  82  X.  Y.  499; 
Hazard  v.   Caswell,  93  X.  Y.  259. 

40 — New  York  Cement  Co.  v. 
Coplay  Cement  Co.,  4.")  Fed.  Rep. 
212. 

47 — International  Silver  Co.  v. 
Simeon  L.  &  George  H.  Rogers  Co., 
110  Fed.  Rep.  95.-». 

48 — Fish  Bros.  Wagon  Co.  v. 
Fish  Bros.  :Mfg.  Co..  87  Fed.  Rep. 
203. 

40— Dent  V.  Turpin.  30  L.  J.  Ch. 
40.-);    Seb.    196. 


§  176]  llttlKlNS    ON    TKAltKMARKS.  40'2 

§  176.  The  parties  defendant.  We  liavo  soon  in  a  previous 
I'haptor  that  tlio  liability  for  injiiiu-tinii  ajraiiist  iiifringomcut 
t'Xtt'utls  to  tlu'  mamifactiiivr  of  (iios  from  wliii-h  counterfeits 
«if  the  mark  are  to  lie  made:  and  it  may  aceurat«'ly  be  said 
that  every  one  who  (b'als  with  tlie  sinudated  trademark  or 
the  mean.s  of  produeinjr  it  will  be  restrained  in  ecpiity. 

In  a  ease  where  a  temi)orary  injunetion  had  been  granted 
apainst  a  person  sinee  deecased.  witiutut  opposition,  and  the 
defendant  in  his  life-time  had  never  moved  to  vaeate  it,  it 
was  held  in  New  York  that  the  eause  woidd  not  be  continued 
as  ajiainst  the  administratrix  of  tlic  defendant,  because  it 
was  not  shown  tliat  the  defendant  had  aequired  any  rights 
in  the  litigation  or  that  any  prejudice  would  result  to  the 
estate  by  not  continuing  the  action.'"^ 

The  question  who  may  be  i)arties  defendant  involves  neces- 
sarily a  discussion  of  some  of  the  principles  applied  by  the 
co\irts  in  infringement  ]iroeeedings. 

Where  the  plaintiff,  the  sole  owner  of  a  mineral  spring, 
leased  it  to  one  who  adopted  a  name  to  indicate  its  waters, 
the  concessionaire  was  enjoined  at  the  instance  of  the  owner 
from  applying  the  luime  so  used  to  water  from  another 
spring;''^  and  in  a  case  where  the  owner  of  a  spring  granted 
concessions  to  another  conveying  the  selling  privileges  in  cer- 
tain countries,  the  concessionaire  was  enjoined  from  inter- 
fering with  the  sale  in  those  countries  of  water  from  the 
spring  sobl   through   j^arties   other   than   the   coneessionaire.*''- 

A  inatuifacturer  may  delegate  the  right  to  use  his  trade- 
mark to  sales  merchants,  giving  them  that  right  only  so  long 
as  they  buy  goods,  of  the  class  to  which  tiie  trademark  beli»ngs, 
from  him.  rpt>n  their  ceasing  to  so  purchase  their  goods 
they  will  be  enjoined  from  tlie  use  of  the  mark.'''-' 

A  firm  of  shippers  of  merchandise  who  applied  the  name 
"Tlie  KcystoiK'  Line"  to  vessels  llicy  did  not  own.  but  of 
which  they  had  the  exclusive  nuuiagenieiit  in  loading  and 
unloading,  were  held  to  have  acquired  such  an  exclusive  right 

50— RrpnhUr   of   Pom    v.    Roovpb,  Sih.r.r.   2:?   Hlntrlif.     4.')0:   27    F.-d. 

40  N.  Y.  Slip    n    310.  Rep.    IS. 

.'il— Hill     V.    I.o.kwood,    ;j2    F.<i.  .'-..3— /«   rr  Itivi.r.-.  .'..T  T..  T.  N.  S. 

Rep.    3R0.  2.'{7.      Si-r  iilso   LnviTfnK*  v.   IToopiT, 

62— ApoUiuarls    Co.     (Ltd^      \.  Ind.   F..   IJ.  s  Miul.   HO. 


403  COURTS,    PABTIES    AND    PROCEDURE.  [§  176 

in  the  name  lliat  the  owners  of  tin;  vessels  s(j  used  were  enjcnned 
from  using  the  name  when  the  shippers  transferred  tlieir  busi- 
ness to  other  vessels,  the  jjroperty  of  other  shij)-owners.''' 

One  who  is  merely  a  forwarding  agent  may  be  enjoined. 
In  an  English  ease  a  firm  of  forwarding  agents  in  London 
received  from  foreign  eorresijondeiifs  several  packages  of 
cigars  bearing  forged  brands.  They  were  enjoined,  but  costs 
■were  not  assessed  against  them  because  they  had,  pri(jr  to  suit, 
given  the  makers  of  the  ])rands  so  counterfeited  full  infor- 
mation as  to  tlie  consignees  and  offered  to  return  the  cigars 
to  the  consignors  or  to  erase  the  brands.'""' 

The  managers  of  an  infringing  corporation,  who  are  them- 
selves sul)stantially  the  corporation,  are  properly  joined  as 
co-defendants  with  the  corporation  in  a  bill  to  restrain  the 
infringement."'''  The  directors  of  an  infringing  corporation 
may  be  joined  as  eo-defendants  with  it,  where  they  have  per- 
sonally directed  the  infringement."'" 

The  usual  injunction  against  a  corporation  runs  in  terms 
against  the  officers,  agents,  servants  and  employes  as  well. 
Ruch  an  injunction  is  no  bar  to  a  subsequent  application  for 
injunction  against  such  officers  or  others  as  individuals.  Upon 
such  an  application  it  has  been  said:  "The  theory  is  that  an 
injunction  against  the  company  bound  its  officers,  agents  and 
servants.  That  is  true  enough,  but  it  was  within  the  power 
of  the  defendants  to  dissolve  the  injunction,  so  far  as  they 
were  concerned,  by  resigning,  and  thus  ceasing  to  be  officers, 
agents  or  servants  of  the  enjoined  company.  Against  their 
personal  acts  there  could  be  no  absolute  protection  except  a 
personal  injunction."  ^'^ 

Servants,  agents,  and  employes  generally,  may  be  joined 
as    defendants:    they    are    i)ersonally    liable    to    injunction.^'-* 

,54_Win8or    v.    Clyde,    n     Phila.  r.l     ()(T.    Caz.     1018;     Saxlehner    v. 

513.  Kisn.T,   77   C.   C.   A.   417;    147   Fed. 

.r,5_Upmann   v.   Elkan,  L.   R.    12  Rep.  189. 
Eq.    140:    L.    R.  7   Ch.  Ap.    130.  r)8 — Lacomhe,  .T.,   in   Saxloliner  v. 

.r,f,_California    Fip   Syrup   Co.    v.  Eisner.  77   C.   C.   A.   417:    147    Fed. 

Improved    Fifr    Syrup    Co..    61    OfT.  Rep.    180,    102:    affirminj:   Saxlehner 

Gaz.    \r,r^■,   51    Fed.   Rep.   200.  v.  Eisner,  140  Fed.  Rep.  038. 

.'S7 — Armstrong    &    Co.    v.    Savan-  .■■)0 — Estes     v.     Wortliington      f2i. 

nah  Soap  Works,  53  Fed.  Rep.  124;  30  Fed.   Rep.   465;    Sawyer   v.   Kel- 


§  176]  HOPKINS   ON    TRADEMARKS.  404 

American  agents  of  foreign  liouses  will  Ix*  enjoined  from  sell- 
injr  eonnterfeit  or  imitation  goods  received  from  their  prin- 
eii)als.'"'"  The  same  nde  ohtains  in  regard  to  Englisji'''  or  Aus- 
tralian'"'- agents  of  foreign  itriiicipals.  and  in  I'cgai'd  to  com- 
mission merchants. '••' 

The  principal  is.  of  coiirse.  lialtlc  tOr  the  acts  of  his  ser- 
vants or  agents,  whether  or  not  he  can  he  shown  to  have  knowl- 
edge of  those  aets.''^ 

DitVicidty  arises  in  considering  tlie  i-iglils  and  lia))ilities  of 
innocent  parties  through  whose  hands  counterfeit  goods  pass 
in  transit,  who  hold  them  oidy  as  l)ailees  and  have  no  actual 
or  imputed  knowledge  of  their  fraudulent  nature.  Tn  the 
case  of  wharfingers  so  situated,  who  otTered  to  act  in  regard 
to  falsely  marked  wine  in  their  possession  as  the  court  might 
direct,  but  asked  to  have  their  charges  ))rovided  for.  the  court 
ruled  that  they  were  entitled  to  a  lien  ui)on  the  wine  for  their 
charges:  that  |)laintitTs  must  ]iay  defendant's  costs;  and  if 
the  plaintiffs  had  any  lien  for  their  own  costs  as  against 
the  wine,  it  must  be  subject  to  the  lien  of  the  wharfingers 
for  their  charges."^ 

An  innocent  mortgagee  of  wines  Itearing  a  simulated  mark 
was  held  to  have  a  valid  lien  thereon,  and  it  was  directed 
that  the  spurious  marks  should  he  effaced  and  the  wines 
delivered  to  him.'"''' 

In  no  case,  however,  will  relief  in  e<iuity  stoj)  short  of  jn-o- 
ti'cting  the  owner  of  a  trademark  of  which  indtations  or  coun- 
terfeits are  found  in  the  hands  of  a  common  carrier  or  ware- 

U'Hi:    (1),    7    Fed.    K<-|).    721:    Saw-  (l.'l— Cnjtts    v.    Mdll.n.ok.    2   Siindf. 

yor    V.    K.-UofTf;    (2),    9    Fed.    ll.-p.  '>Hr>:     ("ox.     20:     Twcntschc     Stoom 

001.  lU.'fkrry    (u.nr    v.    Klliiijj.T.    2()    W. 

00 — Carbolic  Soap  Co.  v.  Thonip-  H.  70. 

w.n,   2.'>    F<-d.    Hep.    02");    Rolx-rtfl   v.  04— Low   v.   Hart,  00  X.  Y.   457: 

Slu-ldon,  8  I^HH.  .'{(IS;   F»'d.  Case  No.  Atkinson     v.     Atkinson,     ft.")     L.     T. 

11910.  .ruiir.        22!»;        TwcntsHic        Stoom 

01— SiejjtTt    V.    Khl.rs.    S.li.    A:\-1:  Hl.ck.ry    C.or    v.    KllinLvr.    20    W. 

Sioffcrt    V.    Findlat<r.    L.    R.    7    Cli.  K.  70:   Ton-.'  v.   Ward.  21    L.  T.   N. 

I).    801;    Farina    v.    CallMry.    I..    .1.  S.    4S0. 

N.  C.   1807.  p.   134.  0.")— Mo.t    V.     i'i.k.rin;:.    1..     \l.    0 

02— Sicgcrt  V.  Lawrence,  11   Vict.  Cii.  1).  77<»:    1-   K.  S  Ch.   I).  372. 

L.   R.  47.  00- Ponnardin    v.   Peto,  33    Beftv. 

042. 


405  COURTS,    P.\I{TII>;    AND    I'UOCKDfKK.  (§177 

houseman/'"  It  is  tlic  duty  of  llic  hailcc  so  situated  to  ^,'ive 
the  owner  of  the  tradeiiuirk  lull  information  in  re^'ard  to 
the  poods  wiiieli  are  or  have  been  in  liis  hands  by  virtue  of 
the  bailment,  and  where  lu'  refuses  so  to  do,  even  after  the 
jjoods  have  <;one  beyond  his  control,  it  lias  been  held  that  a 
bill  will    lie   a^rainst    him   to  eompel  discovery,"** 

If,  (Ml  the  othei-  hand,  the  bailee  p^ives  the  owner  of  tlie 
mark  full  infoi-mation,  he  will  l)e  allowed  costs  if,  notwith- 
standiiifr  his  disclosures,  ])roceedinjrs  are  instituted  against 
him."''  The  wrongs  of  which  this  book  treats  being  torts,  and 
all  partici]iants  in  torts  being  jJiMueipals.  a  j)erson  who  assists 
in  coiubieting  an  unfair  eoniix'tit ion  ]>y  f\irnishing  fraud- 
ulent jiaekages  (u-  labels  is  liable  for  the  injury  resulting 
to  the   i)laintifl"  from  the   unfaii'  ('omi)etition.'" 

§  177.  Forms  of  action. — The  most  usual  form  of  civil  action 
to  secure  redress  for  trademark  piracy  in  this  country  is  by 
hill  in  equity.  ]iraying  for  an  injunction,  discovery,  account 
of  profits,  and  damages.  The  remedy  at  law  is  })y  an  action 
on  the  ease,  for  deceit;  that  form  of  action  being  l)oth  the 
form  known  to  the  commoii  law  and  that  prescribed  by  the 
Act  of  March  8,  1881. 

An  action  of  deceit  may  be  brought  by  a  purchaser  who 
has  been  deceived  by  the  vendor  of  the  fraudulent  article, 
but  such  actions  are  seldom,  if  ever,  brought,  and  are  prac- 
tically unheard  of. 

One  action  in  a  federal  court  will  lie  for  the  infringement 
of  a  patent  and  the  infringement  of  a  trademark,  where  the 
trademark  and  the  patent  were  both  infringed  together,'*  and 

fiT— ronsardin   v.   Poto.   33   Boav.  60— Upmann    v.    Currey,    29    Sol. 

642;     Hunt    v.    :Mani.re,    34    Boav.  J.   73.");   Ui>mann  v.  Forester,  L.  R. 

157;     Del    Vallo    v.    Mayer.    Seton  24   Ch.  D.   231;   Moet  v.   Pickering, 

(4th  ed.).  230;   Sch.  .320;   Bivero  v.  L.    R.    8    Ch.    D.    372;    Upniann    v. 

Norris.  Seton    (4th   Ed.K  230;    Seb.  Elkan,  L.   R.   12  Eq.  140. 

209;    Moet    v.    Piekerinjr.    L.    R.    r.  70— Tlildreth   v.  Sparks  Mfff.  Co.. 

Ch.    D.    770:    L.    R.    8    Ch.    D.    372:  O't   F.>d.   Rep.   484. 

ITpmann  v.  Elkan.  L.  R.  12  ¥.<].  140.  71 — Jaros      Underwear      Co.      v. 

68 — Orr   v.    Diaper,   L.    B.   4    Cli.  Kheee  Underwear  Co.,  60  Fed.  Rep. 

1).    02.      See    also   Carver    v.    Pinto  622.     See  p.  431,  post. 
Leite,  L.  R.   7  Ch.  D.  90:   41  L.  J. 
Ch.  02:  2.T  L.  T.  N.  S.  722;  20  W. 
R.    134. 


§177] 


IIOI'KINS   ON    TRAHEMARKS. 


40G 


tho   snmo   nilo  apiilu's    wlicro   a    puhlication    iiirriii^^cs   both    n 
tradiMiiark  and  a  cdityrijrlit.'- 

Ai-cordiii^ly  a  cliai'j:*'  of  uiifaii'  coniixMitioii  may  he  cinbrai'i'tl 
ill  a  l)ill  for  patent  iiil'riiif.'t'intMit.' '  and  a  sin^rlo  hill  (»f  com- 
l>laint  may  (•liar<ro  tho  infrin^'cmcnt  (if  a  (h'si^Mi  pat<'nt.  a 
merhanii'al   patt'iit.  and  a  tradrmarU  nr  trach'iiamc' ' 


7J— lliir|>.r    \      ll..linim.    SJ    K.d.  Ft<l.     Ixtji.     141;     Dauirl    O'Dtum.-ll 

H.»p.   212.  V.    His<nl    Mf;;.    Co..    '228    Fod.    K.'i). 

7.1— Diinhip    V.    Willi. rniult    Sur^'-  127.    I.IO. 

icnl  Mf>:.  (."o.,  SO  I',  t'.   A.   :u'^;    l.")l  7-> — \Va;:ii.r      Tvpiwritcr     Co.     v. 

F«><i.   Hop.  223;  Ot>rni«T  Stove  Co.  v.  !•'.    S.    Webster    Co.,    114    I'ld.    Uep. 

Art  Stove  Co.,  80  C.  C.  A.  0;    IJO  40 J. 


OTTAPTKR  XI. 

THE  CRIMINAL  PROSECUTION— FEDERAL  AND  STATE. 

§178.  The  Act  of  1876.  The  prosecutions  under  wliicli  the 
decision  styh'd  tlie  'I'lddoiuirk  Casts^  was  roiulered  were  insti- 
tuted under  the  Act  of  Congress  of  1876.  Tliis  was  a  penal 
act  ai)j)lieable  to  infrinfjfers  of  trademarks  ref?istered  under 
the  registration  act  of  1870.  Mr.  Justice  Miller  says,  in  the 
conclusion  of  his  oj)inion:  "While  we  have,  in  our  references 
in  this  opinion,  had  mainly  in  view  the  Act  of  1870,  and 
the  civil  remedy  which  thai  ;ii'1  pi-ovides.  it  w?s  because  the 
criminal  offenses  described  in  the  Act  of  1876  are,  by  their 
express  terms,  solely  referable  to  frauds,  counterfeits,  and 
unlawful  use  of  trademarks  which  were  recristered  iinder  the 
provisions  of  the  former  act.  Tf  tluit  act  is  unconstitutional, 
so  that  the  renristration  under  it  confers  no  lawful  riirht.  then 
the  criminal  enactment  intended  to  protect  that  rigrht  falls 
with  it.  "2 

After  the  enactment  of  the  Act  of  ^larch  r{,  1881,  some  able 
lawyers  inclined  to  the  belief  that  the  Act  of  1876  Avas  by 
the  passapre  of  a  valid  rcfjistration  act  priven  now  life.  or.  as 
stated  by  one  eminent  jurist:  "This  is  not  an  instance  of 
revival ;  for  the  penal  act  was  not  dead,  but  simply  dormant. 
Its  sleep  was  ended  by  the  birth  of  the  Act  of  1881.  No  words 
were  required  in  tlio  latter  to  sot  tlio  penal  law  in  motion. 
That  which  is  implied  in  a  statute  is  just  as  much  a  part  of 
it  as  that  which  is  expressed.  Nor  is  it  repealed  by  the  civil 
Act  of  1881." --^ 

This  reasoninjr.  however,  has  not  been  followed  by  the  courts. 
The  i)ro]iosition  Avas  first  submitted  to  Judfro  Thayer,  but  in 
his  opinion  ho  expressly  refrained  from  docidiufr  it.  sustain- 
inpr   demurrers   to   indictments  based   upon   the   Act   of   1876 

1—100   U.   S.   82.  .3— Browne,  Trademarks  (2d  ed.), 

2— Trademark    Cases,    100    U.    S.       §371. 
82-«)9;    25  L.   Ed.  550,  553. 

407 


§  179]  IIOI'KINS    (»N    TH AhKMARKP.  408 

Upon  other  prouiuls.^  Siibs(M|iit'iitly  Iho  (lucstioii  was  squarely 
presented  to  Mr.  .lu.stiee  Hrewcr,  sitting  as  eireuit  judge,  who 
said  in  substance:  "While  the  Act  of  1H70  was  a  nullity,  it 
must  be  assnnuMl  as  a  matter  of  faet  that  in  franiin},'  the  Aet 
of  1876  the  i)eiuilties  imposed  were  with  reference  to  the  terms 
of  th.'  Statute  of  1S7().  •  •  •  A^'ain,  when  the  Aet  of 
1F81  was  passed,  if  eon^rress  had  intended  that  penalty  should 
bo  imposed  for  a  trespass  upon  the  ri>.'hts  conferred  by  that 
statute,  or  if  it  liad  intended  that  the  Act  of  lS7(i  should  be 
revivitied  ami  operate  upon  the  Aet  of  ISSl,  it  was  very  easy 
to  say  so.  Its  silence  in  this  respect  is  coprent  evidence  that 
it  did  n(»t  uiulerstaiul  or  intend  that  the  penal  statute  should 
be  considered  a  jiart  of  jiresent  and  valid  law.  And  that 
assumption  is  strenprthened  by  the  fact  that  it  had  before  it 
for  consideration  this  ]iassapre  from  the  opinion  of  the  supreme 
court  (quoted  above)  in  which  it  is  broadly  stated  that  the 
Act  of  1870  had  fallen  with  the  Act  of  1870.  Whatever  may 
be  true  as  to  the  full  meaninpr  of  that  decision,  or  as  to  the 
{reneral  power  of  conprress  to  impose  i)enalties  for  trespasses 
upon  rifrhts  havinpr  no  existence,  it  had  before  it  the  general 
affirmance  by  the  court  that  the  law  of  187G  had  fallen,  and 
it  must  be  assumed  that  if  it  meant  that  it  should  stand  and 
be  vivified,  or  that  any  penalties  should  be  imposed  for  viola- 
tions of  the  law  of  1«81.  it  wonhl  have  so  stated.  These  con- 
siderations convince  me  very  stronprly  that  the  Aet  of  1876 
has.  as  the  supreme  court  said,  fallen  with  the  Aet  of  1870, 
and  it  is  as  much  a  dead  letter  as  the  Act  of  1S70.  and  was 
not  vivified  or  {riven  operative  force  by  the  Act  of  1881."  •'' 
The  Act  of  1876.  then,  is  no  lonprer  of  force,  and  there  is 
no  federal  relief  by  criminal  ])rosecntion  to  be  had;  except 
that  under  certain  conditions,  which  we  will  examine  in  the 
next  section,  the  owners  of  trademarks  applied  to  spirituous 
liquors  and  wines  may  be  measurably  jtrotected  by  federal 
prosecution  under  tlw  internal  revenu<>  laws. 

.  §179.  Sec.  3449,  Revised  Statutes.  In  the  last  paragraph 
of  sec.  20  of  the  A.t  of  Cnii.jTess  approved  July  IM.  1S(;6.  and 
entitled    "An    act    to    redui-e    internal    taxation    Mtid    to   atnend 

4_T'nit«-«l     Stntpx     v      Hrnnn.    no  .'■.— T'nit.'d  Stat<-H  v.  Korli,  10  F.mI. 

FH,  R.p.  77.-.  777.  TN-p.  2.'-.n.2.''.2. 


409  CKIMINAI.    PROSECUTION  — FEDERAL    AND    STATE.  [§179 

an  act  eiitilh'd  'An  aot  to  ])rovidc  internal  rcvoiuu'  to  support 
the  government,  to  pay  intcicst  on  the  public  dchf,  and  for 
other  purposes,'  approved  .lime  '.\0,  18G4"  (now  see.  :i449. 
Revised  Statutes  of  the  I'nited  States),  it  is  provided  us  fol- 
lows : 

"Whenever  any  j)erson  ships,  transports,  or  removes  any 
spirituous  or  fermented  licjuors  or  wines,  under  any  other  than 
the  proper  name  or  lu-aiid  known  to  the  trade  as  de.si^niat- 
ing  the  kind  and  (piality  of  the  contents  of  the  casks  or  pack- 
ages eontainiiifr  the  same,  or  causes  such  act  to  be  done,  he  shall 
forfeit  said  li(piors  or  wines,  and  casks  or  packages,  and  be 
subject  to  ]iay  a  fine  of  five  hundred  dollars." 

This  enactment  is  constitutional,  being  within  the  authority 
delegated  to  congress  by  the  first  clause  of  sec.  8  of  art.  I 
of  the  constitution,  being  to  "levy  and  collect  taxes,"  and 
"make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carry- 
ing into  execution  that  power."  It  is  no  objection  to  the 
validity  of  the  act  that  its  enforcement  incidentally  protects 
the  owners  of  trademarks.  As  stated  by  Mr.  Justice  Nelson 
in  another  connection  :  "It  will  not  do  to  say  that  the  exerci.se 
of  an  admitted  jiower  of  congress  conferred  by  the  constitu- 
tion is  to  be  withheld,  if  it  appears,  or  can  be  .shown,  that 
the  effect  and  operation  of  the  law  may  incidentally  extend 
beyond  the  limitation  of  the  power.  Upon  any  such  inter- 
pretation the  principal  object  of  the  framers  of  the  instrument 
in  conferring  the  power  Avonld  be  sacrificed  to  the  subordinate 
consequences  resulting  from  its  exercise."'"'  It  has  therefore 
been  held  constitutional  by  Judges  Laeombe,"  Thayer,  Sanborn, 
Caldwell''  and  Ilawley."  Under  this  section  the  term  "pack- 
age" includes  every  box,  barrel,  or  other  receptacle  into  which 
distilled  spirits  have  been  placed  for  shipment  or  removal, 
either  in  quantity  or  in  separate  small  packages,  as  bottles 
or  jugs."*    The  phrase  "proper  name  or  brand"  does  not  refer 

fi_Statc      of       ronnsylvnnia      v.  Wines.    22    C.    (\    A.    228;    76    Fed. 

Whoolin;,'    &     Rdmont     Brid-rc    Co..  Rep.    'M\A:    rcv<Tsin;r    samo  casr.    Cr, 

.'".n   U.    S.    421-4:].-?;     r.    L.    i:d.    4:?.'..  F.'d.    T5("p.    080. 

4.38.  !»— United    States    v.    Cami.e.    SO 

7_X-'nited  States  v.  T.oed.  40  Fed.  Fed.   Rep.   007. 

Rop.  MCk  10— United    States    v.    1.32    Tack- 

8 — United  States  v.  132  Pack-  ages  of  Spirituous  Liquors  and 
ages     of     Spirituous     Liquors     and 


180] 


IIOrKINS   ON    TR.vnEM.VUKS. 


410 


to  tlio  triiilcinark  t»r  inaUt'  ()t'  a  ccrtaiii  distillor.  hut  to  a  i-cinoval 
inultT  ail  improper  i»r  niislcaciin^r  titli',  as  where  the  fraud 
on  the  jroveniiuetit  is  atteiiiptecl  of  reiiiovinjr  brandy  under 
the  name  of  whiskey.  "  " 

What  will  coiistitulf  transportation  or  removal  under  the 
terms  of  tliis  aet  is  not  determined,  and  will  j)robably  depend 
upon  the  farts  in  ejieh  particular  ease.  The  aet  ineludes  in 
its  purview  any  person  who  ships,  transports  or  removes  liquors 
in  vi(»lation  of  its  provisions. '- 

This  act  is  capable  of  protecting'  to  a  great  e.xteiit  the  owners 
of  trademarks  used  in  the  li(pior  trade. 


§  180.  Criminal  liability  at  common  law. — The  counterfeiter 
of  a  trademark  is  not  }juilty  of  for«rery.'^  His  offense  is  com- 
prehended under  some  division  of  the  various  fraud  aets. 
Probably  it  will  always  be  found  to  fall  within  the  limits  of 
the  aets  defining;  the  offense  of  obtainin<r  money  inider  false 
pretenses.'^  But  under  the  En«rlisli  decisions  it  is  not  a  for- 
jrery,  even  where  the  trademark  counterfeited  eonsi.sts  of  a 
sifrnature.''  In  the  United  States,  however,  pro.secutions  have 
been  very  seldom  resorted  to.  The  prosecutor  in  aetions  sound- 
ing: in  false  pretenses  should,  of  eourse,  be  the  eustomer  who 
has  been  defrauded,  and  as  a  rule  he  is  little  inclined  to  pros- 
ecute. 


Wiiu'H,  70  Fed.  Rep.  304  3(58;  22  C. 
('.  A.  228. 

U— Unit«'<l  Stat.'H  v.  \:V2  Pack- 
iim'8  of  Spirituous  Liquors  and 
\Vin«-8,  7«  Fod.  Rep.  304:1(58;  22  C. 
<■.  A.  228. 

12— I'nited  States  v.  Campe,  80 
Fed.  Rep.  on:  0!»<».  Ttiat  this  sec- 
tion is  hi;;lily  penal  and  must  ho 
Ktrlctly  conHtrued,  mh-  U.  S.  v. 
Twenty  Boxes.  07  C  ('.  A.  214; 
133  P'ikI.  Rep.  !U0.  That  fraud- 
ulent int<'nt  is  not  involved,  see  U. 
S.  V.  Li(|uor  Dealers'  .Supply  Co., 
l.'.O  Fed.  Rep.  210.  The  remedy  is 
not  exclusive,  HIaeklork  v.  U.  S., 
208  U.  S.  ir,;  r,2  ]..  Kd.  390.  For 
former  acquittal  of  criminal  charp' 


as  a  bar.  see  I"^.  S.  v.  Seattle  Brow. 
Co.,  13.''i  Fed.  Rep.  .')n7.  For  what 
mnrkiuf^s  penalty  is  incurred,  »oo. 
V.  S.  V.  Sand.'fiihr.  14")  Fed.  Rep. 
40;  Woolner  v.  Rennick,  170  Fed. 
Rep.   002. 

1.3— \\nute  V.  Wairar.  18.")  III.  lO.--)- 
202.  Tie  may  he.  where  the  coun- 
terfeit mark  contains  a  ^.niaranty. 
expressed  or  implied.  White  v. 
Wapar.   83    111.    App.    .'■)02-.'>n0. 

14— Refrina  v.  Smith.  D.  &  B. 
.'")00;   a  Cox.  .32. 

l.'V— Retina  v.  Closs.  D.  &  B.  400; 
7  Cox.  404;  Re^iina  v.  Smith.  8 
Cox.  37;  Ri'^'ina  v.  Oundas.  0  Cox, 
380;  Rejrina  v.  Cray,  ."^eh.  183; 
Refjina   v.   Sutter,   10  Cox,   r)77. 


411  CKI.MlNAh    IMiOSKCI'TION — FEDKRAL    AND    STATK.  [§181 

§  181.  The  penal  statutes  of  the  several  states,  'i'hc  more 
iinpoi'tant  .statutes  rclatiiij;  t<»  f  ladi-maik  piotccl  ion  are  set 
out  ill  the  apix'udix.  It  will  he  uotici-d,  uj)on  <'xaiiiiiiiii(x  tlnMii, 
that  legislation  Ills  largely  heeii  for  the  protection  of  labor 
organizations  and  of  jiartieuhir  indiustries;  thus,  states  having 
no  general  registration  aet,  have  ])rovisi()ns  for  the  registra- 
tion and  proteetiou  of  timber  marks,  or  of  the  packages,  such 
as  bottles,  or  syjilions,  used  by  the  manufacturers  of  carbonated 
waters,  or  the  milk  cans  of  the  dairy  industry.  In  the  stat- 
utes. Avliicii  have  heon  reproduced  in  the  appendix,  are  to  be 
found  admirable  examides  of  every  form  of  trademark  legis- 
lation wliicli  tlie  necessities  of  commerce  have  thus  far  created. 
An  adequate  recristration  act  in  each  of  the  states  which  now 
has  no  general  statutory  iirovision  upon  that  suhject.  and 
greater  nnifoi-mitv  of  legislation  hetween  the  states,  are  greatly 
to  he  desired.  Tn  the  annotations  of  these  cases,  it  will  be 
noticed  that  there  have  been  comparatively  few  reported  cases 
of  criminal  prosecution  under  them.  Tlie  heavy  hni'den  of 
)n*oof  imjiosed  upon  the  state  in  these  cases  has  served  as  a 
deterrent  to  such  prosecution.  Thus  the  Illinois  court  held 
that  proof  that  two  persons,  strangers  to  the  defendant,  had 
told  him  the  mark  on  the  goods  he  was  selling  was  counterfeit, 
was  not  necessarily  sufficient  to  prove  his  guilty  knowledge.^'' 
This  difficulty  has  heon  remedied  in  Massachusetts  by  the  enact- 
ment of  a  provision  rerpiiring  a  defendant  charged  v.-ith  the 
selling  of  goods  hearing  a  spurious  mark  to  show  that  he 
bought  them  innocently. 

Tt  is  undoubtedly  proper  legislation  to  impose  this  require- 
ment upon  the  defendant.  Tn  England,  proof  of  fraudulent 
intent  is  not  required  in  a  pro.secution  under  IMerchandise 
Marks  Act  of  1887.'' 

16— Vofrt  V.  Pcoplf.  .')0  TU.  App.  Q.  B.  D.  162.  For  further  rulinjTR 
684.  pec    statutes    of    the   several    states, 

17 — Wood    V.    Burgess,   L.    R.    24      in  the  appendix. 


(MI  \p'ri:i.*  XII. 

ACTIONS  AT  LAW. 

§182.  The  form  of  action.  "Tho  only  redress  fur  a  trade- 
mark infriiimMiH'iit  was  al  lirsl  liy  an  art  ion  in  a  roiiimoM  law 
court  for  (lamajrcs  for  deceit.'  An  action  at  law  for  damages 
i.s  prescribed  hy  the  Act  of  I'M)'),  as  a  proper  lej;al  ri'inedy  for 
infriufienu'nt.s  of  trademarks.-  It  is  against  the  policy  of  the  law 
that  the  owner  of  a  valid  trademark  shoidd  \usv  hy  rejison  of 
its  infrinj^ement.  'i'o  prevent  such  a  result,  tiie  aetion  at  law 
is  well  ada{)ted,  because  it  measures  the  i)liiintifT's  recovery  by  the 
plaintilT's  loss,  liut  it  is  also  a^'ain.st  the  policy  of  the  law 
that  an  infrinjrer  should  gain  by  reason  of  his  infringement. 

By  sec.  7  of  the  Act  of  IS.Sl  the  action  of  trespass  on  the  ca.se 
was  specified  as  the  aivpi-ojiriate  action  at  law  for  trademark  in- 
fringement. 

The  history  of  this  form  of  action  has  been  succinctly  deseribeil 
by  Engli.sh  jurists.  Lord  Blackburn  said:  "The  original  founda- 
tion of  the  whole  law  is  this:  that  when  one  knowing  that  goods 
are  nr)t  made  by  a  particular  trader  sells  them  as  and  for  the 
goods  of  that  trader,  he  does  tliat  which  injures  that  trader.  At 
first  it  was  put  upon  the  ground  that  he  did  .so  when  he  sold 
inferior  goods  as  and  for  tlie  trader's  ;  but  it  is  established  (alike 
at  law-'  and  in  e(|uity'  >  tliat  il  is  an  actionable  injury  to  pass  off 
poods  known  not  to  be  the  jtlaintifT's  as  and  for  the  plaintiff's, 
even   though   not   inferior. "  •'■ 

The  develoi)Mient  of  the  action  on  tlii'  case,  and  the  nunuier  in 
whi<*h  it  became  adapted  to  the  exigencies  of  trademark  i.ssues. 
are  thus  admirably  stated  by  Mellisb.  L.  ,].:  "In  my  oi)inion 
all  actions  of  this  nature  must  be  founded  upon  false  representa- 
tions.    Oritriiudly,   I  apprehend,  the  right   to  bring  an  action  in 

l_r,iiyn<ir,   .1..   in  Clinton   Mrtnl  4-   IMrlstcn    v.    IM.  lst<n.    1    DcC;. 

lir   Paint  Co.   v.    \.-w  York    M.  tunic  .1.   &    S.    18.'). 

Paint  Co.,  .lO  N.  Y.  Supii.   A'M .  .'i— Sinp-r    Mf^'.    Co.    v.    Ix>ojf,    L. 

2— Act  of  P'.J.ruary  20.  100.'"..  8  10.  H.  8  A.  C.  15-29. 

3— Blofli-ld  V.   I'ayn»',  4   H.  4   Ad. 

410. 

412 


413  ACTIONS    AT    LAW.  (§183 

respect  oi  tlie  improper  iisc  ol"  a  liailciiiark  arose;  out  ol"  tlie 
common  law  riglit  to  briuj;  uii  uetioii  for  a  false  roprcseiitation, 
•whieli,  ol'  eoiirsi',  iimsl  In-  a  falsi;  representation  made  fraudu- 
lently, it  dilVeicd  frdiii  an  oi'dinarv  action  for  false  represen- 
tation in  this  rcs|>('c1  :  tiiat  an  action  I'or  lalse  representation  is 
generally  ltrouj,'lit  liy  the  person  to  whom  the  false  representation 
is  made;  hut  in  the  case  of  the  improper  use  of  a  trademark, 
theconunon  hnv  courts  noticed  that  the  false  representation  uhich 
is  made  by  putting  another  man's  trademark,  or  the  tradename 
of  another  jiianufactMrcr,  on  the  goods  which  the  wrong-doer  sells, 
is  calculated  to  do  an  injury,  not  only  to  the  person  to  whom 
the  false  or  fraudulent  representation  is  made,  but  to  the  manu- 
facturer whose  trademark  is  imitated  ;  and,  therefore,  the  cominon 
law  courts  held  that  such  a  manufaeturer  had  a  right  of  action 
for  the  improper  use  of  his  trademark.  Thm  the  coniinon  law 
courts  extended  that  doctrine  one  step  further;  first,  if  I  recollect 
rightly,  in  the  case  of  Sijhcs  r.  Sijl-c.:.'^  There  it  was  held  that 
althoui:li  the  representation  "was  perfectly  true  as  between  the 
original  vendor  and  the  original  purcha.ser,  in  this  sense,  that 
the  original  i)Ui-chaser  knew  perfectly  well  who  was  the  real 
manufacturer  of  the  goods  and  therefore  was  not  deceived  into 
believing  that  he  bad  bought  goods  manufactured  by  ajiotber 
person,  yet  if  the  trademark  Avas  put  on  the  goods  for  the  pur- 
pose of  enal)ling  that  j)iirchaser,  fwhen  be  came  to  resell  the 
goods,  to  deceive  any  one  of  the  public  into  thinking  that  he 
Avas  purcba.^ing  the  goods  of  the  manufacturer  to  whom  the  trade- 
mark properly  belonged,  then  that  was  equally  a  deception,  a 
selling  of  goods  with  a  false  representation,  which  would  give 
the  oriirinal  user  of  the  trademark  a  right  of  action.  That  "was 
the  connnoii  law  I'iglit."" 

The    trademark    owner    whose    rights    are    infringed    has    his 
election  between  ])roceeding  at  law  or  in  equity.^ 

§  183.     The  declaration. — The  ])roper  parts  of  a  declaration 
in  an  action  at  law  are.  in  their  order,  as  follows: 

1.  The  title  of  the  court. 

2.  The  title  of  the  term. 

3.  The  luime. 

G— .3   B.   ."t    fr.    .541.  R— ITapan  &  Dodd  Co.  v.  Rigbera, 

7— Singer  Mfjr.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  L.       1    Ca.    App.     100;     57    S.    E.    Rep. 
2   Ch.   D.   434-453.  970. 


§183]  HOI'KINS    ON    TUADKMAKKS.  414 

4.  Tlio  coinnioiKUMiu'iit. 

5.  The  stutrineiit  <>f  the  iij:ht  of  action. 
G.  Tlie  I'oiu'lusioii. 

Till'  t-orriM't  title  of  the  I'liited  States;  District  Court  cstali- 
iislictl  ill  the  Noitlicni  District  of  California  is  "Thv  District 
Court  of  the  Cniteii  States  for  the  Northern  District  of  Cali- 
fornia," anil  the  titles  of  the  various  other  ilistn-t  courts  are  the 
same,  except  as  to  the  name  of  the  district,"  to  which  should  he 
added  the  name  of  the  division  of  the  district,  where  the  judicial 
district.s  are  suhdivided. 

The  tenii  in  which  the  declaration  slmuld  lie  entitled  is  the 
term  to  which  the  defenilant  is  summoned.'"  It  is  unnecessary 
to  entitle  a  declaration  in  the  name  of  the  «ase  in  which  it  is 
filed:  the  style  of  the  case  may  ho  indorsed  upon  the  hack  of  the 
declaration  as  a  Jiiatter  of  convenience." 

The  venue  should  he  laid  in  the  district  where  the  declaration 
is  filed,  regardless  of  the  district  or  di.stri<?t.s  wherein  the  infringe- 
ment was  committed. '- 

The  commencement  sets  forth  the  names  of  the  parties  and  the 
capacity  in  which  they  respectively  sue  or  are  sued,  if  it  is  other 
than  a  natural  capacity.'-' 

A  corporation  can  not  he  or  hecome  a  i-itizen  of  a  state. '^  and 
therefore  an  averment  of  its  citizenship  is  improper.  Wlien  a 
corporation  is  a  party  the  corporate  name  should  he  set  forth, 
followed  hy  the  averment  that  the  said  corporation  ''is  a  corpo- 
ration created  under  the  laws  of  the  state  of  ,  and  having 

its  principal  pla<e  of  husiness  at ."  '^ 

The  courts  of  the  Cnited  States  having  a  limited  jurisdiction, 
the  jurisilictional  facts  must  he  expressly  pleaded  in  the  declara- 

9 — Revised    Statutes.    §  tiOfi.  1  l      I'mil     v.     Virf,'iniii,     8     Wall. 

10 — C'hitty,    IM.adin;:    (  l.'.tli    Am.  KiH;    1!)   L.   Kd.   :}."i7 ;    Ducat  v.   Clii- 

od.),  p.    2ti;{.  cafjo.   10  Wall.  410;    1!)   L.   Kd.   072. 

11 — Tlu'    title    or    eaption     is    no  IT) — Siiirnw,    Kqiiity    Prnctico    (2d 

part    of    till-    pleadiii;.'.      .lackwon    v.  ed. ) ,    §  .'14.       Citin;:    I.afayt-tte    Ins. 

AKht<»n,    8    Pet.    14K;    8    L.    Kd.    808.  Co.   v.    Fn-ncli.    18   How     Idl;    1')   L. 

Hut  cf.  .loncH  V.  AndrewH,  Hi  Wall.  Kd.  4.'>1  ;    Railroad  Co.  v.  Ilarrin,  12 

327;    19   L.   Kd.  113.-).  Wall.  O.'.;   20  L.   Kd.  3.-.4 ;  Kx  parte 

12— Peytoii  V.  De-niond.  O'A   C.  C.  ScliollenlMTp-r.  0(1  U.  S.  300;  24  L 

A.  AM;    120   Fed.    Itej.     »  Kd,  8.-)3 ;    PeiiiiHylvania  Co.  v.  Rail- 

13— HoHton    Kl.   Ky.   Co.    v.   firare  road  Co..   118  T'.   S.  200;   .30  L.  Ed. 

A-    riyde   Co.,  .-)0   C.    C.    A.    239;    1J2  83;    Co«.dlet   v.    Hailroad,    122   U.    S. 

Fed.    Hej..  270.  .301  ;    -M)    I.     Kd.    12.10. 


415  ACTIONS    AT    I^W.  [§183 

tioii.  Divfi-sc  (iti/ciisliij),  il"  it  exists,  must  be  shown.  II"  the 
tradonuifk  iii\(tl\('(|  is  tvfj^istered  undci-  tho  Act  of  Feb.  liO,  1I>05, 
that  fact  must  l)c  plciulcd,  because,  (ii-st,  it  establislirs  a  prima 
facie  r'\\i\\i  to  the  use  of  the  mark,  and  seconci,  confers  juris- 
diction upon  the  t"e(h'r-al  court  regardless  ot"  the  aniount  in  eon- 
trovei"sy."' 

It"  the  action  is  iM'tweeu  citizens  ot"  the  same  state,  even  thouf^h 
invoh  in^r  a  registered  trademark,  tlie  deehu-ation  nnist  aver  that 
the  phiintifr  uses  the  trademar-k  and  the  det'endant  the  infring- 
ing nuirk  upon  goods  intended  for  commerce  with  foreign  na- 
tions oi-  witli  Indian  tribes  or  in  interstate  eonunerce.'^  If  the 
action  is  based  upon  a  connnon  law  trademark,  the  de(rlaration 
must  set  forth  the  amount  in  controversy,  whicli  is  not  the 
amount  sought  to  be  recovered,  but  the  value  of  the  tradenuirk, 
and  that  value  must  be  not  less  than   three  thousand  dollars.*^ 

Fraud  is  essential  to  recovery  at  law.  Lord  Wcstbury  said, 
"Proof  of  fraud  on  the  part  of  the  defendant  is  of  the  essence 
of  the  action."  '"  Furthermore,  at  law  it  is  necessary  to  show, 
and  plead,  that  an  injury  has  actually  been  done  by  the  defend- 
ant's act  of  infringement.-" 

The  averment  of  infringement  should  set  forth,  then,  in  what 
the  infringement  consi.sted,  and  that  it  was  done  willfully  and 
with  fraudulent  intent  on  the  part  of  the  defendant.  The  state- 
ment of  the  right  of  action  should  describe  the  trademark  in  exact 
and  appr(){)riate  terms,  and  where  possible  the  real  and  simu- 
lated nuirks  should  be  reproduced  in  fac-simile. 

16— Act  of  Mart-li  :?.  ISSl,  §7;  1!)— Kdi-lstcn  v.  Edelsten,  1  DeO. 
Act  of  190.^),  §§  16,  17.  SyniDiuls  v.  J.  &  S.  185;  to  tlu'  samo  effoct,  Har- 
Greene,  28  Fed.  Rep.  834;  Glotin  v.  ^Tavos  v.  Smith.  Sch.  3.38;  Law- 
Oswald,  6.">  Fed.  Ri'p.  1")!;  Hcnnes-  son  v.  Bank  of  London,  18  C. 
sy  V.  Iltrrmann,  80  Fi-d.  Rop.  669;  B.  84;  2;)  L.  J.  C.  P.  188; 
In  re  Kcasl)oy  &  Mattison  Co.,  160  2  Jur.  X.  S.  716;  27  L.  T.  134; 
U.  R.  221-227;   40  L.  Ed.  402.  4  W.  R.  481;   Seb.  140;  Rodgers  v. 

17— Luyties  v.  Ilollonder   (1),  22  Xowill.  6  Hare,  325;    5  C.  B.   100; 

Blatchf.       413;        ScluimacluT       v.  17    L.   J.   C.   P.    .-)2;    11   Jur.   1030; 

Rchwenkc    (1),   26    Fed.    Rep.    818;  10  L.  T.   88;   Sd).  82;   Crawshay  v. 

Ryder    v.     Holt,     128    U.     S.    525;  Thompson,    4    Man.    >S:    O.    3.-)7 :     5 

32  L.  Ed.  520;  Gravely  v.  Gravely,  Roott,    X.    R.    .-)62;    11    L.    .T.    C.    P. 

42  Fed.  Rep.  265;  Prince's  Metallic  301;   Reh.   72. 

Paint    Co.    v.    Prince    Mfjr.    Co.,    53  20— Rin^r.-r  Mfj,'.  Co.  v.  Loog   (3», 

Fed.  Rep.  493.  L.  R.  8  App.  Cas.   15-30. 

18 — Rymonds  v.   Greene,  28   Fed. 
Rep.  834. 


§  183]  HOPKINS   ON   TRAI>KM.VRK«:.  416 

The  conclusion  of  the  tU'claratioii  slioiild  I'lay  for  tlif  actual 
tlaiuji^je  sustaiiit-i  hy  tlu'  plain! i;V  ami  for  imnitivL*  dania^'os  if 
the  facts  justify.  Some  atljudications  in  the  past  have  held  that 
there  can  he  no  recovers  of  punitive  damages,-'  hut  such  a 
conclusion  is  at  variance  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
law  of  torts.  The  more  wholesome  and  l)etter  reasoned  doctrine 
is  to  the  contrary. -"- 

In  sec.  1()  the  Act  of  VM)')  provides  in  relation  to  actions  at 
law  for  damages  for  the  infringcnncnt  of  a  registered  mark,  that 
•whenever  in  any  such  action  a  verdict  is  rendered  for  the  plain- 
tilT.  the  court  may  enter  judgment  therein  for  any  sum  almve  the 
amo\int  found  hy  the  verdict  as  the  actual  danuiges,  not  exceeding 
three  times  the  amount  of  such  verdict,  toircther  with  the  costs." 
In  a  declaration  hased  upon  the  infringennent  of  a  mark  regis- 
tered under  the  act,  the  conclusion  should  pray  for  the  actual 
damages  stated  to  have  heen  sustained  liy  the  -[daintif!",  together 
with  such  additional  amount,  not  exceeding  in  all  three  times 
the  amount  of  such  actual  damages,  as  the  court  may  Sicc  fit  to 
adjudge,  together  with  the  costs. 

The  conclusion  oids  with  the  foniial  allcL^ation  of  bringing  suit. 
It  is  neces.sary  at  common  law  in  drafting  the  declaration  to 
directly  allege  that  tiie  injury  has  heen  committed  hy  continua- 
tion from  one  given  time  to  another  or  that  it  Avas  committed 
on  divers  days  and  times.  Thus,  one  pleader  alleged  in  his 
declaration  as  follows:  "  Since  the  1st  day  of  NovemWr.  1888, 
knowingly,  willfully,  and  fraudulently  otTered  for  sale,  and  is 
now  .selling,  glue  in  packaires."  T'pon  the  trial,  in  the  Federal 
Circuit  Court  for  the  District  of  .Ma.ssachusetts.  the  comi)lainant 
was  pennittcd  to  introiluce  proof  of  sales  l»y  the  defendant  of 
infringin«r  goods  hetweeji  Novemher  1.  ISSS,  and  Xovendier  30. 
188!».  amounting  to  4r)G.:n8.t>4.  The  circuit  court  of  appeals  of 
the  fourth  circuit  set  aside  a  judgment  of  ^8.000,  entered  upon 
the  verdict  of  a  jury,  saying,  hy  Putnam.  J.,  "There  is  no  rontinii- 
nndo  with  referenc*'  to  the  matter  of  .selling;  so  that,  mx-ording 
to  the  common  law,  the  plaintilT  could  properly  prove  only  one 

21— Tnyliir    v.    CnriMnt.r    (2),    2  22— Wnrn.r   v.    Hoihr.    Fed.    Caw* 

Woml.  &  M.  1;  Cox,  a2 ;  '.•  L.  T.  \...  171H!».\:  Day  v.  Woodworth, 
.'■>U;    Scb.   83.  l-t      H<'\v.     'MV.\:      \\     I..     i:«».      1«1  ; 

Hrowiii'.      TriKKmRrka      {2d      Kd), 

§S  nut,  520. 


417  ACTIONS   AT    LAW.  [§  184 

actual  .sale  as  an  imlfpciKltiit  basis  of  (lamaK<-*«-  'I'I'c  <l('r<'ti<lant 
insisted  at  ail  necessary  points  on  the  eiirorcenieiit  of  the  rule, 
and  exceptions  were  cai'cfully  taken  and  allowed;  so  that  this 
eourt,  however  nnicli  it  may  rcj,'ret  it,  is  eoinpelled  to  meet  this 
issue.  Tlierc  is  no  doiilil  tliat  at  common  law  the  position  of  the 
defendant  would  he  coirect  on  this  point,  arul  the  Massachusetts 
statutes  I'elatinj.'  to  pleading'  have  not  chanj^ed  this  rule."-'' 

§  184.  Defenses. — The  defenses  to  actions  for  trademark 
iufrin.iiemenl  may  he  di\ided  into  two  classes.  The  first  cla.ss 
embraces  those  defenses  which  attack  the  plaintilT's  rifjht  to  sue. 
It  may  be  that  tlie  owner  of  a  trademark  who  sues  for  infvinge- 
nuMit  has  conveyed  the  ri<iht  to  use  the  mark  t(»  an  exclusive 
licensee  for  a  term  of  yt>ars.  In  such  a  case  no  injunction  can 
issue  unless  the  licensee  joins  in  the  action.-^  It  may  be  advisable 
to  set  up  laches  or  actpiiescence,  or  that  there  are  facts  to  justify 
a  plea  that  whatever  ri^'hts  the  complainant  once  had  lie  has 
lost  liy  abandoiunent :  which  matters  have  been  discussed  in  a 
precedin":  chapter.  In  an  exceptional  case  the  complainant's 
recovery  may  be  precluded  by  an  estoppel.-^  which  should,  of 
course,  be  pleaded.  The  complainant's  nuirk  may  have  become 
invalid  because  its  assignment  to  liim  from  its  former  owner 
has  not  been  sufficiently  advertised,  and  the  mark  as  used  tends 
to  mislead  the  public  into  a  belief  that  the  former  owner  is  still 
the  producer  of  the  goods.2'^  The  complainant's  label  may  con- 
tain misrepresentations  of  fact, 2''  or  his  allcfred  trademark  may 
be  a  word  that,  once  distinctive,  has  become  puhlici  juris.-"^  It  is 
a  good  defense  to  the  action  at  law  to  show  eitlier  of  these  mat- 
ters. The  fact  that  the  comjilainant's  trademark  is  registered 
does  not  deprive  the  public  of  the  right  to  use  a  similar  mark 
which  Avas  common  to  the  trade  before  the  registration.  Thus, 
where  "La  Normandi."  was  registered  as  a  mark  for  cigars,  but 
"La  Xormanda"  Avas  already  in  common  use  for  a  like  purpose, 

23 — Lo  Pa^i^  Co.  v.  Russia  CCmcnt  Alaska  Imp.  Co.,  GO  Fed.  Rep.   103; 

Co.,   2   C.   C.'^A.   55.5;    51    Fod.    Rep.  Sicfirrt  v.   At)hott    (1),  <>1  Md.  286. 

041-040;    17   L.   R.   A.   .354.  27— Pi  so    Co.    v.    Voifrht.    4    Ohio 

24— Wallac'li  v.  \Vi<,'morc.  S7  Fed.  X.  P.  .347;  Krauss  v.  .Jos.  R.  Poo- 
Rep.    460.  ''Jes'    Sons   Co.,    58   Fed.    Rep.    .585; 

2.T Laverfjne    v.    Roopcr.   liid.   L.  Moxic    Xorve    Food    Co.    v.    Modox 

R.  8  Mad.  IW.  Co.,   1.-.2   Fed.   Rop.  40.3. 

26— Alaska      Packers'      Assn.      v.  28— Sie-rert  v.  Al.hott    (4>,  25  X. 

Y.  Supp.  590;  72  Hun,  243. 


§184J 


IIOI'KINS    ON    TK  \1>KM  \1{K> 


418 


injunction  to  restrain  tlu'  use  of  tin-  latter  was  donifcl.'"'  In  fact 
the  registration  of  a  tratleniark  does  not  prevent  its  being  attacked 
as  n  word  })ul)l{ci  juris,  or  as  hoin^j  itsfU*  a  coloraMe  imitation  of 
anotluT  tradi'iiiark.'"'  Tlif  lui^'lisli  decisions  upon  tliis  j)oint  are 
in  harmony  witli  tliosc  of  tin-  courts  of  tlie  I'nited  States.-" 

The  lU'fendaiit  nuiy  plead  a  license  from  the  owner  of  the 
mark.  This,  of  course,  presumes  that  tlie  license  was  lawful,  anil 
tliat  the  lic«'nsee  lias  not  so  usecl  the  mark  as  to  i)erpetrate  a 
frauil  upon  the  public. •''-  Where  two  or  more  pers<ins  have  an 
equal  right  in  tiie  use  of  the  nuirk  the  defendant  may  plead  a 
license  from  either  of  them.^^' 

The  second  class  of  defenses  that  may  be  interposed  are  tho.so 
tluit  deny  the  infringement — either  denying  that  any  infringe- 
ment has  been  perpetrated  by  the  defendant,  or,  if  the  infring- 
ing mark  has  been  handled  or  dealt  with  by  the  defendant,  deny- 
ing that  guilty  knowledge  which  the  comj)lainant  must  prove  to 
sustain  his  suit  at  law. 

In  the  foregoing  portion  of  this  section  we  have  noted  the 
defenses  whicii.  if  sustained  by  the  proof,  will  relieve  the  defend- 
ant from  liability  at  law.  The  action  at  law  is  much  easier  of 
defense  than  that  in  ecjuity,  and  in  another  section,  after  -we 
have  considered  the  action  in  equity,  will  be  found  enumerated 
a  number  of  defenses  which  Jiave  i)roved  effective  in  equity, 
manv  of  which  would  doubtless  be  adeciuate  at  law. •'••"' 


29 — ."Ntaohcll>orp  v.  Ponce.  2.5  Fed. 
Rip.  4:}0;  Price  &.  Steuart,  907; 
128  U.  S.  680;    32  L.   Ed.   505). 

30 — M(M)rman  v.  Ilofre,  Fed.  Case 
No.  9783;  2  Sawyer.  78;  Decker  v. 
Decker.  r>2  Flow.  Pr.  218;  nien  Cove 
Mf^'.  Co.  V.  Liid.-lin;:.  22  F.d.  Uep. 
823;  Cox.  Miimial.  iWrt;  23  BlateJif. 
40;  Sclmmaelier  v.  Sclnvenke  (2), 
30  OfT.   Car..   Afu . 

.31_^„  rr  Palm.r,  L.  K.  21  Ch. 
D.  47;  Bodega  Co.,  (Ltd.)  v.  Owens, 
23  L.  R.  Ir.  371;  Wolfe  v.  T.nnj:. 
13  Vict.  L.  R.  7.'i2;  Wolfe  v.  Alw.p 
(2  I.  12  Vict.  L.  R.  (K.).421;  1.4'wiH 
V.  Klnpproth.  11  Vict.  L.  R.  (E.l. 
214 

.32 — Tlw  (i<h><\h  to  wliirh  a  licen 
•o<»  applicii  the  mark  muHt  \»-  e(|iiHl 


in  quality  to  the  poods  to  which 
tlie  licensor  applied  them.  Law- 
rence Mfp.  Co.  V.  TenncsMH?  Mfg. 
Co.,  31  Fed.  Rep.  770;  138  U.  S. 
r)37;  34  L.  F.d.  997;  Oldham  v. 
James,  13  Ir.  Ch.  393;  14  Jhiti.  81; 
BloHB  V.  Bloomer,  23  Barl).  004;  Cox, 
290;  Samuel  v.  Berper,  24  Barh. 
163;  Cox.  178;  Rodppr.s  v.  Philp.  1 
Oir.  flaz.  29;  hi  rv  ToUr.  2  niT.  Caz. 
41.-). 

3.3— Marshall  v.  Pinkham,  52 
Win.  572;    Price  &  Steuart.  497. 

33rt — As  to  actions  at  law  in  the 
federal  courts  the  Act  March  3, 
191.'..  38  Stat.  Ti.  9.'>0,  provides 
"(liat  in  all  actionn  at  law  eq\iitahle 
defenses  mav  he  interj.osed." 


419  ACTIONH    AT    I/A\V.  [§  185 

§185.  Damages.  The  courts  of  the  I'nitcd  Stales  have  nig- 
iially  failed  to  aj,'n'c  upon  any  fixed  rule  as  to  the  measure  of 
damages  in  actioihs  at  Jaw-  for  the  infriiigemeut  of  trademarks. 
To  the  student  of  the  decisions  the  only  apparent  eaus<'  for 
this  fact  lies  in  two  practical  reasons.  The  (irst,  that  the  remedy 
offeretl  by  ecpiity  is  inore  complete.  The  second  is  that  much  of 
the  trademark  piracy,  of  this  countrj'  at  least,  is  conducte<l  by 
insolvents,  wlio  offer  no  inducement  to  tlie  vigilant  prosecution 
\diich  should  be  visited  upon  them.  In  18+(),  in  the  TJinted 
States  Circuit  Court  for  the  District  of  Massachu.setts,  Woodburj-, 
J.,  siiid:  "In  a  case  like  this  (an  action  of  trespass  on  the  ca.sc 
for  trademark  infringement),  if  in  any,  no  rea«on  exists  for 
giving  greater  damages  than  have  actually  been  sustained  or  what 
have  been  called  eompensatorv.  There  is  nothing  peculiarly 
atrocious  in  the  conduct  of  the  defendant  to  be  punished  by 
damages,  and  in  no  other  way,  a,s  a  public  example,  considering 
the  blamable  usages  which  exist  on  this  subject."  ^*  In  a  Missouri 
case,  the  St.  Louis  Court  of  Appeals,  by  LeAvis,  P.  J.,  held  that 
it  was  error  in  the  trial  court  to  instruct  the  jury  that  they  might 
find  exemplaiy  damages  if  from  the  evidence  they  believed  that 
the  acts  of  the  defendant  were  willful  or  malicious.  The  reason- 
ing of  the  court  is  that  "If  the  plaintiffs  had  demanded  an 
accounting  of  the  profits  made  by  the  defendants,  on  the  equi- 
table ground"  that  those  profits  were  made  by  the  use  of  the  plain- 
tiff's property,  the  instructions  might  have  been  suKstantially 
applicable."  •'•"' 

An  eminent  text-^Titer  thus  states  the  rule:  "The  jury  are 
to  give  actual  damages  which  the  plaintiff  has  sustained — not 
vindictive  or  speculative  damages,  but  .such  as  his  proof  has 
shown  to  their  satisfaction  he  has  actually  sustained  by  the 
infringement. ' '  •"'' 

.34 — Taylor    v.    Carpenter    (2),    2  pert   v.    Judge   &    Dolph    Drup   Co., 

Wood.  &   M.   1;   Co.x,  32;   Fed.  Case  110  Mo.  App.  69.3 ;    100  S.  W.   Rep. 

No.    1378').      Tlie   passage  quoted   is  fiof) ;    reversed   in   Lamport  v.   Judge 

a     mere     dictum,     uttered     in     the  &    Dolph    Drug   Co..   238    Mo.    409; 

course   of    an    opinion    upon    a    mo-  141    S.  W.    Rep.    lOO:"). 

tion   for  a  new  trial   wliore   a   jury  '^C> — Sutherland,      Damages,      (2d 

had  been   directed  that  they  might  ed.),   vol.    Ill,    §1202;    citing   Ran- 

find  punitive  damages.    The  verdict  som     v.     Mayor,     1     Fisher,     252; 

was  not  disturbed.  Parker  v.  Hulme,  1  Fisher,  44;  Ad- 

35 — Addington    v.    CuUinane,    28  dington   v.   Cullinane,   28   Mo.   App. 

Mo.  App.  238-241;  followed  in  Lam-  23S. 


§  185]  HOPKINS   ON    TKADKMARKS.  420 

To  till'  author's  mind  the  hi-ttfr  nilf  is  aiiiioiiiu'ed  in  tho  ease 
of  Warner  v.  h'ochr.  in  wliich  tlu*  instructions  of  .luilno  lilodgett 
t(»  a  jury  said  in  part:  "In  cases  of  this  character,  whore  you 
are  sjitislied  from  th»'  proof  and  from  tlie  admissions  in  the  case 
that  the  frauil — the  intention  to  defraud — is  at  the  bottom  of 
the  matter,  •  •  •  tlie  jury  arc  not  confined  to  the  exact 
monetary  damajjes,  hut  nuiy  give  what  are  known  as  vindictive 
or  exemphiry  danuiges,  for  the  purpose  of  deterring  others  from 
embarking  in  the  same  scheme  of  fraud  and  deception."-''"  Jt 
is  not  It)  he  doubted  tliat  this  doctrine  is  more  reasonabh^  and 
just,  and  lietter  adapted  to  protect  society  from  the  ravages  of 
trademark  infringers,  than  the  rule  stated  in  Tdi/hr  v.  Car- 
/>f /I /r /••■''*  and  A(hlin;]ton  v.  Cull  inn  )ic.^'^  It  is  diflicult  to  see  ho-w 
the  result  stated  in  those  cases  lias  been  attaineil.'"  They  are 
uholly  without  precedent  and  opposed  to  tiie  rule  of  damages 
which  ol)taIn((l  at  common  law.  AVhat  that  rule  was,  and  is.  so 
far  as  our  federal  courts  are  coneemeil.  is  nowhere  more  clearly 
stated  than  by  .Mr.  Justice  Grier  in  an  opinion  in  which  he  speaks 
for  the  federal  supreme  court.     Tie  says: 

"It  is  a  well-established  principle  of  the  common  law  that  in 
actions  of  trespass  and  all  actions  on  the  case  for  torts  a  jury 
may  inflict  Avhat  are  called  exemplary,  punitive  or  vindictive 
damages  upon  a  defendant,  having  in  view  the  enormity  of  his 
ofTen.se  rather  than  tlie  measure  of  compensation  to  the  plaintiff. 
We  are  aware  that  the  propriety  of  this  doctrine  ha.s  been  ques- 
tioned by  some  writers;  but  if  repeated  judicial  decisions  for 
more  than  a  century  are  to  l>e  received  as  the  best  exposition  of 
what  the  law  is.  the  question  will  not  admit  of  argument.  By 
the  common  as  well  as  hy  statute  law  men  are  often  punished 
for  aggravated  misconduct  or  lawless  acts  by  means  of  a  civil 
action,  and  the  damages,  inflicted  by  way  of  penalty  or  punish- 
ment, given  to  the  |)arty  injured.  In  many  civil  actions,  s\uA\ 
as  libel,  slander,  seduction,  etc.,  the  wrong  done  to  the  plaintiff 
is  incapable  of  being  nicasurcd  by  a  money  standanl ;  ami  the 

:t7_\VHrn.T    V     I{...lir.  Knl     la^<'       !)..l|.li    Dni^  Co..  2:iS  M...  40ft.  421; 

No.   171Hn.\  111   S.  \V.   H.-p.   inft.->.   lOOft;   rfvors- 

.1H — Huprii  \u)x  I.aniiHTt  v.  .Iiidp"  A  Dolpli  DniR 

:\U—Hupr,i  Co..    lift    Mo.    App.   01)3;    100  S.    W. 

40— Thi-     lim;riiH;.'r     of  tliix     t<-.vt        lUj).  O.'ift. 

H|i|»rov»<l         I,aiiii><rt     v,  .Tiidm-     & 


421  ACTIONS    AT    I.AW,  [§  185 

damages  aHsesscd  dc^jx-nd  on  tho  cirourn.slaiiccs,  sliouini^'  the 
deRree  of  moral  turpitude  or  atrocity  of  the  dcl'i'iidaiit'.s  conduct, 
and  may  propci-ly  lie  termed  exeiiiplai-y  or  vindictive  rather  than 
compensatory. 

"In  actions  ol'  trespass  where  tlie  injury  has  ])(!eii  wanton  and 
nudicious,  or  ^n-oss  and  outrageous,  courts  permit  jurie-s  to  add 
to  tlie  measured  compensation  ot"  the  phuntilT  which  he  ^vouh^ 
have  heen  entith'd  to  recover,  had  the  injui-y  ])een  iidlicted  with- 
out desifrn  or  intention,  sometiunir  further  hy  way  of  puidsh- 
ment  orexamph',  v.hich  lias  sometimes  heen  called  'smart  money." 
This  has  always  heen  left  to  the  discretion  of  tlie  jury,  a.s  the 
degree  of  punishment  to  he  thus  iidlicted  nuist  depend  on  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  each  case."'*' 

Judge  Thayer  has  said:  "Punitive  damages  may  he  a'warded 
when  a  wrongful  act  is  done  willfully,  in  a  wanton  or  oppressive 
manner,  or  even  when  it  is  done  recklessly — that  is  to  say,  in 
open  disregard  of  one's  civil  ohligations  and  of  the  rights  of 
others."  "2 

We  find  the  rule  sanctioned  and  reaffirmed  repeatedly  hy  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.-*-'  It  has  heen  the  doctrine 
adhered  to  hy  that  court  ever  since  ]\lr.  Justice  Storj'  in  a  case 
of  marine  tort  spoke  of  exenvplary  damages  as  ''the  proper  pun- 
ishment which  helongs  to  such  lawless  misconduct. "  ^-^  It  i.s 
manifest  that  in  a  case  of  deliherate  counterfeiting  of  a  trade- 
mark there  should  he  a  recovery  of  punitive  damages,  or  at  least 
an  opportunity  given  tho  jury  to  assess  punitive  damages. 

As  to  the  award  of  actual  damages  at  law,  it  has  been  held 
that  nominal  damages  will  be  awarded  where  a  fraudulent  intent 
is  shown,  even  though  no  specific  injury  is  pleaded  or  proven. ■»'' 

41_l)av  V.   \Yood\vorth.   'A  U.  S.  Ed.  720;  Denvor  Railway  v.  Harris. 

(1.3  Howard),  .36.3.  .371;    14   L.   Ed.  122  U.  S.  .597,  600;  .30  L.  Ed.   11 16. 

181.     See  Press  Pub.  Co.  v.  Monroe,  E.xemplary  damajros  may  be  allowed 

73  Fed.  Rep.   106.  201.  c\im    where    no    .actual    damage    is 

42 — Fotlierin<r!iam  v.  Express  Co.,  proven.       Press    Puldisliinp    Co.    v. 

36  Fed.   Rep.  2.-)2.  2.')3.  :Monroe,  73  Fed.   Rep.    100,  201. 

4.3— Philadelphia     R.     R.     Co.     v.  44— The    Amialih-    Nancy,    16    U. 

Quigley.    62    V.    S.     (21    Howard),  S.    (3  Wheat.)    .-,46.   5.-)S;    4  L.   Ed. 

213;    16    L.    Ed.    73;    Milwaukee    R.  4r)6. 

R.  Co.  V.   Arms.  01   U.  S.  4S7,  402;  4.-) — Le    Page    Co.    v.    Russia    Ce- 

23    L.     Ed.    374;     Missouri    Pacific  ment  Co.,  2  C.  C.   A.   5.55;   51  Fed. 

Railway  v.   Humes,    115  U.   S.   512,  Rep.  041.  040;  Taylor  v.  Carpenter. 

.521;  20  L.  Ed.  463;  Barry  v.  Ed-  11  Paige,  292;  2  Sandf.  603;  Cof- 
munds,    116   U.   S.   550,    562;    20   L. 


§  lb5J  HOPKINS    ON    TRADKMAKKS.  422 

The  St.  Louis  Court  of  Appeals  has  said,  hy  Blakewell,  J.,  in  an 
uc-tion  of  deceit  based  upon  tradeiiuirk  infringement:  "As  to 
the  damages,  tlie  faets  present  a  eji.se  of  fraud  on  i)hiintilT  and  vio- 
lation of  his  rights  for  whicli  the  action  lies  without  proof  of 
Kj)eeilie  danuige.s  And  the  danuige  was  not  eonlined  to  the  loss 
of  suoli  aetual  sale.s  as  could  he  speeilieally  shown  to  be  lost,  but 
the  jur>-  might  nuike  such  inferences  as  to  the  loss  and  injury 
sustained  by  plaintilf  as  they  might  think  warranted  l)y  the 
whole  evidence  in  the  case."""'  Much  to  the  same  eifeet  is  the 
hoUling  of  the  Massachusetts  Supreme  Court. "•' 

In  California  the  rule  of  assessing  danuiges  would  seem  to  give 
the  plaintiir  tin-  profits  nuide  by  the  defendant  in  his  sales  of 
goods  bearing  the   infringing  iiiark.^'* 

Hut  it  is  very  doubtful  if  that  course  is  proper  in  an  action 
at  Jaw.  Damage.s  wiTe  the  appropriate,  and  indeed  the  only, 
remedy  at  law.  while  the  account  of  profits  was  peculiar  to  courts 
of  equity. ■••' 

Under  the  English  practice  a  custom  has  growni  uj)  by  which 
a  complaijiant  in  e(piity  may  pray  for  an  account  of  profits  and 
an  intpiiry  as  to  damages  (and  it  has  been  held  in  Wisconsin  that 
this  is  the  proper  course  in  pleading"^ '^"  but  before  any  order 
for  discovi'r>'  can  be  made  he  must  elect  between  the  accounting 
of  j)rofits  and  tlie  in<|uin-  of  damages.  He  can  not  have  both.** 
As  said  by  Cotton,  L.  .!.,  in  tlie  English  Court  of  Appeal,  in  re- 
fusing discovery  asked  by  a  complainant  before  he  had  elected 
])etween  profits  and  damages:  "At  the  time  when  the  order  waa 
made,  the  plaintiff  had  not  elected  to  waive  his  account  of  profits. 
Would  it  then  be  right  to  allow  the  plaintiff  to  get  a  jury  to 
determine  what  damages  he  was  entitled  to  before  he  liad  made 
his  election  betwen  damages  and  profits?    Should  the  jury  award 

f«-«'n     V.     Uninton.    4     Mcl.cun.    r,](\.  -17— Mnrsli  v.   HilIin;,'S.  7  Cunhing, 

r>20;  F.-d.  Caw  N(..  2!M0;   Blofi.ld  v.  :\22,  3:{2. 

l'nyn<-.    4    Hnrn.    i    Ad.    410.    411;  48— (^Jraliam     v      I'liitr,     4(i     Cal. 

Marnh    v.    nillinKB,  7   CuBhing.   322,  -.0.3,  nOS. 

'A'A\;   Conrad  v.  Hri-winj;  Co.,  8  Mo.  4ft — Sclmstian.    Trndi-mnrkH     (4th 

App.    277.    2Hr.;    Kl    Mod.Uo    Ci^'ar  Va\.)  ,   p.  2.12. 

Co.  V.  fJato,  2r.  Fia.  880,  i)\r,;  ft  So.  r>0— Lcid.rsdnrf  v     Flint    (2).   .'iO 

R«-p.   2.1.  WiH.  401. 

AO—Cnunul     V.     BnwinK    Co.,    8  .'il— Nt-ilnon   v.   H.  ttH.   L.    U.   Ci   II. 

Mo.   App.  277.  28.'i.  L.  R.   I. 


423  ACTIONS   AT    LAW.  [§  185 

hiiu  a  large  sum  tor  daiiiagcs,  lie  would  probably  accept  it ;  but 
if  they  gave  liiiii  a  siuall  sum  only,  then  lie  might  say,  'No,  1 
would  rather  have  an  aecouiit  of  profits,  as  1  see  by  tlie  del'end- 
aut's  books  that  he  luLs  made  a  mueh  lai-g(;r  sum.'  "  •'- 

It  would  scrni  I  hat  the  damages  at  law  must  he  l)a.se<i  upon 
the  injury  sustained  by  the  complainant  by  loss  ol'  sales  and 
injury  to  tiie  reputation  ol"  his  tratlemark.  Evidenee  of  the  ex- 
tent of  the  defendant's  sales  may  l)e  proper,'"'''  hut  only  as  proof 
of  injury  to  the  complainant,  and  not  \Vith  a  view  to  measuring 
the  plaintiff's  damages  by  the  delendant's  |)rofits. 

or  course  the  fact  that  the  defemlant  has  discontinue<l  his 
infringement  is  no  defense  to  an  action  of  daanages,"'^  which 
would  l)e  barred  only  hy  the  operation  of  the  statute  of  limita- 
tions. It  is  competent  to  show  that  plaintiff's  sales  have  fallen 
off  because  of  the  infringement.^'^ 

A  Canadian  decision  held  that  damages  could  not  be  recov- 
ered for  the  sale  of  a  second-hand  stove  to  which  a  second  manu- 
facturer's name-plate  has  been  added,  where  the  plate  was  put 
on  by  an  employe  without  the  emi)loyer's  knowledge  and  the 
purchaser  was  infonncd  of  the  real  manufacture  of  the  stove.^" 

52--Fenae8sy   v.   ClarV:.  L.    R.   37  tlmt     a     diminution     of     plaintiff's 

Ch.   D.    184    187.  salfHi     occurred     concurrently     with 

-,3 — Le    Page    Co.    v.    Russia    Ce-  defendant's   infringement.     Wiietlier 

ment  Co.,  2  C.  C.  A.  555;  51  Fed.  the  latter  is  the  cause  of  tlu'   for- 

Rpp.  941,  949;   17  L.  R.  A.  354.  mer    is    a    question    for    the    jury. 

54— Lemoine  v.   Gauton,  2  E.   D.  Ibid. 

Smith,  343;   Cox,  142;   Seb.  12.-).  ;->(>— Chapleau      v.      Laporte,      16 

5.5— Shaw  V.   Pilling.  175  Pa.   St.  Hap.   Jud.   Que.  C.  S.   189, 
78,   84.     It   la   competent   to   show 


ciiAi*ri:K*  xiii. 

THE  ACTION  IN  EQUITY. 

§  18G.  The  basis  of  equitable  jurisdiction. — Lord  ^Yestbu^y 
saiil :  '"Imposition  on  llu'  i)ul)lic  occjisioiu'il  hy  one  man  sellint; 
Ills  jrootLs  as  tlu'  poods  of  anothor  oan  not  be  tho  ground  of 
private  action  or  suit.  In  tlu'  ianpuago  of  Lord  Thurlow  in 
Web'stcr  V.  W'chstcr,^  ''\'\iv  fraud  upon  the  public  is  no  ground 
for  the  plaintifT  coming  into  court.'  It  is,  indeed,  true.  that, 
unless  the  mark  used  by  the  defendant  be  applied  by  him  to  tlie 
.same  kiml  of  goods  as  tbe  goods  of  the  jdaintitT,  and  be  in  itself 
such  that  it  may  be  aiul  is  mistaken  in  the  market  for  the  trade- 
mark of  the  plaintitT,  the  court  can  not  interfere,  because  there 
is  no  invasion  of  the  {)laintilT's  right;  and  thus  the  mistake  of 
the  buyers  in  tbe  market,  under  which  they,  in  fact,  take  the 
defendant's  goods  as  the  goods  of  the  plaintiff,  that  is  to  say, 
imposition  on  the  public,  becomes  the  test  of  the  property  in  the 
tradenuirk  having  been  invadi-d,  antl  not  the  ground  on  which 
the  court  rests  it.s  jurisdiction."  ^ 

In  (juotingthe  extract  given  above.  Vice  Chancellor  Van  Vleet 
has  said :  "Tiie  rule  as  thus  stated  I  understand  to  be  tlie  estab- 
lished doctrine  now  in  force  on  this  subject  both  in  this  country 
and  in  England."  •' 

In  the  early  Hnirlish  practice  the  chancellor  had  power  to 
refuse  or  p(>stp()ne  the  ap|)licatioii  of  e(iuitabb'  remedies  in  trade- 
mark cases  until  the  title  to  the  trademark  had  been  determined 
in  a  court  of  law.  This  practice  continued  until  November  1, 
1862,  when  the  "Chancery  Regidation  Act,   iMIi'J."^   went   into 

1 — 3   SwnriHt.   400.  <•<>    Co.    v.    Snm    Ucid    Toluioco    Co., 

2 — Lontlur    Cloth    Co.    v.    Amcri-  1(»4  Mo.  .">:{,  00;   McLt'an  v.  Fh-minj;, 

r«n    r.4ntlMr   Clotli    Co,    4    D.fl.    .1.  flfl   V.  S.  24.'>.  2.^)1;    24   L.    F:d.   JW8; 

&  S.  1.37,   141.  Sliav.r    v.    Sliav.-r.    .')4     Iowa.    20S. 

3— .Schnc'iihr   v.    WillianriH.   44    N.  2(t!t:     Harrows    v.    Knij:lit.    0    R.    I. 

J.    Eq.    391.   .19.3.      To   the   Kamo   of-  4:14.  4.'IS;    Handy  v.  Commandir.  49 

fpci    iMT    WWnor    V.    Hrayt«)n,     l.'i2  l.n.   Ann     1119. 

Mann.   101.  10.3;  Av.ry  v.  M.iklf.  HI  4—-2r>   and   20    Nictoria.   c.    42.    p. 

Ky.  73,  91;   L>KK«tt  4  My«rH   iol.ac-  154. 

424 


425  ACTION    IN    EliUITY.  [§186 

(•n't't't.  The  liist  section  of  thai  in-t  jirovides  that  "In  all  i-Jist'S 
ill  uliicli  any  i-clid'  <>v  icmmmIv  uitliin  the  jiiristliftion  of  the  said 
courts  of  clianccry  rcspt'ctivfly  is  or  shall  Ik*  sought  in  any  ••uiise 
or  matter  instituted  or  pending'  in  either  of  said  (M)urts,  and 
whether  the  title  to  surh  relief  or  remedy  l»(!  or  he  not  incident 
to  or  dependent  upon  a  lej^'al  ri^^dit,  every  cpiestion  of  law  or  fact, 
eotrui/.ahle  in  a  court  of  eonunon  law,  on  the  detei-nnnation  of 
whieh  the  title  to  such  relief  or  remedy  dejx'nds,  shall  he  deter- 
mined hy  or  hefori'  the  same  eourt." 

It  is  important  to  hear  this  enaetment  in  mind  in  examining 
the  earlier  iMi^dish  trademark  cases,  as  it  explains  the  many 
failures  of  iMp.iity  to  act,  or  the  deferring;  of  relief  hy  injunction 
until  the  determination  of  the  ri^dit  to  the  use  of  tlie  trademark 
hy  trial  at  law. 

Ivjuity  firs-t  extended  its  heneficent  protection  to  the  owners 
of  trademarks  because  of  the  inadequacy  of  the  remedy  at  law. 
This  inadequacy  arose  from  the  absence  of  the  power  in  courts 
of  law  to  act  in  personam — the  injunctive  power,  liut  there  were 
other  reasons  why  co^iizance  of  trademark  causes  belonged  pecu- 
liarly to  equity.  Prominent  among  these  was  the  power  of  the 
chancellor  in  granting  discovery — the  right  to  discovery  being, 
as  Mr.  Bispham  says,  one  of  the  peculiar  advantages  of  a  com- 
plainant in  equity,  enjoyed  by  him  in  every  case  in  which  he 
was  entitled  to  come  into  chancery,  either  for  the  purpose  of 
asserting  an  equitable  title,  or  setting  up  an  equitable  right  or 
applying  an  equitable  remedy;^  though  the  right  was  always 
conditioned  by  the  necessary  restriction  that  the  person  brought 
in  on  discovery  need  not  disclose  matters  tending  to  incriminate 
him  or  expose  him  to  penalty  or  forfeiture.  And  there  was  yet 
another  rea.son  why  this  litigation  found  its  way  to  the  ehan- 
eellor.  One  of  the  most  ancient  forms  of  action  at  the  common 
law  uas  the  action  of  account.  "But,"  in  the  words  of  Mr. 
Justice  Story,  "the  modes  of  proceeding  in  that  action,  although 
aided  from  time  to  time  by  statutable  provisions,  were  found  so 
very  dilatory,  inconvenient  and  unsatisfactory,  that  as  soon  as 
courts  of  equity  began  to  assume  jurisdiction  in  inatter.s  of 
account,  as  they  did  at  a  very  early  period,  the  remedy  at  law 
l>egan  to  decline;  and  although  some  efforts  have  been  made  in 

5— Bispham,  Equity    (4tli  od.),  p.  000,   §557. 


§  187]  HOPKINS   ON    TRAOEM AKKS.  42G 

nimlorn  tiinos  to  rosuscitati'  it.  it  lias  in  Kiinlaiitl  lallcii  into 
alniast  total  disuso.""  So.  when  it  liccann'  apparent  that  ail 
account  of  protit.N  must  he  sought  ibs.  at  lejist.  the  hji-sis  of  a  proper 
rnoiu'V  jinl^rnicnt  against  an  infringer,  the  parties  litigant  were 
foreod  to  enter  the  domain  of  eipiit y.  Hut,  above  all,  there  was  that 
jiower  in  e(|uity  descrilu'd  by  Hlackstone  as  the  i)0'wer  "to  detect 
latent  frauds  ami  conet'alments,  which  the  pnx'css  of  the  courts 
of  la%v  is  not  adapted  to  reach.""  While  not  exclusive  of  the 
courts  of  law.  the  courts  of  e<piity  luid  original,  indc|>endcnt  and 
itiherent  jurisdiction  to  relieve  against  every  species  of  frautl.'* 
The  remedy  sought  governs  largely  the  question  of  juri.sdic- 
tion  in  etpiity.  If  a  mere  accounting  is  sought  for.  it  is  insuffi- 
cient to  vest  such  jurisdiction,  for  the  account  must  be  incidental 
to  some  other  e(piitable  relief.''  durisdiction  in  e(iuity  will  not 
attach  for  discovery  simply,  except  in  aid  of  a  suit  at  law;  the 
party  applyin<r  must  invoke  some  other  distinct  ecpiitable 
ground.'" 

§187.     The  bill  in  equity. — The  new   equity  rules  proYidc. 
as  to  the  bill  of  complaint,  as  follows: 


HILL  OF  COMPLAIXT— CONTEXTS. 

Hereafter  it  shall  be  sufficient  that  a  bill  in  equity  shall 
contain,  m  addition  to  the  usual  caption: 

Firsf.  the  full  name,  when  known,  of  each  plaintilT  and 
defendant,  and  the  citiy.enslii|)  and  residence  of  each  party. 
If  any  party  be  under  any  disability  that  fact  shall  be  stated. 

Second,  a  short  and  plain  statement  of  the  grounds  upon 
whicli  the  court's  jurisdiction  depends. 

Third,  a  short  and  simpl'»  statement  of  the  ultimate  facts 
Uf)on  which  the  plaintilT  asks  relief,  onntting  any  mere 
statement  of  evidence. 

rt— Storv,     K<|uity  .hiriHi.riKii-iicc       wny  Co..   10.")   I'.  S.    18!>;    '2(]   L.    Kd. 

(1.1th    Kd.i.   M42.  !•:■>;  Vim  Uanlt  v.  .*<cluuck,  l.'»9  F»'d. 

7  —  1     KlackHtorif.  (cirnmi'iitiirirH,       IJcji.     2IS,     2.'>1;     nfllrmi-d     in     Van 

02.  Itaalt   V.   Sclin.ck.  !!.".  C   ('.    A.   Cu'2: 

R— Krrr,      Frniid  ami      Mi**takr       I7n   F.«l.    l!.p.    U>J1. 

(Bump'B   Ed),  p.   4.3.  Ki-    Lord   v.   Wliitduad   A   Atlicr- 

0— Root    V.    h.    S.  A    M.    S.    Kail-       ton   Machine  Co.,  24   Fed.   Rep.  801. 


427 


ACTION    IN    Ki^lITV 


[§187 


h'oiirlli,  i!'  tlinc  arc  persons  (itlnT  tliaii  tliosr  iiaiiicil  jts 
<l»'f('M<laiits  who  appear  to  he  proper  i)arti(!S,  the  hill  should 
state  why  they  are  not  made  parties — a.s  that  they  arc  not 
within  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  court,  or  can  not  he  made 
parties  without  ousting  the  jurisdiction. 

Fifth,  a  statement  of  and  prayer  for  any  special  relief 
j)cndin^'  the  suit  or  on  final  hearint;,  which  may  lie  stated 
and  s()M<,'ht  in  alternatixc  forms.  If  special  relief  pending 
the  suit  lie  desired  the  bill  slioidd  Ik;  verified  hy  the  oath  of 
the  iilaintitV,  or  someone  ha\ing  knowledge  of  the  facts  upon 
which  such   I'clief  is  asked." 


11 — A  mw  riilf,  taking,'  tlio  place 
of  formiT  I\iilcH  2(»,  21,  22,  2H  and 
24. 

Tlie  sahitation  of  forrrnr  Rule 
20  is  aliolislu-d.  Tlic  anticipatory 
matter  to  avoid  matters  expected 
to  be  pleaded  by  way  of  defense 
in  the  answer,  provided  for  liy  for- 
mer Rule  21,  is  not  referred  to, 
but  obviously  may  still  hv  pleade<l. 

The  "short  and  simple  statement 
of  the  ultimate  facts"  provided  for 
in  the  present  rule  is  apt  to  prove 
an  uncertain  guide  to  the  bar.  The 
paragraph  embodies  what  has  long 
been  recognized  as  the  fundamental 
rule  of  equity  pleading  in  this 
country;  but  it  makes  no  provision 
for  those  recitals  of  conditions  prec- 
edent that  have  liecn  held  t-ssciitial 
to  the  sufficiency  of  liills  for  patent 
infringement,  and  tlie  like.  Does 
the  tliird  paragraph  of  Rule  2.i 
mean  to  dispense  with  such  reci- 
tals? It  is  by  no  means  clear.  It 
would  have  been  clear  and  unequi- 
vocal had  the  rule  been  drawn  as 
suggested  by  the  Bar  Committee 
appointed  by  the  Circuit  Court  of 
Appeals  for  the  Sixth  Circuit, 
which   reads   as   follows: 

"Provide  that  it  shall  be  suffi- 
cient   in    pleading    a    judgment    or 


other  determination  of  a  court,  or 
of  an  ofFicer  of  special  jurisdiction, 
or  a  patent,  or  other  pulilic  grant, 
to  allege  tliat  it  was  duly  madt- 
or  issued;  that  in  pleading  the  per- 
formance of  conditions  precedent  in 
a  contract,  it  shall  be  sufTicient  to 
state  that  the  party  duly  performed 
all  the  conditions  on  his  part; 
and  tliat  it  shall  not  be  sufficient  in 
any  case  herein  mentioned  to  deny 
the  allegation  generally,  but  the 
facts  relied  upon  must  be  specifi- 
cally stated. 

"This  rule  is  suggested,  because 
it  has  been  held  on  the  circuit 
that  it  is  not  sufficient,  in  a  bill 
for  the  infringement  of  a  patent, 
to  allege  that  the  patent  was  duly 
issued,  but  that  it  is  necessary  to 
aver  all  the  facts  on  which  author- 
ity to  issue  the  patent  depends. 
The  result  is  that  bills  in  sucli 
cases   are  unnecessarily  prolix." 

This  provision  of  Rule  23  has 
its  inadequacy  demonstrated  by  a 
reference  to  the  English  rule.  Order 
XIX,   Rule   14: 

"Any  condition  precedent,  the 
IH-rformance  or  occurrence  of  which 
is  intended  to  be  contested,  shall 
be  distinctly  specified  in  his  plead- 
ing   by    the    plaintiff   or    defendant 


187] 


lIOrKINS    ON    TKAhK.MARKS. 


42S 


The  bill  should  shms  :  (1)  The  owiuTshii)  of  tlio  IradiMuark, 
di'scrihing  it  and  tho  inodo  of  its  applicalioii  to  iiu'ivhandise. 
(2)  The  registration  of  that  trademark  uiuUt  the  aet  (if  regis- 
tered), and  the  value  of  the  trademark.  (:})  The  faets  in  rela- 
tion to  the  infriii«:t'ment  of  the  trademark  hy  the  respondent. 
This  part  of  the  hill  iliflers  from  the  eorrespondinp  part  of  the 
declaration  at  law  in  this,  that  it  need  not  he  averred  that  the 
defendant  had  j:uilty  knouledtre,'-  althou},'-h  that  fact  should  he 
averreil  where  it  is  true.  Where  |U()lit.s  are  .soufjht  to  he  recov- 
ered there  should  he  a  direct  avennent  tluit  such  profits  have 
been  realized  hy  the  defendant  on  account  of  the  infrin«rement. 

In  every  case  where  the  value  of  the  complainant's  trademark 
is  over  three  thousand  dollars,  that  fact  should  be  pleaded,'^ 
as  a  jurisdietional  safe«;uard,  independent  of  the  fact  of  regis- 
tration under  the  act  of  con<rres.s.  A  matter  of  paramount 
importance  where  the  parties  arc  citizens  of  the  same  .state  is  an 


(as  till'  c-asr  may  In-)  ;  and,  8ub- 
jt-ct  thon*to,  an  avtrmoiit  of  the 
performance  or  oecurrence  of  all 
conditions  precedent  necessary  for 
the  case  of  the  plaintiff  or  defend- 
ant shall  lie  implied  in  his  plead- 
in;.'.'" 

As  it  has  been  repeatedly  held 
that  the  recital  of  conditions  prec- 
edent is  not  a  "more  statement  of 
evidence."  and  as  the  rule  of  statin;^ 
ultimate  facts  has  always  olitiiinrd, 
it  is  the  writer's  opinion  that  the 
third  j)arav'raph  of  Rule  21  does 
not  relieve  the  pleader  of  tin"  ne- 
cessity of  pleadinj;  such  conditions 
precedent,    precisely    as    her:»tofore. 

The  fourth  paragraph  emhodiea 
the    substance    «)f    former    Rule    22. 

The  fifth  /iai»a;:rapli  makes  no 
reference  to  the  prayer  for  process 
of  sul>|Ki'na,  Hpecifird  in  former 
Rule  2'i;  the  clerk  is  now  n-quired 
by  Rule  12  to  issue  the  Hubp<ena 
as  f)f  course,  renderin;^  the  jirnyer 
therefor    unnecessary. 

That   th«'  bill   need  state  <.iilv   the 


ultimate  facta,  see  Wilson  v.  Amer- 
i.an  Ice  Co..  206  Fed.  Rep.  7.36. 
'ihat  this  rule  prescribes  what  shall 
lie  suflieient  to  sustain  a  bill,  hut 
is  not  an  al)solute  direction  as  to 
what  the  bill  shall  contain,  see 
Pittshiirjih  Water  Heater  Co.  v. 
Heler  Water  Heater  Co.,  222  Fed. 
Hep.  Or)n.  As  to  statinfr  more  than 
one  cause  of  action,  while  avoiding 
repetition  by  cross-referencing,  see 
Maxwell  St.'el  Vault  Co.  v.  Nation- 
al Cask.t  Co..  20.-)  Fed.  Rep.  51.5. 
That  no  prayer  for  process  is  nec- 
essary, or  waiver  of  answer  under 
oath,  see  Pittstiur;;h  Water  Heater 
Co.  V.  Reler  Water  Heater  Co., 
Hvprn. 

12— ■M,I.,.an   v.   Kleminj.',  06  U.  S. 
24.-);    24    L.    K<1.  S2S. 

i:{_rih.n  Cove  Mfg.  Co.  v.  (.ude 
ling.  22  Fed.  Rep.  82.3.  A  bill  is 
sufficient  in  this  regard  which  re- 
cites that  "the  amount  in  contro- 
versy exce«'ds  the  sum  of  $.3000." 
Criggs,  Cooper  4  Co.  v.  Krie  Pre- 
serving Co.,  131   Fed.   Kep.  3.')9,  360. 


429  ACTION  IN  EQUITT.  [§  187 

uvcniit'iit  that  tlie  coiiiplainant  uses  liis  lra<l<.'iiiark  in  interstate 
eommeree  or  conuneree  with  foreign  nations  or  with  the  Indian 
tribes,'"'  and  under  the  Act  of  ISHI  it  had  to  he  averred  and 
proven  in  sueh  a  eaae  tliat  the  defendant  had  used  tlie  infringe- 
ment in  commerce  vvitli  foreign  nations  or  with  the  Indian 
tribes.'''  Where  tlie  parties  are  of  diverse  citizenship  no  sucli 
avenncnt  is  necessary.'"'  Whatever  allegations  are  essential 
must  be  made  i)0sitively  and  not   on  information  and  belief.^' 

"On  divers  days  and  at  divers  places"  has  been  held  to  be  a 
.sufficient  allegation  as  to  time  and  place  of  infringement,  the  bill 
alleging  both  to  have  been  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court."* 

In  a  bill  for  unfair  competition  it  ha.s  been  held  that  to  charge 
the  defendant's  acts  as  being  "calculated  to  deceive"  is  insuffi- 
cient, failing  to  chai'ge  him  with  ijitent  to  deceive,  and  render- 
ing the  hill  demurrable.'^ 

The  prayer  foi-  relief  should  be  both  special  and  general,  under 
the  directions  given  in  the  twenty-fifth  federal  equity  court.  The 
special  portion  of  the  prayer  should  ask  for  a  preliminary  injunc- 
tion (if  it  is  desired),  a  perpetual  injunction,  for  an  account  of 
the  defendant's  profits,  and  for  an  assessment  of  the  damages 
sustained  by  the  complainant  by  reason  of  the  injuries  he  has 
sustained  through  the  loss  of  reputation  of  his  trademark  or 
otherwise.  A  bill  is  not  demurrable  on  the  ground  that  it  prays 
for  damages  in  addition  to  profits,  because  both  can  be  recov- 
ered where  fraudulent  intent  is  established.-"  But  punitive  or 
exemplars'  damages  should  not  be  prayed  for,  a,s  they  can  not  be 

14— Eydor  v.  Holt.  12S  V.  S.  525;  18— Cliarlcs  E.  Hires  Co.  v.  Simp- 

32  L.  Ed.  529;  I^iytios  v.  Hollender  kins,  170  Fed.  Rep.   1012. 
(1),   21    Fod.   Rop.   281   22   Blatchf.  10— Industrial     Press    v.    W.     R. 

413;   Schumaclicr  v.   Sdnvcnke    (1),  C.    Smitii    Piih.    Co.,    164   Fed.    Rep. 

26    Fed.    Rep.    818;    Sehumaelier    v.  842;   00  C.   C.   A.  604. 
Schwenke     (2).    W    OfT.    Caz.    457;  20- El  Modello  Ci^jar  Co.  v.  Gato, 

Gravilv    v.    Gravely.    -12    Fed.    Rep.  25    Fla.    880,    015;    7    So.    Rep.    23; 

265.  Benkcrt  •-.  Feder.  34  Fed.  Rep.  534. 

15 — Gravely   v.   Gravely,   42   Fed.  Under     tlic     Kentueky     practice     a 

Rep.   265;    .52  Off.   Gaz.   15.38;   War-  plaintiff  was  compelled   to  elect  be- 

ner  v.  Searle  &  Hereth  Co.,  101  U.  tween   profits  and   damapes.     E.   H. 

8.   105;  48  L.  Ed.   145.  Taylor,  Jr.,   &    Sons   Co.   v.   Taylor, 

16 — Henneasy    v.    Braunschweiger  27  Ky.  L.  Rep.  625;   85  S.  W.  Rep. 

&  Co..  80  Fed.  Rep.  660.  1085. 

17 — Gaines  &   Co.   v.   Sroufe,   117 
Fed.   Rep.   965. 


§187] 


HOPKINS   ON    TRAI>^;MAKK^ 


430 


assessed  in  oijuity.-'  Where  the  hill  charges  tlu'  iiifriM<;i'iiu'iit  of 
a  ri'gistt'ri'tl  mark  tlu*  prayer  shoulil  ask  for  an  increase  of  the 
actual  ilamagi's  loun*!,  as  provided  in  sec.  1!»  of  the  Act  of  li)05. 

The  j)rayer  for  general  relief  should  he  in  the  fonn  usual  ia 
eipiity  pleading. ■-'- 

I'nle.ss  a  preliminary  injunction  is  prayed  lor  the  hill  need  not 
be  verified.--' 


21 — Ht-nnossy  v.  W  ilmcniinj,' 
Loewe   Co.,    103    Fed.    Rep.    90. 

22 — A  bill  to  enjoin  unfair  com- 
petition must  expressly  eliar^e  that 
the  defendant  lias  attempted  or  in- 
tended to  praetiee  fraud  upon  tlu- 
public.  Lamont  v.  Leedy,  8S  Fed. 
Rep.  72,  74.  But  this  rule  is  hardly 
broad  enoujjh.  The  better  doctrine 
would  seem  to  b«'  that  the  bill  need 
only  charge  ihat  the  defendant's 
merchandise  is  calculated  to  de- 
ceive the  public.  Judye  Lacombe, 
referrin;:  to  the  practice  of  the 
federal  coiirts  in  cases  of  unfair 
trade,  has  said:  "Nor  do  these 
courts  riH]uire  specific  proof  of 
purchases  by  individuals  actually 
dt'ceived.  when  the  labels  them- 
selves show  an  attempt  at  decep- 
tion which  apjiears  to  l»e  well  cal- 
culated to  dceeivf."  C'ollinsplatt  v. 
Finlayson,  88  Fed.  IJep.  <>!•:$.  And 
the  same  learned  court  indicates 
the  same  rule  in  Hurmtt  v.  Hahii, 
88   Fed.    Rep.   (i04. 

A  bill  to  enjoin  thr  iiutinifdctur- 
er  or  vendor  of  spuriotm  Inbrla 
must  contain  an  express  charp- 
that  the  defendant  is  actually  en- 
(.'ap'd  in  assistin;,'  third  jktsoiis 
to  j)alm  ofT  their  ;.'oods  upon  the 
jiuldic  as  tlu'  j^'oods  of  the  com- 
plainant, or  a  substantially  <-(|uiva- 
b-nt  nvermrnt.  De  Kuyper  v.  Wit- 
tcman,  23  Fed.  Rep.  871;  Hennt-Hsy 
V    H.rrmann,  80   F.d.    H.-p.   r.r.O. 


A  bill  to  enjoin  tin-  infringe- 
ment of  a  technical  trademark 
must  set  up  facts  showing  an  ex- 
clusive right  to  the  use  of  the 
mark  in  tiie  plaintiff.  He  "must 
recover  upon  the  strength  of  his 
own  title,  and  not  upon  the  weak- 
ness of  the  defendant's."  Brown, 
.r.,  in  O'Hourke  v.  Central  Citv 
Soap  Co.,  2()   Fed.   Rep.   ")76-r>79. 

Improper  joinder  of  causes  of 
action. — A  bill  is  multifarious  that 
joins  with  a  charge  of  unfair  com- 
l>etition  by  the  use  of  a  trade- 
name a  claim  for  damages  under 
the  Sherman  anti-trust  act  of  July 
2.  18iK).  Block  v.  Standard  Dis- 
tilling A  Distributing  Co.,  95  Fed. 
Rep.  !)78. 

A  bill  is  multifarious  that  joins 
with  a  charge  of  unfair  competi- 
tion (by  passing  olT  the  deft-nd- 
ant's  goods  in  unmarked  packages 
as  and  for  plaintiffs  goods)  n. 
charge  of  patent  infringement.  Ball 
&  Socket  Fastener  Co.  v.  Cohn,  00 
I'.d.   Rep.   604. 

Avertnent  of  oirnrr.sliip. — A  bill 
for  trademark  infringenn'nt  failing 
to  aver  ownership  of  the  trademark 
is  fatally  defective.  Pennell  v, 
I.othrop,  l!il  Mass.  3:)7 ;  77  X.  E. 
I!ep.    S42. 

23 — Hughes  v.  Northern  Pacific 
Ky.  Co.  18  Fed.  Rej).  100.  110; 
Black  v.  Allen,  42  Fed.  Rep.  018. 
023. 


431 


ACTION    IN    EQUITY. 


[§187 


Those  sugpfcstioiis  for  the  most  pait  relate  to  Mils  in  the  i't'<J- 
eral  courts.  Tlie  deeisioiis  of  tliose  courts  are  so  hariiioniou>j 
that  the  great  hulk  of  the  traih'iiiark  litigation  is  before 
theui.  As  to  the  state  courts,  rereicin-e  iinist  necessai'ily  ]u'.  had 
to  the  local  foi'ius  of  action  (or  absence  of  sueli  foriri.s)  created 
by  b'gislati\'e  enact lueiit. 

As  to  the  joiiuh'r  of  causes  of  action  the  new  rules  provide 
as  follows: 

26. 

JOINDER  OF  CAUSES  OF  ACTION. 

Tlie  plaintitT  may  join  in  one  bill  as  many  cases  of  action, 
cognizable  in  ecjuity,  as  he  nuiy  have  against  the  defendant. 
But  when  there  are  more  than  on  plaintiff,  the  causes  of 
action  joined  must  l)e  joint,  and  if  there  be  more  than  one 
defendant  the  liability  must  be  one  asserted  against  ab  of 
the  material  defendants,  or  sufficient  grounds  must  appear 
for  uniting  the  causes  of  action  in  order  to  [)romote  the  con- 
venient administration  of  justice.  If  it  appear  that  any  such 
causes  of  action  can  not  be  conveniently  disposed  of  to- 
gether, the  court  may  order  separate  trials.^^ 


24 — A  new  rule,  l)asr(l  upon  tlu' 
Enplisli   ruK-: 

"Subject  to  the  followin;,'  rulos 
of  tliis  order,  the  plaintiff  may 
unite  in  the  same  action  several 
causes  of  action,  l)ut  if  it  appear 
to  the  court  or  a  juduc  that  any 
such  causes  of  action  can  not  be 
conveniently  tried  or  disposed  of 
tofjether,  the  court  or  judfre  may 
order  separate  trials  of  any  of  such 
i-auses  of  action  to  be  had,  or  may 
maki"  such  other  order  as  may  be 
necessary  or  expedient  for  the  separ- 
ate disposal  tliereof."  (Order  XVITI., 
Rule    1.) 

An  illustration  of  the  operation 
of  this  rule  is  found  in  a  case  in 
which  the  plaintiff  alleped  the  in- 
fringement of  twenty-three  patents. 
Ap{>lication  was  made  to  limit  the 
action    (under   Order    XVITI,    Rules 


S  and  !),  and  Order  XIX,  Rule  27), 
upon  which  application  the  court 
of  appeal  held  that  plaintiff  was 
not  entitled  to  unite  the  twenty- 
three  pati'uts  in  one  suit,  but  should 
l)e  directed  to  select  a  group  of  his 
patents,  not  exceeding  three,  as 
being  "such  of  the  causes  of  action 
as  may  be  conveniently  disposed 
of  together"  (tliis  being  tlu'  lan- 
guage of  Order  XVIII.  Rule  8). 
Saeeliarin  Corp.  v.  Wild  (1903),  1 
Ch.  410. 

That  this  rule  does  not  compel 
the  joinder  of  dissimilar  actions,  or 
of  causes  which  would  require  vari- 
ous kinds  of  relief  or  various  ac- 
countings, see  Marconi  Wireless 
Tel.  Co.  V.  National  Elec.  Signal- 
ing Co.,  206  Fed.  Rep.  2n.">.  That 
it  does  not  authorize  the  joinder  of 
a   suit   in   equity   and   an   action   at 


§188] 


HOPKINS   ON   TRADEMARKS. 


432 


A  bill  for  unfair  competition  will  not  be  liekl  bad  on  motion 
to  tlismiss  upon  the  jiround  that  the  words  and  phrases  charfjed 
to  be  used  by  the  defendant  iui<j:ht  lawfully  and  properly  be 
used  by  him  scparatrly.  wln'ix'  it  i.s  apparent  that  by  their  con- 
joint usr  hi'  has  boi'n  e()nii)etin^  unfairly. ^^ 

§  188.  Presenting  the  defenses. — The  methods  of  attacking 
the  bill  have  been  radically  changed  as  to  form  by  the  new 
equity  rules. 

29. 

DEFENSES— HOW  PRESENTED. 

Demurrers  and  pleas  are  abolished.  Every  defense  in 
point  of  law  arising  upon  the  face  of  the  l)ill,  whether  for 
misjoinder,  nonjoiiuler,  or  insufficiency  of  fact  to  constitute 
a  valid  cause  of  action  in  equity,  which  might  heretofore 
have  been  made  by  demurrer  or  plea,  shall  be  made  by  motion 
to  dismiss  or  in  the  answer ;  and  every  such  point  of  law 
going  to  the  whole  or  a  material  part  of  the  cause  or  causes 
of  action  stated  in  the  bill  may  be  called  up  and  disposed  of 
before  final  hearing  at  the  discretion  of  the  court.  Ever\^ 
defense  heretofore  presentable  by  plea  in  bar  or  abatement 
shall  be  made  in  the  answer  and  may  be  separately  heard 
nd  disposed  of  before  the  trail  of  the  principal  case  in  the 
discretion  of  the  court.  If  the  defendant  move  to  dismiss 
the  bill  or  any  part  thereof,  the  iiiotion  may  be  set  down 
for  hearing  by  either  party  upon  five  days'  notice,  and,  if 
it  be  denied,  answer  shall  be  filed  v/ithin  five  days  there- 
after or  a  decree  pro  coufcsso  entered.-'' 


law,  Bee  Bucynis  Co.  v.  McArthiir, 
219  Fed.  rjop.  2f.f).  That  the  nature 
of  one  cause  of  action  stated  in  tlie 
hill,  of  itself  creating;  jurisdiction, 
can  not  ^ive  the  court  jurisdiction 
over  a  joined  cause  of  action  over 
which  juri.sdiction  is  dependent 
upon  amount  in  controversy  and 
diverse  citizenship,  see  Vose  v.  Roe- 
buck, etc.  Co..  210  Fed.  Rep.  687. 
2;') — Holeproof  Ilfjsiery  Co.  v. 
Richmond  Hosiery  Mills,  167  Fed. 
Rep.   381. 


26 — Demurrers  were  abolished  in 
the  English  practice  I)y  the  follow- 
in  <I  rule: 

"No  demurrer  sliall  be  allowed 
(Order  XXV,  Rule  1). 

Order  XV  provides,  as  indicated 
in  its  title,  "Proceedings  in  Lieu  of 
Demurrer."  and  of  this  order  the 
court  of  appeal  has  said  that  it 
"abolislied  demurrers  and  substi- 
tuted a  more  summary  process  for 
{,'ettin<i  rid  of  pleadin<;a  which  show 
no  reasonable  cause  of  action  or  de- 


433  ACTION    IK    EQUITY.  [§189 

§  189.     The  answer. — The  pruvisiou  of  the  new  rules  as  to 
the  answer  is  as  follows : 

30. 

ANSWER^CONTENTS— COUNTER-CLAIM 

The  defendant  in  his  answer  shall  in  short  and  simple 
terms  set  out  his  defense  to  each  claim  asserted  by  the  bill, 
omitting  any  mere  statement  of  evidence  and  avoiding  any 
general  diHiial  of  the  averments  of  the  bill,  but  specifically 
admitting  or  denying  or  explaining  the  facts  upon  which 
the  plaintiff  relies,  unless  the  defendant  is  without  knowl- 
edge, in  which  case  he  shall  so  state,  such  statement  0})er- 
ating  as  a  denial.  Averments  other  than  of  value  or  amount 
of  damage,  if  not  denied,  shall  be  deemed  confessed,  except 
as  against  an  infant,  lunatic  or  other  person  non  compos 
and  not  under  guardianship,  but  the  answer  may  be  amended, 
by  leave  of  the  court  or  judge,  upon  rea.sonable  notice,  so 
as  to  put  any  averment  in  issue,  when  justice  requires  it. 
The  answer  may  state  as  many  defenses,  in  the  alternative, 
regardless  of  consistency,  as  the  defendant  deems  essential 
to  his  defense. 

The  answer  must  state  in  short  and  simple  form  any  coun- 
ter-claim arising  out  of  the  transaction  which  is  the  sub- 

fcnsc.      Two  courst'S   are   open   to  a  Hubback  v.  Wilkinson   (1800),  1  Q. 

defendant  who   wishes   to  raise   the  B.  00,  01. 

question  whether,  assuming  a  state-  Pleas  in  abatement  were  express- 

ment  of  claim  to  be  proved,   it  en-  ly   abolished   in    England   by   Order 

titles   the    plaintiff  to    relief.      One  XXI,  Rule  20— "No  plea  or  defense 

method   is  to   raise  the  question   of  shall  be  pleaded  in  abatement." 

law    as    directed    by    Order     XXV,  Motions    to    dismiss.— T\mt    such 

Rule    2;    the    other    is   to    apply   to  motion  will  be  denied  unless  it  ap- 

strike   out   the    statement   of    claim  pears  that  upon   the  ground  of  the 

\mder    Order    XXV,    Rule    4.      The  motion    tlie   l)ill    would   have    to   be 

first  method  is  appropriate  to  cases  dismissed     at     final     hearing,     see 

requiring  argument  and  careful  con-  Ralston   Steel   Car   Co.   v.   National 

sideration.      The    second    and    more  Dump   Car  Co.,  222  Fed.   Rep.  500. 

summary   procedure   is   only   appro-  That  such  motion  raises  such  ques- 

priate  to  cases  which  are  plain  and  tions  as  could  be  raised  by  demurrer 

obvious,     so    that     any     master     or  under   the   old  rules,   see   Hyams   v. 

judge    can    say    at    once    that    the  Old    Dominion    Co.,    204    Fed.    Rep. 

statement  of  claim  as   it  stands   is  681;    Fordham    v.    Hicks     224    Fed. 

insufficient,   even    if   proved,   to   en-  Rep.    810. 
title  the  plaintiff  to  what  he  asks." 


§  190] 


IIUI'KINS;    ON    TRADEMARKS. 


434 


jeet-mnttor  of  tlu^  suit,  ami  may.  without  cross-liill,  set  out 
any  set-olV  or  couiitor-claim,  at;ainst  the  plaintilT  whit'li  ini^^lit 
1)0  the  subjoet  of  an  indcpfiuU'ut  suit  in  e<|uity  aj^ainst  him, 
and  sui'h  st't-ofT  or  countcr-c  laim,  so  si't  up,  shall  have  the 
sauu'  t'lTect  as  a  cross-suit  so  as  to  enable  the  court  to  pro- 
nounce a  final  jud^'iiicnt  in  the  same  suit  botii  on  tlie  orijfinal 
and  I'ross-chiiiiis.-^ 

§  190.     Particulars. — The  new  equity  rules  provide  for  par- 
ticulars Uii  follows: 

20. 

FrRTITER     AND     PARTICTLAR     STATEMENT     IN 
PLEADING  MAY  BE  REQUIRED. 

A  further  and  better  statement  of  the  nature  of  the  claim 
or  defense,  or  further  and  better  particulars  of  any  matter 


27 — A  now  rult',  liir<rcly  l)aso(l  on 
the  Enfrlish  practice;  but  »o  rad- 
ically different  from  tliat  practice 
that  the  En{,'li8li  decisions  will  be 
of  small  Wncfit  to  the  American 
j>raetiti()ner.  See  Order  XIX,  Rules 
2  and  3. 

At  cummt)n  law  a  defendant  vho 
had  a  claim  against  the  plaintiff 
could  not  assert  it  by  way  of  set- 
off or  counter-claim,  save  that,  when 
sued  for  the  purchase  price  of  mer- 
chandise, he  could  set  up  breach  of 
warranty,  express  or  impHed.  Street 
V.   Blay    (1831),  2  Barn.  &  Ad.  4r)(i. 

Til.-  statute  of  2  Ceo.  11,  e.  ±2, 
jiermitted  the  defendant  to  plead 
a  set-ofT  in  certain  cases;  l)ut  in 
courts  of  law  only  legal  liabilities 
could  be  off-set,  while  in  courts 
of  e<|uity,  equital>le  claims  for 
lirpiidated  amounts,  created  be- 
tween the  same  |>artie8  and  in  tlie 
same  right  could  ))(?  so  off  set. 
(iavondish  v.  flreaves,  24  Heav.  103. 
T'nder  tlie  modern  practice  in  Eng- 
land the  defendant  may  accpiire  and 
fM*t  off  a  del>t  owing  by  the  plaintiff 
to     a     stra  iger     to     the     litigation, 


Bennett  v.  White,  W.  N.  (1910), 
1(57. 

A  set-off  is  still  a  defense  to  the 
plaintiff's  claim;  while  a  counter- 
claim is  a  cross-action,  which  need 
not  have  any  connection,  however 
remote,  witii  the  plaintiff's  cause 
of  action.  It  need  not  be  "an  action 
of  tlie  same  nature  as  the  original 
action."  Beddall  v.  Maitland,  17  C. 
D.  181.  The  net  result  of  the  re- 
vised procedure  in  England  is  that 
a  legal  counter-claim  may  be  in- 
terposed in  chancery,  and  an  equit- 
able claim  in  an  action  at  law. 
Fleming  v.  Lee   (l!)ni),  2  Ch.  594. 

As  to  the  purpose  and  intent  of 
the  rule  in  simplifying  the  answer, 
see  Coulston  v.  Francke  Steel  Range 
Co.,  221  Fed.  Rep.  GG9;  Pittsburgh 
Water  Heater  Co.  v.  Beler  Water 
Healer  Co..  222  Fed.  Rep.  fl.'iO.  Aa 
to  comparison  with  the  working  of 
file  Ijiglisli  rules,  see  Terry  Steam 
'i'urbine  Co.  v.  B.  F.  Sturtevant  Co., 
204  Fe<l.  Rep.  103;  Buffalo  Spe- 
eialfy  Co.  V.  N'luieleef,  217  Fed. 
Ri-p.  91.  'i'liat  the  rule  does  not 
pcrmi-t   a    btrictly   legal   demand   to 


435 


ACTION    IN   EQUITY. 


[§191 


stated  ill  any  ploading,  may  in  any  case  be  ordered.  ui)ori 
such  terms,  as  to  costs  and  otherwise,  as  may  he  just.-" 


§  191.     Scandal  and  impertinence. — The    provisions   of  the 
new  equity  rules  are  as  follows: 


bo  countcr-cluiincd,  we  Motion  Pic- 
ture Patents  Co.  v.  Kclair  Film 
Co.,  208  Fed.   Rep.  416. 

28 — This  is  a  new  rule,  l)a8ed 
upon  the  English  rule  (Order  XIX, 
Rule  7),  whieh   reads: 

"A  further  and  better  statement 
of  the  nature  of  tlie  claim  or  de- 
fense, or  further  and  better  particu- 
lars of  any  matter  stated  in  any 
pleading,  notice,  or  written  proceed- 
ing requiring  particulars,  may  in 
all  oases  be  ordered,  upon  such 
terms  as  to  costs  and  otherwise, 
as  may  be  just." 

The  words  "upon  such  terms" 
have  been  held  to  authorize  an  order 
that  if  proper  particulars  be  not 
delivered  within  a  time  fixed  in  tlie 
order,  the  action  shall  stand  dis- 
missed. Davey  v.  Bentinck  (1893), 
1  Q.  B.  185. 

"The  object  of  particulars  is  to 
enable  the  party  asking  for  them 
to  know  what  case  he  has  to  meet 
at  the  trial,  and  so  to  save  unnec- 
essary expense,  and  avoid  allowing 
parties  to  be  taken  by  surprise." 
Cotton,  L.  J.,  in  Spedding  v.  Fitz- 
patrick,  38  C.  D.  p.  413. 

"Sometimes  particulars  have  been 
allowed  in  order  that  there  might 
not  be  a  surprise  at  the  trial.  Some- 
times thty  have  been  allowed  as 
limitations  of  the  claim,  to  limit 
the  extent  of  the  evidence  to  be 
given  at  the  trial.  Under  the  .Judi- 
cature Act  particulars  are  really 
supplemental  to  tiie  pleadings.  They 
are  in  fact  amendments  of  the 
pleadings."    Vaughn  Williams,  L.  J., 


in  Milbank  v.  Milbank  (1900),  1 
Ch.  38;-). 

On  account  of  this  rule,  it  is 
sound  policy  to  plead  fully  the  facts 
relied  upon  (but  not  the  evidence 
proving  those  facts),  in  order  to 
avoid  the  motion  for  particulars. 
Maxwell  Steel  Vault  Co.  v.  Na- 
tional Casket  Co.,  20.")  Fed.  Rep.  515; 
Williams  v.  Pope,  215  Fed.  Rep. 
1000.  In  applying  the  rule  the 
court  will  deny  a  motion  for  the 
disclosure  of  the  names  of  witnesses 
to  the  facts  of  unfair  competition 
pleaded  in  the  bill,  for  the  reasons 
stated  by  Judge  Cliatfield  as  fol- 
lows : 

"In  so  far  as  tlie  motion  is  mere- 
ly an  attempt  to  secure  the  names 
of  witnesses  or  the  details  of  the 
plaintiff's  evidence,  it  should  be  de- 
nied. But,  apart  from  this,  the 
knowledge  of  where,  to  whom,  and 
under  what  conditions,  sales  have 
been  made  by  the  defendant  at 
wholesale  prices,  are  matters  known 
to  the  defendant  much  better  than 
to  the  plaintiff.  In  the  trial  of  a 
suit  in  equity,  even  under  the  pres- 
ent rules,  no  hardship  would  seem 
to  be  involved  in  refusing  to  give 
to  the  defendant  information  of  just 
when,  where  and  how  it  has  dealt 
with  its  own  customers.  The  op- 
portunity for  fair  hearing  and  cross- 
examination  can  be  amply  protected. 
Curtis  V.  Phelps  ( D.C. ) ,  200  Fed. 
261."  United  Lace  &  Braid  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Barthels  Mfg.  Co.,  213  Fed.  Rep. 
535.     ■ 


§192] 


UUI'KINS    (,»N    TKAUKMARKS. 


436 


21. 

SCANDAL  AND  IMPERTINENCE. 

The  rifrlit  to  oxccpt  to  liills.  aiiswcis.  aiul  othor  proceed- 
ing's for  st-aiulal  or  impcrtint'iR-o  shall  not  obtain,  luit  the 
court  may.  upon  motion  of  its  own  initiative,  order  any 
rechwuhmt.  impertinent  or  seandalou.s  matter  striken  out, 
\ipon  such  terms  as  the  court  shall  think  lit.-" 

§  192.  The  defenses  in  equity. — All  defenses  prood  in  the 
a<*tion  at  law  are  L,n)(t(l  in  the  action  in  e(|uity  except  tliat  of  the 
innocence  of  tiu'  defendant  of  \vronp:fnl  intent.  In  a  caiie  where 
both  parties  have  the  riirht  to  use  the  trademark,  the  (h'fendant 
will  be  enjoined  from  using  the  words  "the  only  genuine''  in 
connection  with  the  trademark.^'^  The  plaintiff  must,  of  course, 
be  actually  entitled  to  use  the  trademark  having  applietl  it  com- 
mercially. Thus  Sir  James  Clark's  application  to  restrain  one 
Freeman  from  advertising  or  selling  pills  under  the  name  of 
"Sir  J.  Clark's  Consumption  Pills"  was  denied  because  the 
plaintiff  was  not  engaged  in  the  sale  of  pills.'>     The  plaintilV 


20 — This  is  a  now  nilo.  abolish- 
injr  the  old  practice  as  to  excep- 
tions for  scandal  and  impertinence. 
See  former  Rules  2(1  and  27. 

Thr  English  liulr. — "The  court  or 
a  judf,'e  may  at  any  stajje  of  the 
proceedin<r8  order  to  he  struck  out 
or  amended,  any  matter  in  any  in- 
dorsement or  pleading  which  may 
he  unnecessary  or  scandalous,  or 
which  may  tend  to  prejudice,  em- 
harrass  or  delay  tlie  fair  trial  of 
tlie  action;  and  may  in  any  such 
case,  if  they  or  he  shall  tliink  fit. 
order  the  costs  of  the  application 
to  he  paid  as  hetween  solicitor  iuul 
client."      (Order  XIX.  Rule  27.) 

The  application  must  he  made 
promj)tly  or  (he  court  may  decline 
to  exercise  its  jurisdiction.  Cross 
V.  TIow.-.  02  L.  J.  Ch.  :M2. 

It  will  he  noted  that  the  Kn^'Hsh 
rule  uws  the  word  "unneci-ssarv" 
where  Rule  12  refers  to  "redui.dant" 


matter.  It  is.  tlurefore,  important 
to  note  that  in  the  English  prac- 
tice, if-  the  matter  is  otherwise 
liarmless.  it  will  rot  he  struck  out 
merely  hecause  it  is  unnecessary. 
Rock  V.  Purssell.  84   L.  T.  Jo.  4.^. 

Scandalous  matter,  in  England, 
may  he  e.xpunged  Ity  the  court  from 
any  part  of  the  record,  and  even 
from  a  hill  of  costs.  In  re  Miller, 
.')4  L.  J.  Ch.  20.",.  "Nothing  can  be 
scandalous  wliicli  is  relevant."  Cot- 
ton, L.  J.,  in  Fislier  v.  Owen.  8  C. 
D.,  p.   f)r..3. 

For  an  api)li(ati«tii  i>f  this  rule, 
sec  Williams  v.  Pope.  21.">  Fed.  Kep. 
1000. 

.30 — lames  v.  .lames.  L.  H.  1.3  Eq. 
Cas.  421;  Cocks  v.  Chaii.llcr,  L.  "R. 
II  Kq.  Cas.  44«. 

.31 — Clark  v.  Freeman,  11  Reav. 
112.  This  decision  is  criticised  in 
Maxwell  v.  Hogg.  T..  R.  2  Ch.  App. 
307 ;    but    it    ia    manifestly    correct 


437  ACTION    IN    EQUITY.  [§192 

may  not  l)e  entitled  to  recover  l)e('aii.se  ol"  liis  not  havin},'  an 
exclusive  right  to  the  mark;  or  because  he  has,  witliout  authority, 
used  the  words  "patent"  or  "patented"  in  connection  Avith 
or  as  a  part  of  wiuit  he  claims  a.s  his  ti"a<leiiiark.  Or  he  may 
have  matle  rrau(hiliiit  repr-esentatioiis  in  connection  with  iiis 
tradeinatk  whicli  will  prevent  his  recoverinj^  the  relief  sou^^dit 
for.  A  single  act  done  at  the  suggestion  of  the  plaintilV's  agent 
will  not  he  treated  as  an  infringement/'- 

\t  is  a  good  defense  that  the  defendant  is  merely  reselling 
goods  maile  in  conformity  with  a  decree  of  injunction  entered 
in  a  formei'  suit  against  the  manui'acturer.-'''  It  is  obviously 
a  good  defense  that  the  plaintilV'S  mark  is  an  infringement  of 
another's  mark.-'' 

It  often  hapi)ens  that  the  defendant  may  plead  by  way  of 
mitigation  of  damages  or  so  as  to  avoid  his  liability  for  an 
accounting  or  for  costs. ^•'''  Thus,  in  an  English  ca-se,  the  defend- 
ants purchased  five  hundred  cigarettes,  worth  only  17s.  6d.,  and 
which  liore  a  mark  which  wa.s  an  infringement  of  the  plaintit?"s. 
The  court  granted  the  application  for  injunction,  hut  refu.sed 
to  order  the  defendants  to  pay  costs,  saying  by  Sterling,  J. :  "I 
confess  I  think  this  is  not  a  sort  of  action  that  ought  to  be  encour- 
aged. If  persons  find  a  trademark  is  heing  pirated,  surely  it  is 
not  the  small  retailers  who  ought  to  be  punished.  *  *  *  j 
can  not  think  that  it  is  th(>  duty  of  the  court  in  every  case  in 

in  principle,  considered  as  a  trade-  his  profession   t)y   liavinjr  liis   name 

name    case.      Lord    Justice    Cairns  associated  witli  a  quacl<  medicine?" 

says    (L.  R.  2  Ch.  App.  310)  :      "It  In  re  Riviere's  Trademark,  L.  R.  20 

has    always    appeared    to    me    that  Ch.  D.  53. 

Clark  V.   Freeman  mijjht  have  been  32 — Hennessy     v.     Kennett,     Seh. 

decided    in    favor    of    the    plaintiff  5,50 ;    Gorham    ^If*?.    Co.    v.    Emery- 

on  the  ground  that  he  had  a  prop-  Bird-Thayer  Co.,  92  Fed.  Rep.  774; 

erty     in     his    own     name,"   i.   e.,   a  Hostetter    Co.    v.    Brunn,    107    Fed. 

rifiht   of   privacy,   which    involves  a  Rep.   707. 

discussion   which   it  would  l)e  aside  33 — Societe  Anonyme  Benedictine 

from    our    purpose    to    enter    upon  v.  Hy<irade  Wine  Co.,  173  Fed.  Rep. 

here.       Lord     Chancellor      Selborne  796. 

has    criticised    Clark    v.     Freeman,  34 — Ulieda  v.   Zialcita,  22G  U.  S. 

from    another    standpoint,    sayinfr:  4.")2;    57   L.   Ed.  296. 

"That    case   has   l)een    seldom    cited  3.i — Guilhon  v.  Lindo.  9  Bos.  605 ; 

hut   to  be   disapproved.      Could   not  Cox'    American    Trademark    Cases, 

a    professional    man    l)e    injured    in  295. 


§  192]  HOPKINS   ON   TRAni:>!AKKS.  438 

which  a  small  dealer  wiio  Ills  inii()i"eMtl\  hapix'iied  \o  purcliasc 
a  small  tiuaiility  of  the  spurious  j^ckxIs.  to  iix  him  with  the  <;osts 
of  an  ai-tioii."  "'•  A  defendaiit  who  was  printing'  lahels  for  a 
third  party  ditl  i\ot  know  that  tlie  laliels  l>ore  eouiiterfeits  of 
l>laiiitill"s  trademarks.  On  heiii<r  notilied  of  the  fact  of  infrinpo- 
luent,  tlefenihint  olVered  to  surrender  the  lithograph  .stone  and 
promised  to  (U'sist  from  further  printing  tlu'  counterfeit  lahels. 
The  court  adopted  the  same  course  as  that  taken  liy  ihe  English 
court  in  the  last  named  case — granted  an  injunction  hut  at  coni- 
I)lainant's  costs.^^  This  case  shows  that  it  is  not  wise  to  notify  a 
defendant  liefore  suing.  It  lias  been  expressly  and  repeatedly 
held  that  the  defendant  is  not  entitled  to  notice,-''^  and  it  is  related 
hy  C'hitty,  d..  that  when  that  very  learned  juri.st,  the  late  Sir  G. 
JesseK  master  of  the  rolls,  "svas  at  the  bar,  it  was  his  custom  to 
advise  his  clients  in  trademark  actions  not  to  give  any  notice 
hut  to  move  at  once."'' 

These  suggestions  are  given  here  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
practitioner  whose  duty  is  to  defend  the  alleged  infringer  to  the 
very  serious  (luestion  of  avoiding  costs. 

It  may  he  possible  to  defend  successfully  on  the  grountl  that, 
although  the  plaintiif  has  applied  his  trademark  in  commerce 
he  has  not  applied  it  to  the  same  chai'acter  or  class  of  merchan- 
dise as  that  to  whieh  the  defendant  is  applying  it.  We  have 
touched  upon  this  question  l)efore,  but  a  more  extended  con- 
sideration of  it  may  be  advisable.  To  answer  the  (piestion  of 
whether  the  defendant's  use  of  the  comiplainant's  trademark  is 
snich  an  unlawtul  use  that  it  should  be  restrained,  "the  extent  of 
the  oAvnor's  property  in  a  trademark,  and  the  character  of  the 
act  whieh  is  held  to  injurioiisly  affect  his  property  rights,  and 
to  call  for  the  interposition  of  a  court  of  equity,  must  be  ascer- 
tained.    *     •     *     'pIk.  deceit  of  the  public  and  the  sul)«equent 

30— Amc-rican      Toliiiccn      Co.      v.  24   CIi.    D.   2.31;    52   L.   J.   Ch.   940; 

r.uPBt,  9  R.  P.  C.  218;  L.  R.   (1R02)  49   L.   T.   122;    32  W.  R.  2S. 

T  Ch.   D.  030;   01  L.  J.  Ch.  242;   00  39— rpmiinn    v.    Forester.    L.     R. 

L.  T.  257;   40  W.  R.  304;  Cartm<'ll,  24    Ch.    D.    231-235.      Tlic   followin;; 

45.  cases  illustrate  the  (laM;,'er  of  fjivinfi; 

37 — BuHH     V.     Guppenhcimor,     09  notice   before   suit.      C>.    \V.    Cole   v. 

Fed.    Rep.   271.  (  (.h's    Oil    Co..    147    Fed.    Rep.   9.30; 

38 — I'pmann    v.    ForcHtcr,    L.    R.  nwinellWripht   Co.   v.   (\)-operativc 

Supply  Co.,   148  Fed.   Rep.  242. 


439  ACTION    IN   lOiUlTY.  [§  192 

injurj'  to  it  arc  as  inuoli  to  ho  regarded  hy  a  court  of  equity 
a;s  ail  injury  to  a  plaint  ill's  husincss.  It  tlieret'ore  follows 
tliat  tlic  right  of  an  owner  of  a  tradiMiiark  is  not  a  right  to  its 
cxchisivc  use  cvcrywlu'rc  and  undci-  all  cinvunistanccs. "  ■"'  Thus, 
an  iron  inaniirartun'r  using  a  lion's  licad  as  his  trademark  can 
not  enjoin  a  linen  luaiuiLacturer  from  using  a  lion's  head  a.s  his 
mark."  It  was  held  that  "Fruit  Salt"  as  a  trademark  for  an 
effervescing  drink,  a  registered  mark,  might  he  interfered  with 
by  the  words  ''Fruit  Salt"  desigiuiting  a  baking  po-wder.  In 
this  ease  it  Avas  shown  that  the  "Fruit  Salt"  used  in  producing 
the  effervescing  drink  Jiad  been  used  as  a  baking  powder,  in 
exceptional  cases;  but  the  court  renuirked  that  if  it  were  proposed 
to  so  employ  the  words  "Fruit  Salt"  that  "no  reasonable  person 
could  suppose  that  they  had  reference  to  the  appellant's  prepa- 
ration, such  a  use  would  be  perfectly  unobje(;tionable.  For 
example,  I  can  not  conceive  any  one  imagining  that  a  "Fruit  Salt 
Umbrella"  was  in  any  way  connected  with  the  article  manu- 
factured by  :\Ir.  P^no  (the  effen^escing  drink)." -»2  So  it  has 
been  held  in  this  country  that  the  word  "Celluloid"  is  a  valid 
trademark  as  applied  to  articles  actually  comipased  of  celluloid,'*^ 
but  that  the  use  of  the  Avord  "Celluloid"  to  designate  a  starch 
is  not  an  infringement,  because  celluloid  had  never  been  used 
in  making  starch  and  there  was  no  testimony  to  show  that  the 
plaintiff  had  intended  ever  to  use  it  in  making  starch.  There 
was  expert  testimony  to  the  effect  that  it  was  highly  probable 
that  a  method  might  be  devised  by  which  celluloid  could  be 
converted  into  a  starch-like  body  fit  for  use  as  a  substitute  for 
starch,  but  the  court  held  this  statement  of  probabilities  "too 
indefinite  to  be  the  foundation  of  an  injunction.  "•*■*  The  whole 
que-stion  depends  upon  how  closely  related  are  the  classes  of 
goods  to  which  the  complainant  and  respondent  apply  tlie 
mark.-*^ 

40_Shipman,     J.,     in     Celluloid  43— Celluloid    Mf;,'.     Co.     v.     Cid- 

Mffr.  Co.  V.  Read,  47  Fed.  Rep.  712-  lonite  Mfjj.  Co.,  32  Fed.  Rep.  94. 

714^.  44— Celluloid    Mfp.    Co.    v.    Read, 

41_Ainswortli    v.    Walmsley,    3.")  47   Fed.  Rep.  712,  716. 

L.  J.  Ch.  3r)2.  •!') — Collins     Co.     v.     Ames,     20 

42— Lord    Herschell    in     Eno    v.  Blatchf.    542;     18    Fed.    Rep.    SGI: 

Dunn,  L.  R.  15  App.  Cas.  252,  2G0.  Amoskeafi   Mfg.   Co.   v.    Garner,    54 

How.  Pr.  297;  Carroll  v.  Ertheiler, 


§  192]  lUtlKINS   ON    TKAPKM AKKS.  440 

Tho  onliiiary  rules  ;i.s  tn  tin-  flVci-i  of  foi-nicr  ailjudiration 
llOl'e^«iiU•ily  apply  to  4'a.si's  of  tlio  Uiiul  uikIit  (•iiiisiik'ration.  A 
liiial  iK'ori'i'  of  dismissal  in  a  state  i-uiirt  is  a  bar  to  a  suhsciiuent 
suit  in  a  fi'tli-ral  court  l)y  thr  same  complainant  ajrainst  a  j)arty 
iu  privity  with  the  defendant  in  the  former  suit,'"  and  the  entire 
record  in  the  fonner  suit  is  admissil)le  to  show  identity  of  sulgect- 
matter.^" 

The  other  defenses,  l)csides  those  thus  far  indicated,  such  as 
license  from  the  owner  or  his  co-proprietor  in  the  mark,  delay, 
acquiescence  or  abandonment,  liave  been  treated  in  coiuiection 
with  the  defenses  at  law.  Hut  it  is  proper  to  note  here  that  where 
the  complainant  has  been  jruilty  of  serious  laches  his  relief  will  he 
limited  to  the  injunction,  and  an  accountiii},'  will  be  refused. ■*" 

Affirmative  proof  of  laches  may  not  exist,  yet  laches  be  found 
as  inferable  from  the  circumstances.  "Tlie  many  years'  failure 
to  prasecute  suptH'sts  laches.  On  the  face  of  thinj^^,  it  Avoukl 
seem  that  complainant  must  have  known,  or  should  have  known, 
of  the  infrinfremcnt  if  substantial  in  character;  and.  if  unsub- 
stantial, no  accounting  is  needed.""'" 

Where  the  defendant  undertakes  to  defend  by  attacking:  the 
complainant's  title  to  the  mark  and  fails,  the  Supremo  Court  of 
lx)uisrami  has  lield  that  he  should  l)e  treated  as  a  ^vanton  tres- 
passer.'^* 

Where  the  bill  of  complaint  makes  profert  of  the  plaintiff's 
trademark  and  exhibits  the  alleged  infringement,  a  denuirrer  will 
l)e  .sustained  if  an  inspection  of  the  exhibits  satisfies  the  court 
that  there  is  no  infringement.^' 

1    F«-d.    R*'p.   088;   Hfcht  v.    Porter.  Cainca   &    Co..    Irtl    Fed.    R.-p.    40."). 

Ji     Par.    C.    L.    .7.     509;     Osjrood    v.  -)()!  ;  20  C.  C.  A.  320. 

KcK-kwood.  F.-d.  (aw  No.  lOC.O.');   11  4H— TTfdt    v.    Mmcnd./.    2:J     Fed. 

HIatxrhf.    310;     Smith    v.    Reynolds,  Rep.  80H.  S71;    N.   K.   Fairl.ank  Co. 

FiKl.    Caw    No.    13098;     lo    Hlatdif  v.    Luckcl.    Kin^'   &    Cak.-    Soap  Co., 

100;    13   Blatchf.   4r)8;    Swift  &   Co.  100   Fi'd.   R.p.  408. 

V.  Croff,  114  Frd.  R<'p.  00;').  49— Knapprn,  J.,   in   Divoc  Snuff 

46 — JaroH     Hy^'i.riir     Underwear  Co.  v.  Wolff.   124  C.  C.  A.  302;  200 

Co.    V.    Flevcf    Hy^'ii-nie    Underwear  Fed.    Rep.    420.   424. 

Co.,  0.'»   Fed.    Rep.   424.  r>0 — Handy  v.  Conimainler.  49  La. 

47 — .laroH     Hy^jienie      Undirwear  Ann.  1119;  22  So.   Kcp.  230. 

Co.    V.    FIe«'ce    Hyfrienie    Underwear  .".1      CoHiiiH  Clieniii-al   Co.   v.  C'ap- 

Co.,    6.')    Fed.    Rep.    424;     Adams    v.  ital  (  ity  Mf;:.  Co..  42  Fed.  Rep.  04; 

Tannajje  I'at.  Co..  HI   Fed.  Rep.  179;  .F.   C.    Ilul)in;;er    Rroa.    Co.    v.    Kddy. 

26    C,    C.    A.    320;    Kahn    v.    \V.    A  74   Fed.    Rep.   r>5l. 


441 


ACTION    IN    IX^I  ITV. 


[§192 


\',u\  tlir  courts  arc  iiol  iiiclim''!  to  sustain  demurrers  upon  the 
^M-ouml  tluit  the  plaiiitiir's  inafU  is  not  a  valid  technical  trade- 
mark, uhei'f  tlu'  l)ill  contains  the  si)e('i(ic  cliar^e  that  the  defend- 
ant has,  hy  its  conchict  in  the  premises,  dcccivccl  and  misU,'d  the 
puMic  into  liuyin<,'  its  ^oods  a.s  and  tor  tiic  phuntilV's  goods.''^ 
A  delVct  upon  the  lace  of  the  hill,  nucIi  as  a  failure  to  show  title 
to  the  mark  in  a  complainant,  must  he  met  hy  demurrer  and  can 
not  be  raised  l)y  a  i)lea.''''' 

Where  aflirniativc  relief  is  sought  l)y  the  defendant  it  should 
be  J) rayed  for  hy  cross-bill/'-* 

The  defense  of  non-infringement  is  not  properly  ijiterposed 
by  a  plea,  and  should  be  presented  by  an  an^^wer.-"'-"' 

A  bill  may  be  disnnssed  because  of  fraudulent  representations 
made  by  the  complainant  in  connection  with  his  use  of  a  mark, 
even  though  the  fact  is  not  pleaded  by  the  defendant.  "If  it 
appears  from  the  record,  it  will  be  given  effect  notwithstanding  it 
has  not  been  pleaded.  The  theory  upon  which  this  is  done  is  that 
in  reality  it  is  not  a  matter  of  defense.  It  is  given  effect  to,  not 
on  defenilant's  account,  but  because  of  the  public."^'" 

The  sufiPiciency  of  the  plea  is  tested  by  setting  it  down  for 
argument  under  Equity  Rule  X^  on  which  argument  tiie  aver- 
ments of  the  plea  are  taken  as  true.^^ 

There  are  a  nuinl)er  of  lines  of  defense  which  have  been  ineffec- 
tive.    Among  them  are  to  be  particularly  noted  the  following: 

1.  Infancy. ^""'^ 

2.  The  registration  of  defendant's  mark,  because  registration 

is  oidy  prima  facie  evidence  of  ownership. ■'"'•♦ 


r>2 — Putnam  Nail  Co.  v.  Bennett, 
43  Fed.  Kep.  800;  Lowe  Bros.  Co. 
V.  Toledo  Varnish  Co.,  108  Fed.  Rep. 
627 ;  04  C.  C.  A.  83. 

5.3— Hostetter  Co.  v.  E.  O.  Lyons 
Co.,  00   Fed.  Rep.  734. 

54— Corhin  v.  E.  Taussip  &  Co.,  L32 
Fed.  Rep.  002:  Hypienie  Fleeced  L^n- 
derwear  Co.  v.  Way,  L33  Fed.  Rep. 
245. 

55— G.  t  C.  Merriam  Co.  v. 
Straus,  136  Fed.  Rep.  477. 


56 — ^Memphis  Keeley  Institute  v. 
Leslie  E.  Keeley  Co.,  84  C.  C.  A. 
112;    155  Fed.  Rep.  064.  074. 

57— W.  A.  Gaines  &  Co.  v.  Rock 
Springs  Dis.  Co..  170  Fed.  Rep.  544. 

;-,8_Chul)l)  V.  Grimths.  35  Reav. 
127. 

-,9_r;ien  Cove  Mf^'.  Co.  v.  Lud.l- 
inp.  22  Fed.  Rep.  823;  23  Blatchf. 
46;  Bass,  RatclifT  &  Gretton  (Ltd.) 
V.  Feifjenspan,  06  Fed.  Rep.  206, 
209,  212. 


s^  1921 


HOPKINS    ON    TKAI>K.MAHKS. 


44'J 


'A.  Laches  or  delay,  except  in  muisiuil  case.s/*" 

4.  Showing   tLat   dcrcndaiit    always    placetl    his   own    address 

upon  his  jj;oods,  in  conjunction  with  the  infcin^'-in^' mark."' 
r>.  Showinj;:  that  dercndant   iia.s  always  used  his  own  name  or 

initials   in  conjunction    with   the   inl'rinffing  mark.      This 

is   not.   ol"   itselt".   a   ^iooil   dd'cnse."- 

6.  Showing'   that    defendant    has  always  used  the   word  "Im- 

proved" in  addition  to  the  allef,'cMl  infringing  words."^ 

7.  Showing   that    tlie   defendant's   goods  are   not    inferior  in 

(piality  to  the  complainants.''^ 

8.  Showing  that  the  goods  sold  are  goods  nuide  by  the  com- 

plainant, if  they  are  goods  to  which  the  complainant  did 
not  intend  tlic  mark  to  he  applied.'"'^ 

9.  Showing  that  the  defendant  did  not  intend  to  sell  the  goods 

hearing  the  infringing  mark.*^" 


60— McLian  v.  FK-niiu-:.  W,  U.  S. 
245;  24  L.  Ed.  828;  Lii-  v.  Haley, 
L.  R.  5  Ch.  App.  1.")').  Sw  ante, 
§89. 

fil — Gray  v.  Tapcr-Slpi-vc  Pulley 
Works,  10  Fed.  K.-p.  43f)-442. 

02— Menendez  v.  Holt.  128  U.  S. 
.'■.21:  S2  L.  Ed.  r.2G;  Battle  v. 
Finlay.  .")0  Fed.  Rep.  100;  N. 
K.  Fairliank  Co.  v.  Central  Lard 
Co..  70  Off.  Gaz.  6.35;  64  Fed. 
H<{».  1. "?.■{;  Boardman  v.  ^Mcrideii 
Britannia  Co..  II.")  Conn.  402:  Hier 
V.  Ahraliams.  82  \.  Y.  r>10:  Fleiseli- 
mann  v.  Selmekmann,  02  How.  Pr. 
02;  Lea  v.  \V(dfT,  l.".  Al.l).  Pr.  N.  S. 
1;  Carroll  v.  Ertheiler,  1  Fed.  Rep. 
388;  Hepeman  v.  O'Byrne,  0  Daly, 
264;  Pratt's  Appeal,  117  Pa.  St. 
401 :  \Valt<T  Bak.T  &  Co.  v.  Baker. 
S7  Fed.  Hep.  200:  Bass.  RatelifT  & 
<^Ir<'tton  (Ltd.  I  v.  Fei<,'rns[>an,  flO 
Fed.  Rep.  206-210;  Leonar.l  v. 
\Vliite'8  Golden  Luliricator  Co.,  38 
Fed.  Rep.  1)22;  Gillott  v.  EHterhrook, 
47  Bar!).  45.");  Diinlap  4  Co.  v. 
Yoiin^',  74  N.  Y.  Suj.p.  184. 

6.3 — HiiHsia  (cmt-nt  Co.  v.  Le- 
page, 147  Manh.  206;   17  N.  E.  Rep. 


304;  Gage  v.  Canada  Pul).  Co.,  11 
Can.  S.  C.  R.  300;  Improved  Fig 
Syrup  Co.  v.  California  Fig  Syrup 
Co.,  ;-)4  Fed.  Hep.  175;  4  C.  C.  A. 
204. 

64 — Clev(dand  Stone  Co.  v.  Wal- 
lace, 52  Fed.  Rep.  431-436;  Taylor 
V.  Carpenter  (3),  11  Paige,  292; 
Coats  V.  Holbrook,  2  Sandf.  Ch. 
580;  Partrid-r*'  v.  Menck,  2  Sandf. 
Ch.  022;  Cook  v.  Starkweather,  13- 
AI)1>.  Pr.  X.  S.  3!)2;  Sliaver  v. 
Sliavcr,  54  Iowa.  20S ;  ColTeen  v. 
Brvinton.  5  MeLean.  250;  Gillott  v. 
Esterl)rook,  47  Barb.  455;  48  N.  Y. 
374;  Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Loog  (3), 
L.  R.  8  App.  Cas.  15;  Edelsten  v. 
Edelsten,  1  DeG.  J.  &  S.  185;  Blo- 
field  V.  Payne,  4  B.  &  Ad.  410. 

(55 — Krauss  v.  .Jos.  R.  Peebles' 
Sons  Co..  58  Fed.  Rep.  585;  Hen- 
n.ssy  V.  White,  0  W.  W.  &  A'B. 
I'i|.  21(!;  Ilennessy  v.  Hogan,  6  W. 
W.  &  A'B.  Eq.  225;  (;iIlott  v.  Ket- 
tle, 3  Duer,  624;  Hcnnessy  v.  Ken> 
nett.  Sel».  5.50. 

66 — Upmann  v.  FonsU-r,  L.  R. 
24  Cli.  I).  231;  Upmann  v.  Curry, 
29  Sol.  J.  735. 


443 


ACTION    IN    El.il'irY. 


[§1951 


10.  Showing   that   tlie   comi)luiiiaiil  's   mark    lias   b<*eii    uscil   by 

others  without  iiis  knowledge,  consent  or  accpiicseence,"" 
for  "a  trespasser  can  not  justify  upon  the  ground  that 
otliers  have  eommitted  like  trespasses.""** 

11.  Showing  that  the  same  mark  has  been  used  by  others  on 

goods  of  another  class."" 

12.  Showing  that  a  third  person  used  the  trademark  prior  to 

its  appropriation  by  the  complainant,  when  that  third 
person  has  l)een  refused  relief  in  e(iuity  against  infringers, 
^because  of  fraudulent  rei)resentations  inade  by  him  in 
using  the  mark.^" 

13.  Showing  that  the  infringing  act  Avas  done  bj'  the  defend- 

ant's servants,  agents  or  employes  Avithout  hi.s  knowl- 
edge'^ 

14.  Showing  that  defendant  partners  have  incorporated  after 

the  institution  of  the  suit.'^- 

15.  Showing  that  the  complainant  gave  the  defendant  no  notice 

of  his  intention  to  bring  suit.'^^ 


07 — Cuervo  v.  Jacob  Ilcnkell  Co., 
50  Fed.  Rep.  471;  Filley  v.  Fassett, 
44  Mo.  173;  Cox,  530;  Taylor  v. 
Carpenter  (1),  3  Story,  458;  Co.\. 
14;  Seb.  78;  Ford  v.  Foster,  L.  R. 
7  Ch.  App.  611. 

68— Actieiifjesellschaft  Vereinigte 
Ultramarin-Fabriken  v.  Amberg,  48 
C.  C.  A.  264;  109  Fed.  Rep.  151. 
Reversing  same  v.  same,  102  Fed. 
Rep.  551. 

69— Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cellon- 
ite  Mfg.  Co.,  32  Fed.  Rep.  94;  Col- 
man  v.  Crump,  70  N.  Y.  573;  Hege- 
man  v.  O'Byrne.  0  Daly,  264 ;  Somer- 
ville  V.  Scliembri,  L.  R.  12  App.  Cas. 
453-457 ;  Ainsworth  v.  Walrasley,  L. 
R.  1  Eq.  518;  Hall  v.  Barrows,  4 
DeG.  J.  &  S.  150;  George  v.  Smith, 
52  Fed.  Rep.  830. 

70 — Parlett  v.  Guggenheimer,  67 
Md.  542-.544.  The  rights  of  the 
tliird  party  had  been  so  adjudicated 
in  Palmer  v.  Harris,  60  Pa.  St. 
156. 


71— Low  v.  Hart,  90  N.  Y.  457; 
Twentsche  Stoom  Bleekery  Goor  v. 
Ellingcr,  26  W.  R.  70;  Tonge  v. 
Ward,  21  L.  T.  N.  S.  480;  Atkin- 
son V.  Atkinson,  85  L.  T.  Jour. 
229.  But  see  Leahy  v.  Glover,  10 
R.  P.  C.  141,  where  a  single  sale 
by  defendant's  clerk  was  held  in- 
sufficient to  warrant  injunction. 

72 — American  Fibre  Chamois  Co. 
v.  De  Lee,  67  Fed.  Rep.  329. 

73— Coats  V.  Holbrook,  2  Sandf. 
Ch.  586;  Cox,  20;  Sawyer  v.  Kel- 
logg, 9  Fed.  Rep.  601-602;  Upmann 
V.  Forester,  L.  R.  24  Ch.  D.  231- 
235;  Cartmell,  331;  Upmann  v.  El- 
kan,  L.  R.  12  Eq.  140;  L.  R.  7  Ch. 
App.  130;  Burgess  v.  Hately,  26 
Beav.  249;  Seb.  169;  Field  v.  Lew- 
is, Seton  (4th  ed.),  237;  Seb.  280; 
In  re  Kuhn,  53  L.  J.  Ch.  238;  Bar- 
rett v.  Goom,  74  L.  T.  Jour.  388; 
Fennessy  v.  Day,  55  L.  T.  N.  S.  161 : 
Siegert  v.  Lawrence,  11  Vic.  L.  R. 
47.     See,  contra,  Wallis  v.   Wallis, 


§  19^1 


IlOl'KINS    l)N    TKADKMAKKij. 


444 


It).  Showing'  that  a  proper  iiaiiK'  allc^'fcl  to  lie  an  infringement 
is  the  lumu'  of  a  person  eonneeted  witli  (lelendant 's  l)usi- 
ness,  when  in  tact  sm-li  poi*son  hius  only  given  defendant 
permission  to  use  his  name  as  a  means  of  attracting  trade 
from  tlie  coniphiinant,  in  pnrsnanee  of  ch'fendant's  scheme 
to  fnuululently  take  away  comphiinant's  hnsiness/-* 

17.  Showing  that  plaintitV  has  added  wortls,  figures  or  de.sigiis, 

such  as  a  coat-of-arms.  to  the  trademark  as  registered."''^ 

18.  Shmving  that  the  complainant's  trademark  or  package  is 

only  partially  copied  or  imitated  in  defendant's  mark  or 
liackage."'"' 
As   liy   the  use  (»f  hut   one  of  several   words  composing  the 
plaint ilT's  mark.'' 

"The  rejiorts  are  full  of  cases  where  bills  have  been  sus- 
tained for  the  infringement  of  oiu'  of  several  words  of  a  trade- 
mark." ''^ 

19.  Showing    that    complainant    has    been    guilty    of    misrep- 

resentation in  connection  with  his  iise  of  the  trade  mark, 


4  Dr.  458 ;  Twentscho  Stoom  Blcck- 
ery  (Joor  v.  EUin^riT.  2Vt  \\.  K.  70; 
C'liapjull  V.  Davidson,  2  K.  &  J. 
123;  Williams  v.  Oshornc,  13  L.  T. 
N.  S.  498;  Gorham  Mf},'.  Co.  v. 
Emcry-Bird-TliaytT  Dry  Goods  Co., 
02  Fed.  Rt'p.  774-778. 

74 — Sa\vy«'r  v.  Kcllopfj:,  7  Fod. 
J\op.  720;  Price  &  Stciiart,  403;  0 
F<>d.  R«'p.  (!01 ;  Rofi.Ts  Mff,'.  Co.  v. 
Rofrcrs  Mf^'.  Co.,  11  Fed.  R<>p.  40.'); 
Williams  v.  Brooks,  nO  Coiui.  278; 
Mi'ridon  Britannia  Co.  v.  Parkor, 
39  Conn.  450;  12  Am.  Rep.  401; 
Garrett  v.  T.  TI.  Garrett  &  Co.,  24 
C.  C.  A.  173;  78  Fed.  Rep.  472;  Plia- 
lon  V.  Wright,  ■)  Pliila.  4fi4;  Cox. 
307;  Wolfe  v.  Barnett,  24  La.  Ann. 
97;  13  Am.  Rep.  Ill;  Melachrino  '•. 
Melaclirino  Ci>;aretto  Co.,  4  R.  P. 
C.  215;  Cartmell.  223;  Perks  v. 
Hall,  W.  N.  1881.  p.  Ill;  Williams 
V.  Johnson,  2  Bos.   1. 

?.'">— Melaehrint)  v.  Melachrino 
Ciparette  Co..  4  R.  P.  C.  215;  Cart- 
mell,  223;    Newman    v.    Pinto,   4    R. 


P.  C.  .")0S;  57  L.  T.  X.  S.  31;  Cart- 
mell, 242;  Carroll  v.  Krtheiler,  1 
Fed.   Rep.  OSS-CO  1. 

70 — McCann  v.  Anthony,  21  Mo. 
App.  83;  Enoch  Morjran's  Sons  Co. 
V.  Elder,  Cox.  Manual,  714;  Taend- 
sticksfahriks  Aktieholapot  Vulcan 
V.  I^Iyers,  130  N.  Y.  3G4 ;  Pillshury 
V.  Pillsl.ury-Washlmrn  Mills  Co.,  12 
C.  C.  A.  432;  04  Fed.  Rep.  841; 
Centaur  Co.  v.  Killenl)erp'r,  87  Fed. 
Rep.    725. 

77 — Saxlelmer  v.  llismr  &  Men- 
delson  Co.  (3),  170  V.  S.  10-33;  45 
L.  Ed.  00. 

7S — Mr.  .lustice  Brown  in  Sax- 
lelmer V.  Eisner  &  Meiidelson  Co., 
170  V.  S.  10.  33;  45  L.  Ed.  00; 
citinj,'  Shrimpton  v.  T..ai;;ht. 
18  Beav.  104;  Clement  v.  Mad- 
dick.  1  CilT.  08;  Hostetter  v. 
Vowinkle.  1  Dill.  320:  Fed.  Cas. 
Xo.  0.714;  Morse  v.  Worrell.  10 
Phila.  108;  0  Am.  T-.  Rev.  308; 
r;rillon  V.  C.uenin,  Weekly  NotoH 
(1877),   14;   American   Grocer   Pub. 


44;j  ACTION    IN    Kt^llTV.  [§11^- 

whero  lluil  iiiisrepresentat  ion  consists  only  In  liarmless 
oxaggcration  of  the  nicrils  of  his  product  (|)ulTin;;)  ;  "^^ 
or  in  pnn^ly  collatc^ral  n'i)rosontation.  as  ])v  ncwspapor 
advert ising ; '^"  oi'  in  r<^{;ard  to  the  size  of  paeka}2:('s  used 
by  liim,  where  the  sizes  of  those  packages  are  the  ordi- 
nary sizes  known  to  the  trade,  the  capacity  of  which 
is  generally  understood/' 
"Mere  extravagance  in  advertising  is  not  such  fraud  as 
deprives  a  complainant  of  all  remedy.  "^- 

Gencrally,  as  to  the  defense  that  the  comi)lainant  has  been 
guilty  of  misrepresentation.  Judge  Sanborn  lias  said  "the  prin- 
ciple 'that  he  who  comes  into  ecpiity  must  do  so  with  clean 
iuinds'  is  familiar  and  indisjiutable.  But  it  does  not  repel 
all  sinners  from  courts  of  ecjuity,  nor  docs  it  dis(iualify  any 
complainant  from  obtaining  relief  there  who  has  not  dealt 
unjustly  in  the  very  transaction  concerning  which  he  com- 
plains. The  iniquity  which  will  repel  him  must  have  an  imme- 
diate and  necessary  relation  to  the  equity  for  which  he  sues."  **-^ 
Thus,  the  use  of  the  word  "co])yright"  in  connection  with  a 
tradename  when  no  copyright  actually  exists,  has  been  held 
not  to  disentitle  the  owner  from  relief  in  equity,**^  and  so  of 
statements  of  oi)inion  concerning  the  curative  properties  of 
a  medicinal  compound  to  which  the  trademark  is  applied.*^ 
But  the  statement  on  the  label  of  a  small-pox  remedy,  "cures 
the  worst  cases  without  marking,"  is  sufficient  to  disentitle 
the  complainant  from  relief.^^ 

Asso.   V.   GrociT   Pub.   Co.,   2.")   Ilun,  82 — Pvay.  J.,  in   K.  &  .1.  Burke  v. 

398.  Bisliop.  17')  Fed.  Ki-p.  167,  175. 

7!)— Comstock  v.   White,   18   How.  S;i— Shaver   v.   Heller  &   Mer;-.  Co., 

Pr.  421;  Cox,  2.32;  Metzler  v.  \A'ood,  4S  C.   C.  A.  48;    lOS   Fed.   Rep.  821, 

L.  R.  8  Ch.  D.  fiOG;   Seb.  r)87 ;   Hoi-  834.       Citing     Dering     v.     Earl     of 

loway   V.    Holloway,    13   Beav.   209;  Winchelsea.    1    Cox.    Ch.    318,    319; 

Seb.  106;  Ellis  v.  Zoilen,  42  Ga.  91;  Lfwis   and   Nelson's    Appeal.   67   Pa. 

Johnson    &    Johnson    v.    Seabury    &,  I  •">.{.    KKi :    Batenian    v.    Fargason.   4 

Johnson,  71  X.   J.  Eq.   TfiO;    67  Atl.  Fed.     Kej).    32,    33.       To    the     same 

Rep.    3().  <'ircet    see    Frazier    v.    Dowling,    18 

80— Curtis  V.  Bryan.  36  How.  Pr.  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1109;  39  S.  \V.  Rep.  4."). 

33;    2    Daly,    212;    Cox",    434;    Seb.  84— Wormser    v.    Shayne,    11    111. 

291.  Ajip.  .1.56. 

81 — Hennessy      v.      Wheeler.      51  8.") — Xewbro  v.  I'ndel<ind,  69  Xeb. 

How.  Pr.  457;  69  X\  Y.  271 ;  15  Alb.  821 :  96  X.  W.  Rep.  635. 

L.  J.  454;   Seb.  483.  86 — Houehens     v.     Houehens.     95 

Md.  37;   51  Atl.  Rep.  822. 


§  192]  HOI'KINS    (».N     rKAHl.M.KKS,  446 

In  a  lati'  case  .I\iilj:<'  P.iowii  lias  said  "tin-  dt't'cnsi'  of  tiiiclcaii 
haiuls,  to  avail,  iniist  he  Itast-d  upon  foiiditioiis  cxiKtiiiij;  at  the 
linu'  wht'ii  flu*  party  applirs  for  ('(putahlc  relief;"  and  li-ld 
that  a  diseontiiuianee  of  tin*  misrepresentations  formerly  con- 
tained in  a  lal)«'l  was  an  answer  to  the  defense  of  uneleun 
hands.^'  A  false  eopyrijzld  imprint  in  an  almanac  lias  been 
lieKl  not  to  disentitle  its  i)nl)lisher  from  relief  in  ('(piity.'"'  as 
lias  also  been  held  of  the  representation  '"made  by  ns."' 
tlionfrb  not  trne  in  fact.^" 

So  wliere  complainant  itad  been  a  niannfaetnr«'r  niub'r  an 
expired  patent,  and  was  the  owiiei-  of  a  subsisting  patent,  it 
wjus  pnilty  of  "nnclean  liands"  in  marking  the  ilate  of  the 
later  patent  npon  devices  niaib!  nmler  the  expired  patent,  and 
that  such  marking  was  done  under  the  advice  of  counsel  was 
immaterial."'^ 

For  a  creamery  butter  company  to  permit  a  customer  to 
use  its  wrappei's  on  a  spurious  butter  is  fraud  disentitling  it 
to  relief  in  ecpiity.'"  The  misreprest'utation  may  be  in  the  name 
claimed  as  trademark  itself."- 

I'ndfon  hands. — The  general  e(|uity  doctrine  as  to  unclean 
hands  is  thus  staled  in  the  leading  case:  "When  the  owner 
of  a  trademark  applies  foi-  an  injunction  to  restrain  the  defend- 
ant from  injuring  his  projjerty  by  nuiking  false  rei>resentations 
to  the  public,  it  is  essential  that  the  plaintitV  shoidd  not.  in 
liis  tradenuirk  or  in  his  advertisements  and  business,  be  him- 
self guilty  of  any  false  or  misleading  representation,  and  if 
he  makes  any  material  false  statement  in  connection  with  the 
property  which  he  seeks  to  protect,  he  loses  his  right  to  claim 
the  a.ssistance  of  a   court   of  ctpiity.""^      Hut    where   tln^   mi.s- 

87— Moxif     N<'rv»'     Food     Co.     v.  Hmil^r.   T'.    NM.r.    42tl;    1(10   N.    W. 

Modox  Co.    (2 1,   \r,:i   Fed.   H.p.  487.  INp.   .')().-.. 

4H!t.      To   tlic   HHine   elFfct   hci-   .IoIim-  !t0 — drecni'.  'I'wrcd  &  Co.  v.  Mimu- 

hon  i  .Johnson   v.  Si-nldirv  <)i    .Joliii-  iiutiin  rs'    jiilt    Iio..k    Co..    1">S    Fed. 

Hon.    «1    Atl.    Hep.    .");    (ill    N.    .1.    K.|.  It.p.    C^O. 

On«;    B.   p.,    07    Atl.    Rep.    :MI.    71    X  !tl— (a  K  t  r  ..  \  i  1  I   •   Co-oporiitiv,- 

.1.   Kt\.  7'»();   Bc-eclinm  v.  .Jacnlm.   l.'>'.t  Cn-amiry    Co.    v.    C<d,    ('.    Cai.    App. 

F.-d.   Kip.   12{»;   H(l  C.  C.  A.  JIJ.J.  •'•.■{:»;    ni   I'ac.    R.-p.    (MS. 

KH— flnilMT      Almaiunk      Co.      v.  !I2— .New  York  4  N«'W  .TiTm-y  Lul)- 

S\vin!ii<y.   la.J  Mil.  .■{(■.2:  (!.'l  Atl.  Rrp.  riiant    Co.    v.    Yoiiii;;,    77    \.   .1.    Fq. 

r.Hi.  .\2]  ;    77    At!.   .M-t. 

go — Hef,'«-iit      SIkm-      Mf^'.      Co.      V.  1)3— Mr     .In-t  ii  .•   Sliims  in  W  ..r.l.  ii 


447  ACTION   IN    i.i^inv.  I  §192 

njpivsciiilatioii  is  iiol  a  pari  of  tlic  mark  itsttll".  hiil  is  coiilaiiud 
solely  ill  tlic  plaiiililV's  ail  vert  isin^,',  alllioii{;li  lliat  inallcr  Ix- 
a(lju(l«rc(l  so  untrue  or  misleatliuj?  as  to  r(!(juirc  the  l)ill  to  h.; 
(lisiiiisscti,  llif  i)('tt(!r  practice  now  olitaiiiiiit,'  '^  1<»  ^'ivc  tiu; 
j)laintitT  a  locus  jx  nih  nliac  by  iiiakiuj,'  the  tIccnM!  of  dismissal 
without  prejudice  to  the  plaintiff's  rifjlit  to  fil<-  a  m-w  iiill 
when  he  can  show  that  lie  has  ahaiidoiicd  the  iiiit  nithriil  adv(  r- 
tisinj:!:."'" 

Misrepresentations  of  prodnnr's  idmlih/  or  loadiitj  as 
"unclean  hands." — As  we  have  seen  elscnvhcn^  (anlc.  §39), 
what  is  or  is  not  sucli  a  misrepresentation  as  will  disentitle 
the  parly  makin<;  it  from  relief  in  e(iuity  is  sometiuK's  difTicuIt 
of  decision.  One  who  continues  to  represent  the  dead  founder 
of  his  business  as  living  is  under  tlu;  ban  of  the  rul(^'"  as  is 
one  who  uses  the  (ixpression  "manufactured  in  Ireland,  liy  11. 
M.  Royal  Letters  Patent"  concei-iiin<r  his  club  soda  made  by 
unpatented  machinery.'''  Tin;  expression  "tlie  old  and  original 
firm,"  used  by  one  who  l)ought  tlu^  business  of  the  bankrupt 
concern  from  its  ]i([ui(lator,  led  Farwell.  J.,  to  say:  "That 
appears  to  me  to  be  a  material  misrepresentation  •  *  *  suffi- 
cient  to  di.sentitle    (plaintiff)    to  any  injunction."'""' 

r.sT  of  the  word  "  tradimarh"  as  a  misrepresentation  disen- 
titling the  user  from  relief  in  equity. — That  a  mark  used  upon  on 
unpatented  article  and  accompanied  by  the  words  "patent" 
or  "patented"  is  thereby  deprived  of  trademark  quality  was 
determined  by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  a  case  in 
which  it  lai.I  down  the  general  doctrine;  "a  symbol  or  label 
claimed  as  a  trademark,  so  constituted  or  worded  as  to  nuike 
or  contain  a  distinct  assertion  wdiich  is  false,  will  not  be  recog- 
nized, nor  can  any  right  to  its  exclusive  use  be  maintained.""^ 

V.  California   Vh^  Syrup  Co.,  1S7   V.  n4— Siegert     v.     .\l.lK)tt,    C.l     Md. 

S.   ;-)](;;    47.  L.    K(l.  282;    followed   in  276;    Hazlett   v.    I'ollaok  Sto<;ic  Co., 

Channfll  Chpm.  Co.   v.   E.   W.   Hay-  11.5  C.  C.  A.  .30;    in.")  IVd.   Rep.  2R. 

den  Co.,  222  Fod.   Rep.   102.  O.')— Cociirano  v.  MacXi.sh   i   Son, 

n.3«— \V.  A.  C.uin.-s  &   Co.  v.   Tur-  1.',   R.  P.  C.    100. 

ner-Lookcr    Co..    12.{    C.    C.    A.    70;  !•(!- Croppor     ^lincrva     Machinr-i 

204   Fod.  Rep.  ."):5:} ;  Diamond   Crystal  Co.    (Ltd.)    v.   Cropper.   Ciiarlton    A 

Salt  Co.  V.  ^Vore(•8tt•r  Salt  Co..   l;}?  Co.,  2.1  R.  P.  C.  .'iSS,  :]!M. 

C.   C.   A.    1(5,   17;    221    Fed.   Rep.   Cf,.  f»7— Hol/apfel's    Co.    v.    Ralitjen^ 

<'>7-  (  <).,  IS.-?   V    S.    1;   40  L.  Ed.  40;  22 

Sup.  Ct.  G. 


§  1921 


HOPKINS    l)N    TH ADI.M  \I{K 


448 


Where  a  tradoinaik  as  i-c^'istcrcil  «'()Msi.st('il  of  a  dosign  with- 
out wording,  and  in  use  the  word  "Xotast>ine"  was  phieed 
tliereon — '*Notas<'Xue"  haviu}?  been  refused  rei^istralion  by  the 
Patent  Offiee  on  aeeount  of  its  allejjed  deseriptive  eharacter — 
and  tlie  words  "Trade-Mai'k"  imprinted  upon  the  design, 
with  the  statutory  imprint  "Kej;.  l'.  S.  Tat.  OlT."  under- 
neath the  desi^rn,  .lud^'e  Hazel  dismissed  a  bill  for  infrinjifement 
and  unfair  eompetition,  saying  "to  merely  display  the  word 
"Xotasenu^"  on  the  face  of  th(^  design  would  not  discjititle 
the  complainant  to  relief,  but  the  addition  of  the  words 
"Trade-Mark,"  ])rinted  on  the  flourished  ending  of  the  script, 
'«a<.  I  think,  a  material  niisrepn-scntation."  "*• 

20.  Showing  that   the  infringement  has  ceased."" 

21.  Showing   that    the   com])laiiiant   has   made  a    third   jiarty 

his  licensee  for  the  territory  in  whicli  the  iMfringcment 
was  committed.^ 

22.  Showing  that  the  defendant  lias  made  no  sales  of  goods 

bearing  the  infringing  nuirk.  where  it  appears  that  he 

would  have  done  so  had  the  suit  not  been  instituted. - 

"Proof  of  injury   is  unnecessary   if  tlic  evidence  establish 

the  fact  that  injury  will  result  unless  such  use  (of  the  infring- 


98 — \  o  t  a  9  I'  m  e  Hosiery  Co.  v. 
Straus.  2:n  Fed.  Rip.  24.},  24."); 
aflirnifd  in  Straus  v.  Notasom" 
Hosiery  Co..  240  U.  S.  170;  60  L. 
Kd.  — ;  30  Sup.  Ct.  288.  For  the 
intermediate  proeeedinps  see  201 
Fed.  Hep.  00;  110  C.  C.  A.  134; 
200  Fed.  Rep.  495;  215  Fed.  Rep. 
301;    131   C.   C.   A.    503. 

09 — Freso  v.  Baehof,  Fed.  Case 
No.  5110;  13  Bhitehf.  234;  Burnett 
V.  Halm,  88  F.  d.  Hep.  004;  Iluteli- 
inson  v.  Bluml)ertr,  51  Fed.  Hep. 
fi29-831;  Clark  Thread  Co.  v.  Wni. 
Clark  Co  (1),  55  N.  J  Ko.  058;  37 
Atl.  Rep.  599.  Conirn,  we  iirennan 
V.  EmeryBird-Tliaye:  Dry  Gtwds 
Co..  09  Fed.  Rep.  971.  wliich  can  not 
)«•  reifaroen  aH  o(  authority.  For  a 
very   proper  exception    to    the    ruh-. 


under  peculiar  facts,  »«■«  Van  Haalt 
V.  Schneck,  150  Fed.  Rep.  248. 
Tliomas  G.  Plant  Co.  v.  May  Merc. 
Co.,   153  Fed.   Hep.  220. 

Diseontinuance  1>y  the  defendant, 
two  years  In-fore  tli<'  hill  was  filed, 
•  f  the  simulated  m.irkinys,  was  held 
in  tlie  ei^^htli  circuit  to  1h'  ground 
for  rcfusin*,'  injunction,  in  a  case 
U't  involving;  a  ti'chnical  tradi-mark. 
Fer;:uson-MeKinney  Dry  Hoods  Co. 
V.  J.  A.  Seriven  Co..  105  Fed.  Rep. 
(•..■.5;  01  C.  C.  A.  401.  To  the  same 
elTeet.  C.  W.  J.  Murpliy  Co.  v.  Metal 
Stamping    Co.,    214    Fed.    Rep.    382. 

1  —  Mo.\ie  .Nerve  Food  tO.  v. 
Baumhach,  32  Fed.   Hep.  205. 

2 — Cuervo  V.  Landauer,  03  Fed. 
Hep.  1003;  McLean  v.  Fleming  00 
T'.   S.   252;    24  L.   Ed.   828. 


449 


ACTION    l.\    Kt^iirV 


§192 


iiig    mark  I    will    Ix'    I'csl rained. "  •'      "Tln"    ijifriiigoment    of  a 

trademark  iinj)li('s  injury."  ' 

2."{.  Showiiif;  that  the  dcfciidanl   is  iiH-rt:ly  a  dealer  who  has 

j)ureha.sed    from    the    originator    of    the    infriii*;ement,-'' 

or  merely  the  a^'eiil  of  anolhei'  in  the  sale  of  the  infrini^- 

inj;  ^oods.'' 

Altlioujrh    a   dealer   may    eseajx'   injnnet ion    where   it   would 

be  jrranted   airainst    the   manufacturer,   in  exceptional  cases. '' 

24.  Showin<r   that    the    defendant   once   held    a    license   from 

tiie  i>laintilT,  permitting  the  use  of  the  mark,  wlien  that 
license  has  been  revoked  for  failure  to  i)ay  royalties 
and  otlier  bi'caehcs  of  the  licensing  contract.** 

25.  Showing    that    there    has   been    an    adjudication    against 

the  ])laintiiT  in  a  court  of  a  foreign  country.  The  sub- 
ject-matter, in  cases  of  the  classes  treated  in  this  work, 
is  a  tort.  Such  subjects  are  not  concluded  by  foreign 
adjudications,  even  Avhen  the  acts  referred  to  are  the 
same   identical  acts.'-* 

26.  Showing   that   the  defendant   was  insane   at  the  time  of 

the   commission   of   the    infringing   acts.'" 

27.  Showing  tlie  defendant's  innocence  of  guilty  knowledge 

or  fraudulent  intent.' ' 

28.  Showing  that   defendant   has  used   i)laintiff's  mark  only 

in  connection  with  matter  explanatory  of  its  use  (as 
where  the  plaintiff  marked  his   goods  "Akron  Dental 


.3 — Maddox,  J.,  in  Brown  v. 
Braunstt'in.  S:5   X.  Y.  Siii)p.   109(1. 

4 — Thomas,  .T..  in  Lanahan  v. 
Jolin   Kissel   \-    Son.,   135   Fed.   Rep. 

5— Hurnett  v.  Ilaliii  SS  Fed.  Rop. 
(;04. 

(i— Walter  Baker  &  Co.  v.  San- 
ders, SO  Fed.  Rep.  8S!t:  2(i  C.  C.  A. 
220. 

7— Billiken  Co.  v.  Baker  &  Bennct 
Co.,  174  Fed.  Rep.  820. 

8 — Martha  \Vashin<rton  Cream- 
ery Buttered  Flonr  Co.  v.  Martien, 
44    Fed.  Rep.   47:5. 

0— Hohner  v.  Gratz,  "lO  Fed.  Rep. 
."UiO ;  City  of  Carlshad  v.  Kiitnow, 
()8    Fed.    Rep.    704. 


10 — Avery  v.  Wilson,  20  Fed. 
Rep.    806. 

11 — Saxlehner  v.  Siegel-Cooper 
Co.,  170  r.  S.  42;  4.'')  L.  Ed.  77: 
Colman  v.  Crump,  70  X.  Y. 
r)73;  Taendsticks-fahriks  Aktii-- 
Itolapet  \'uloan  v.  Myers,  130 
X.  Y.  3(54;  34  X.  E.  Rep.  004; 
Re<.MS  V.  J.  A.  Jaynos  &  Co.,  18.") 
Mass.  4.58;  70  X.  E.  Rep.  480; 
affirmed,  101  Mass.  245;  77  X'.  E. 
Rep.  774;  Day  v.  Webster,  40  X.  Y. 
Supp.  314;  23  App.  Div.  GOl ;  E.  P. 
Dutton  &  Co.  V.  Cupples,  102  X.  Y. 
Supp.  300;  Eaple  White  Load  Co.  v. 
Pflufrh.  180  PVd.  Rep.  570,  583. 


§  192]  HOPKINS    ox    TRADEMARKS.  450 

Rubber"  and  dofeiulant  marked  his  as  "Non-Secret 
Dental  Vidoanito.  made  accordin*^  to  our  analysis  of 
the  Akron  Dental  Rubber,"  the  words  "Akron  Den- 
tal Rubber"  beiii}?  i)rinted  in  red,  from  large  type), 
where  the  added  matter  is  a  mere  evasive  attempt  to 
hide  the  similarity. '- 

29.  Showing  that  the  plaintiff  is  a   party  to  a  combination 

in  restraint  of  trade.'-'  "It  does  not  tend  to  foster 
monopoly  to  sustain  the  right,  if  one  has  acquired  it, 
to  the  exclusive  use  of  a  trademark.''  '^ 

30.  Showing  that  the  plaintiff  is  a  foreign  corporation  which 

has  failed  to  comply  with  the  foreign  corporation  law 
of  the  state  in  Avhich  the  infringement  occurred.''^ 

31.  Showing  that  defendant  did  the  alleged  infringing  acts 

under  the  advice  of  counsel.  This  would  ajipear  self- 
evident.  Such  a  defense  was  disposed  of  by  the  Mas- 
sachusetts Supreme  Judicial  Court  as  ineffective  where  it 
appeared  that  all  the  material  facts  had  not  been  dis- 
closed to  counsel.^" 

32.  Showing,  in  the  case  of  a  mark  composed  of  single  letters, 

that  the  peculiar  arrangement  of  the  complainant  is 
not  followed  by  the  defendant.  Thus  [MF]  has  been 
held  to  be  infringed  by  M.  F.  II.'^ 

33.  Showing  that  the  mark  is  used  upon  a  medicine  which 

is  harmful,  where  it  appears  that  it  is  injurious  only 
if  taken  in  excessive  quantities.'^ 

34.  Showing  that  there  has  been  no  actual  conflict  of  trade 

and  so  no  present  injury,  if  there  is  a  threat  or  cer- 
tainty of  future  injury.'^ 

12 — Kollor  V.  B.  F.  Goodricli  Co.,  1.") — Consolidated    Ice    Co.   v.   Hy- 

117    Tnd.    .'i.^ifi;    19   N.    E.    Rep.    196.  -,'(Ma   Distilled   Water  Co.,  80  C.   C. 

13— General    Electric    Co.    v.    Re-  A.  500;    151    Fed.   Rep.    10. 

new  Lamp  Co.,    128  Fed.   Rep.    154,  16— Nelson  v.  .T.  H.  Winchell  &  Co., 

156;   R.  J.  Reynolds  Tobacco  Co.  v.  20.3   Mass.   75;    89   N".   E.    Rep.    180, 

Allen   Bros.   Tobacco   Co.,    151    Fed.  187. 

Rep.  819.  17 — American    Tin    Plate    Co.    v. 

14_r.ray,  J.,  in  Ind.jK  iidcnt  Bak-  Liekin-,'    Roller    Alill    Co.,    1.58    Fed. 

in^r    Powder    Co.    v.    Boorman,     1.30  Rep.  690. 

Fed.  Rep.  726;  Northwestern  Consl.  18 — Tlieodore      Hectanus     Co.     v. 

Mill  Co.  V.  Wm.  Callan  &  Son,  177  TTnited  Druf,'  Co.,  141  C.  C.  A.  301; 

Fed.   Rep.  786;   Fontipia  Limited  v.  226   Fed.    Rep.   545,  548. 

Bradley,  171  Fed.  Rep.  951,  959.  19— /6id,  at  p.  549. 


451 


ACTION    IN    EQUITY. 


[§  193 


35.  Showing   tliat   defendant's   product   is    liaud-iHiade,    where 
the  plaintiff's  is  machine-made.^*' 

§  193.  The  relief  in  equity. — In  regard  to  making  an  appli- 
cation for  a  preliiiiiiiary  injunction  in  ta.scs  of  unfair  trade 
or  trademark  infringement,  it  should  be  remembered  that 
wherever  there  is  any  doubt  as  to  the  plaintiff's  right  or  the 
defendant's  infringement,  the  application  pendente  lite  will 
be  denied.2i  Accordingly,  the  courts  have  refused  to  grant 
the  preliminary  injunction  where  it  appeared  probable  that 
the  plaintiff  had  never  acquired  the  exclusive  right  to  use 
the  mark,22  but  held  it  as  a  tenant  in  common  with  another;  2'* 
where  there  existed  a  doubt  whether  the  words  claimed  as 
trademarks  by  the  plaintiff  ("Pile  Leclancha"  and  "Dis- 
que,"  applied  to  electric  batteries)  were  or  were  not  merely 
descriptive  words ;  ^^  where  the  facts  indicated  that  the  com- 


20 — German-American  Button 
Co.  V.  Heymsfeld,  Inc.,  156  N.  Y. 
S.  223. 

21 — "An  interlocutory  injunction 
operates  somewhat  in  the  nature  of 
judf^ment  and  execution  before 
trial.  Without  quection  it  is  at 
times  an  appropriate  remedy  in  the 
prevention  of  great  wrong,  but  to 
authorize  its  issuance  there  must 
exist  a  pressing  necessity.  The 
right  to  it  must  be  clear,  and  the 
apprehended  injury  must  be  griev- 
ous, and  generally,  where  the  in- 
jury may  be  measured  in  money, 
the  alleged  wrong-doer  should  be 
shown  to  be  unable  pecuniarily  to 
respond."  Jenkins,  J.,  in  American 
Cereal  Co.  v.  Eli  Pettijohn  Cereal 
Co.  (2),  22  C.  C.  A.  236;  76  Fed. 
Rep.  372-374.  To  the  same  effect, 
see  Smith-Dixon  Co.  v.  Stevens,  100 
Md.  110;  59  Atl.  Rep.  401;  E.  T. 
rair])anks  &  Co.  v.  Des  Moines  Scale 
&  Mfg.  Co.,  96  Fed.  Rep.  972. 

In  refusing  to  grant  a  prelimi- 
nary injunction  Mr.  Justice  Bradky, 
on  circuit,  said;   "My  great  reluc- 


tance to  grant  a  preliminary  in- 
junction for  suppressing  the  use 
of  a  business  name  or  trademark, 
in  any  case  in  which  the  matter 
in  issue  is  a  subject  for  fair  dis- 
cussion, induces  me  to  withhold 
the  order."  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Cellonite  Mfg.  Co.,  32  Fed.  Rep. 
04-102.  And  to  the  same  effect  see 
Van  Camp  Packing  Co.  v.  Cruik- 
shanks  Bros.  Co.,  90  Fed.  Rep.  814; 
33  C.  C.  A.  280;  Charles  E.  Hires 
Co.  V.  Consumers'  Co.,  41  C.  C.  A. 
71;  100  Fed.  Rep.  809,  813;  Gold- 
stein V.  Whelan,  62  Fed.  tiep.   124. 

22 — Societe  des  Huiles  D'Olive  de 
Nice  v.  Rorke,  31  N.  Y.   Supp.  51. 

23 — American  Cereal  Co.  v.  Eli 
Pettijohn  Cereal  Co.,  76  Fed.  Rep. 
372;  22  C.  C.  A.  236. 

24 — Laclancha  Battery  Co.  v. 
Western  Electric  Co.,  21  Fed.  Rep. 
538.  Same  of  "air-cell"  and  "fire- 
board"  applied  to  fire-proofing  ma- 
terial. New  York  Asbestos  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Amber  Asbestos  Air-cell  Cov- 
ering Co.,  99  Fed.  Rep.  85,  affirmed 
43  C.  C.  A.  46;   102  Fed.  Rep.  890. 


§193] 


HOPKINS    ON    TliAPKM  AUKS. 


452 


l)laiMant  was  possibly  j/iiilty  of  ladies ; '-*'•  and  whore  tlu» 
tlcfoiulaiit  s  aflldavits  created  a  doul)!  in  the  mind  of  the  eourt 
as  to  whether  the  jtlaintilT  had  heen  the  extdusive  user  of  the 
symbols  claimed  liy  him  as  his  trath-niarU.-''  A  preliminary 
injunetion  will  not  be  awarded  (»n  <./•  jKirli  allidavits  unless 
in  a  elear  ease.-'  j)artieularly  w  liere  the  defendant  is  linuii- 
eially  able  to  resj)ond  for  dama{res,-^  or  where  there  is  a 
probability  that  the  eomplainant  has  been  guilty  of  misrep- 
resentations whieh  would  disentitle  him  to  relief  in  eciuity.^" 
A  mandatory  injunetion  pending  the  siiit  is  not  <rranted  except 
in  extreme  eases  where  the  ri<;ht  thereto  is  elearly  (stal)lished 
and  it  aj^pears  that  irreparable  injury  will  follow  from  its 
refusal.""' 

So  when  the  eourt  lias  reason  to  doubt  that  the  defend- 
ant has  been  puilty  of  acts  amountinpr  to  an  invasion  of  the 
plaintiff's  trade  riphts,  a  preliminary  injunction  will  not  be 
issued.'"  But  while  refusing  the  interlocutory  injunetion,  the 
eourt  may,  in  its  discretion,  recpiire  the  defendant  to  keep 
an  account,  pending  the  suit,  of  all  his  dealings  in  goods  bear- 
ing the  alleged  infringing  mark ;  as  Judge  Treat  said  in  mak- 
ing such  an  order:  "It  will  not  hurt  him  to  keep  an 
account."  "•- 

On  a  motion  for  preliminary  injunction  it  is  no  defensfe  to 
show  misrepresent^jition  on  the  part  of  th<»  plaintiff;  in  assert- 
ing this  rule,   it   has  been  said  that   "the  i-efusal  by  a  court 


2,-) — Efitcs  V.  Wortliin^'ton.  22  Fed. 
Ri-p.  822. 

26 — French  v.  Alter  &  Julian  Co,. 
74  Fed.  Rep.  788;  Leclancha  Bat- 
t<*ry  Co.  V.  Western  Electric  Co., 
21  Fed.  Rep.  538;  Portuondo  v. 
Monne,  28  Fed.  Rep.  1(1,  Diivis  v. 
DaviH,  27  Fed.  Rep.  400. 

27_N,.\v  York  .AHliestoH  Mftr.  Co., 
V.  Aml>er  AhIichIoh  .\ir  cell  Cover- 
ing Co.,  09  Fed.  Rep.  8.');  Lnre  v. 
Harper  &.  BroH..  8ft  Fed.  Rep.  481; 
.'{0  C.  C.  A.  :<7:J;  AnarjryroH  &  Co. 
V.  Anar>o'n>«.  1«7  Fed.  Rep.  7r.3, 
TOO;   03  C.   C.   A.  241. 

28— H.  Mueller  Mftr.  Co.  v.  A.  Y. 


M.Donaly  .^  .Mmrisnii  Mf-.  Co..  132 
Fed.  Rep.  fiS"),  588;  Ba;:lin  v.  Cua- 
enier  Co..  72  C.  C.  A.  5.').");  141  Fed. 
Rep.  407;  reversing  a.  c,  150  Fed. 
Rep.  1015. 

20 — National  Starch  Co.  v.  Koa- 
ter.  14fi  Fed.  Rep.  250. 

:»)— Ilagen   V.   Beth.  US  Cal.   330. 

31 — Coodyear  I'ul>l)er  Co.  v.  Day, 
22  Fed.  Rep.  44;  Wliiting  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  .ToH.  II.  IlauIiiiHl  Co..  5(i  \.  Y. 
Sujip.   114. 

32 — Coodyear  I'lihlier  Co.  v.  Day, 
22  Fed.  Rep.  44.  For  a  nimilar 
order,  Bee  Cantrell  &  Coelirane,  Ltd. 
v.  Wittcmann,  100  Fed.  Rep.  82. 


453  ACTION  IK  KtiuiTY,  [§  I9:j 

of  equity  oi"  relief  to  those  who  come  witli  unclean  hands  is 
not  for  the  benefit  of  those  whose  hands  are  alsc  unclean."  •'»•'* 

A  preliminary  injunction  will  not  be  {^ranted  as  between 
alleged  conflicting  labels  where  it  is  not  clcai-  lliat  "anybody 
would  mistake  one  for  the  other."  •'•  So  the  injunction  will 
be  denied  wiiere  the  mark  is  used  as  the  mime  of  a  newsi)ai)er 
supplement  by  the  plaintiff,  and  the  name  of  a  magazine  by 
the  defendant,'''  or  where  the  defendant  shows  uses  in  the 
trade  by  third  parties  of  a  substantially  similar  mark,  prior 
to  plaintifi"s  alleged  date  of  first  use.'"' 

It  is  sufficient  to  sustain  the  application  for  the  prelimin- 
ary injunction  (so  far  as  the  jilaintiff's  title  to  the  mark  is 
concerned)  if  he  has  established  his  right  to  the  trademark 
in  a  former  proceeding.'''  "While  the  decision  in  such  former 
proceeding  is  not  conclusive  and  binding  upon  the  court  in 
the  later  case,  it  is  persuasive  and  of  great  weight,  and  on  the 
motion  for  a  preliminary  injunction,  especially  where  it  sus- 
tains the  impression  of  the  court  upon  the  hearing,  is  decis- 
jyg  38  "Where  a  demurrer  is  interposed  to  the  bill,  upon  the 
application  for  preliminary  injunction,  the  allegations  of  fraud 
in  the  bill  are  confessed  thereby ;  and  if  the  demurrer  is  over- 
ruled the  complainant  is  entitled  to  the  preliminary  injunc- 
tion.39 

Upon  granting  a  preliminary  injunction  bond  may  be  re- 
quired of  the  complainant. 

Where  such  a  bond  Avas  given,  conditioned  for  "the  pay- 
ment of  all  damages  and  costs  to  be  awarded  against  the 
complainant  and  in  favor  of  the  defendant  upon  the  trial  or 
final  hearing,"  a  demurrer  was  sustained  to  a  declaration 
setting  forth  the  obligee's  claim  to  damage,  because  no  dam- 

33— Moxie  Xerve  Food  Co.  v.  Hoi-  Auwoll,  l.')8  Fed.  Rpp.  4f)2;  affirmed 

land,    141    Fed.   Rep.   202,  205.     To  178  Fed.  Rep.  543;   102  C.  C.  A.  53. 

the   contrary   see   Greene,   Tweed   &  37 — Symonds  v.    Greene,   28   Fed. 

Co.    V.    Manufacturers'    Belt    Hook  Rep.    834,   835;    :Moxie   Xer\'e   Food 

Co.,  158  Fed.  Rep.  640.  Co.  v.  Beach,  33  Fed.  Rep.  248;  Car- 

34 — Philadelphia      Nov.      Co.      v.  mel  Wine   Co.   v.   Palestine  Hebrew 

Blakesloy    Nov.    Co.,    37    Fed.    Rep.  Wine  Co.,    161    Fed.    Rep.    6.54. 

365.  38— Price   Bakinp   Powder  Co.   v. 

35_Star     Co.      v.      Colver     Pub.  Fyfe,  45  Fed.   Rep.  709. 

House,   141   Fed.  Rep.   129.  39 — Enoch   :Morfran'8   Sons  Co.   v. 

3G— Benjamin    Moore    &    Co.    v.  Hunkele,  16  Off.  Gaz.  1092,  1093. 


§  ii'3: 


IIOI'KINS    ON    TRADKMAHKS. 


4:a 


ages  were  awartlod  on  the  liiial  lu'arin^'. '"  The  supi'enio 
court  has  eoiimieiKhHl.  as  a  jiroper  condition  of  such  l)oiuls, 
one  uhieli  ran  "to  answer  all  damages  wliieh  the  defendant 
in  that  snit  might  snstain  in  eonsiMiuenee  of  said  injunetion 
being   granted,    shonhl    tlie   same   l)e   thereafter   dissolved.''"*' 

A  preliminai-y  injnnction  may  be  enhirged  in  its  scope  by 
a  further  i)reliminary  injunction  to  cover  a  changed  form  of 
label  adopted  by  the  defendant. '•^ 

It  is  a  general  rule  in  the  law  of  unfair  trade,  as  well  as 
in  patent  law,  that  where  tlie  infringement  is  admitted  or 
proven  the  plaintiff  is  entitled  to  a  reference  for  an  account- 
ing as  a  matter  of  right. ^"^  But  "cases  frequently  arise  where 
a  court  of  equity  will  refuse  the  prayer  of  the  complainant 
for  an  account  of  gains  and  profits,  on  the  ground  of  delay 
in  asserting  his  rights,  even  when  the  facts  proved  render  it 
proper  to  grant  an  injunction  to  prevent  future  infringe- 
ment."-^^ 

An  accounting  will  also  be  refused  "when  it  is  manifest 
that  the  cost  to  the  plaintiff  of  a  hearing  would  be  much 
more  than  the  damages  which  he  seeks  to  recover.  An  order 
of  reference,  under  such  conditions,  would  be  inequitable."*^ 


40— Cuervo  v.  Owl  Cipar  Co.,  G8 
Fed.  Rep.  541. 

41— Beakin  v.  Stanton,  3  Fed. 
Rep.  43;").  In  his  opinion  Judp;e 
Blodgett  calls  attention  to  the  wide 
conflict  of  authority  in  the  deci- 
Bions  of  the  courts  of  the  several 
states  upon  this  subject,  and  cites 
Bein  v.  Heath,  12  How.  168,  as  con- 
trollinfr  his  decision. 

42— Bein  v.  Heath,  12  Howard. 
168-177;   13  L.  Ed.  n.-^!). 

43 — Oakes  v.  Tonsmierre,  40  Fed. 
Rep.  447-4.'')3;  Campbell  Printinfr 
Press  Co.  v.  Manliattan  R.  Co.,  4J> 
Fed.  Rep.  030-032 ;  Kisk  v.  Mahler, 
S4  ?Vd.  hep.  .'■>2K;  Standard  Ci^ar 
Co.  V.  Goldsmith,  FyS  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
33. 

44 — Mr.  .Justice  Clifford  in  Mc- 
Lean V.   Fleming',  96  U.  S.   245-257, 


24  L.  Ed.  828.  To  tlie  same  effect 
see  Low  v.  Fels.  3.')  Fed.  R.-p.  361- 
363. 

45 — Knowlton,  .T.,  in  Cirajjosian 
V.  Chutjian,  194  Mass.  504;  80  N.  E. 
Rep.  647.  To  the  same  effect,  see 
American  Box  Co.  v.  Crosman,  57 
Fed.  Rep.  1021,  1020;  Bradford  v. 
Belknap  Co..  105  Fed.  Rep.  63,  66; 
Ludinpton  Xovelty  Co.  v.  Leonard, 
127  Fed.  Rep.  155.  1.57;  62  C.  C.  A. 
260;  .Tulious  Kessler  &  Co.  v.  Gold- 
strom.  177  Fed.  Rep.  .302.  394;  101 
C.  C.  A.  476;  Keystone  Type 
Foundry  Co.  v.  Portland  Pub.  Co., 
180  Fed.  Rep.  301;  National  Dis- 
tillin<j  Co.  V.  Century  Licpior  Co., 
105  C.  C.  A.  638;  183  Fed.  Hep.  206; 
DeVoe  Snjiff  Co.  v.  WollT.  124  C.  C. 
A.  302 ;   206  Fed.  Rep.  420,  424. 


4J35  ACTION    IN    EQUITY.  [§  193 

It  will  always  be  refused  where  it  appears  the  profits  realized 
by  the  defendant  were  insignifieant.*" 

In  a  case  of  unfair  comi)etition,  liiou^'li  the  facts  justify 
injunction,  there  can  be  no  money  judgment  for  damages 
unless  the  defendant  has  been  found  guilty  of  fraudulent 
intent.^^ 

"In  England  the  rule  is  stringent  in  trademark  cases  that 
lack  of  diligence  in  suing  deprives  the  complainant  in  equity 
of  the  right  either  to  an  injunction  or  an  account.  Our  courts 
are  more  liberal  in  this  respect.  A  long  lapse  of  time  will 
not  deprive  the  owner  of  a  trademark  of  an  injunction  against 
an  infringer,  but  a  reasonable  diligence  is  required  of  a  com- 
plainant in  asserting  his  rights,  if  he  would  hold  a  wrong- 
doer to  an  account  for  profits  and  damages.  This  rule,  how- 
ever, applies  only  to  those  cases  where  there  has  been  an 
acquiescence  after  a  knowledge  is  brought  home  to  the  com- 
plainant." *^ 

It  is  now  the  rule  in  England,  as  we  have  seen  in  our  dis- 
cussion of  the  question  of  damages  at  law,  that  upon  the  injunc- 
tion being  entered  in  the  action  in  equity  the  complainant 
is  compelled  to  elect  between  profits  and  damages ;  he  can  not 
have  both.  If  he  elects  to  take  his  damages,  the  issue  is  sent 
to  the  King's  Bench  Division  to  be  tried  by  a  jury.^o  In 
our  federal  courts,  however,  there  is  no  provision  for  trans- 
ferring the  case  from  the  equity  side  to  the  law  side  after  the 
entry  of  an  interlocutory  decree,  nor  any  other  provision  for 
submitting  the  issue  of  damages,  in  an  equity  case,  to  a  jury. 
The  plaintiff  is  not  compelled  to  elect  between  profits  and 
damages,  but  the  reference  is  made  to  the  master  in  chancery 
to  take  an  account  of  the  defendant's  profits  and  to  make  an 
assessment  of  the  damages  sustained  by  the  plaintiff.^''     In 

46 — Regis   v.    Jaynea,    191    Mass.  49 — Fennessy  v.  Rabbits,  56  L.  T. 

245;  77  N.  E.  Rep.  774;  S.  Howea  138;  Cartmell,  125. 

Co.    V.    Howes    Grain    Cleaner    Co.,  50 — The    Collins    Co.    v.    Oliver 

24  Misc.   Rep.  83;    52  N.  Y.   Supp.  Amos  &   Sons  Corporation,  18  Fed. 

468.  Rep.  .'i61-571;   Benkert  v.  Fedor,  34 

47— -N.  K.  Fairbank  Co  v.  Wind-  Fed.  Rep.  534,  535;  Sawyer  v.  Kel- 

8or,  61  C.  C.  A.  233;   124  Fed.  Rep.  lonrp,    9    Fed.    Rep.    601,    602;    Saw- 

200,  202.  yer  v.  Horn,  1  Fed.  Rep.  24-39.    To 

-    48 — Nixon,  J.,  in  Sawyer  v.  Kcl-  the    same    effect    see    Clark    Thread 

logg,  9  Fed.  Rep.  601.  Co.    v.  William   CUrk   Co.    (2),  .56 

N.   J.   Eq.   739:   40  Atl.   Rep.   686. 


§  in:J]  IIOI'KINS    ON    TR.VDKMAKKS.  A?)6 

assessing  clamnges  the  master  will  consider  the  extent  to  which 
])laintitT"s  sales  have  fallen  ofT.  if  the  dofcndant's  acts  are  the 
(.•aiisc  of  siu'h  falling  otT.''' 

It  was  hold  in  one  ease  tliat  the  profits  due  to  tlii^  use  of 
the  trademark  only  were  the  snhjeet  of  inquiry.*-'  Hut  this 
was  clear  error,  and  the  court  layin.g  down  this  ride  cited 
in  suj)port  of  it  oidy  one  precedent  and  that  a  patent  case.^' 
This  (piestion  was  considered  very  carefully  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  California,  and  its  conclusion  is  as  follows:  ''lCv«>ry 
consideration  of  reason,  justice  and  sound  j)oli('y  demands 
that  one  who  fraudulently  uses  the  trademark  of  another 
should  not  he  allowed  to  shield  himself  from  liability  for  the 
profit  he  has  made  by  the  use  of  the  trademark,  on  the  plea 
that  it  is  impossible  to  determine  how  much  of  the  profit  is 
due  to  the  trademark,  and  how  much  to  the  intrinsic  value 
of  the  commodity."  The  supreme  court  held,  therefore,  that 
the  trial  court  liad  not  erred  in  awarding  the  plaintiff  the 
whole  jirofit  made  by  the  dcfendant.'^^  In  treating  tiie  same 
subject,  Judge  Sawyer  said:  "To  adopt  as  the  measure  of 
compensation  for  such  injuries  the  difference  between  the  price 
for  which  the  spurious  goods  would  sell  without  the  trade- 
mark and  for  which  they  would  sell  Avith  it  imprinted  thereon, 
would  be  a  mockery  of  justice.  In  my  judgment  the  infringer 
should  at  least  account  for  the  entire  profits  made  upon  the 
goods  wrongfully  sold  with  the  trademark  impressed  upon 
them."^-'*    This  now  appears  to  be  the  accepted  rule.*^" 

"The  same  rule  is  applied  to  cases  of  unfair  competition 
merely,  as  well  as  to  cases  of  the  infringement  of  a  trademark 
properly  so  called.  "'^^ 

T)!— IToslottcr    v.    Vowinklo,    Fed.  55 — Benkcrt    v.     Fedcr,    34     Fed. 

Caso   No.    fi714;    1    Dill.    329;    Cox,  Rop.  534. 

Manual,  No.  207.  56 — Saxlehnrr  v.    Eisner  &  Men- 

52— Atlantic  Millinp  Co.  v.   Row-  d.laon   Co.    (4),   138   Fed.   Rep.   22; 

land.  27  F«d.  Rop.  24.  70    C.    C.    A.    452;     Reading    Stov.> 

.5.3— CarrctHon  v.  Clark.  Ill  V.  S.  Works  v.  S.  M.  Howes  Co..  201  Mass. 

120;    28   L.   Kd.   371.  437;    87    N.    E.    Rep.    751;    Repis   v. 

54 — Tlraliam  v.  Plat<-.  40  Cnl.  503-  .Taynes   &    Co.,    191    Mass.    245,   249, 

599.     Approved   in   Ilamilton-Rrown  2.')0;   77  N.  E.  Rep.  774. 

Shoe  Co.   V.  Wolf  Bros.   &   Co.,  240  57— Sheldon,      J.,      in      Reffis     v. 

U.  S.  25] ;  60  L.  Ed.  — .  Javnes,    191    Maes.    245;    77    N.    E. 


ACTION    IN    EQUITY. 


[§193 


Upon  accounting,  it  is  not  inciinihent  on  the  coniplain;uit  to 
prove  the  exact  "proportion  of  tlie  infringer's  gains  attribut- 
jiulc  to  his  infrinf^cMiont;"  l)ut  the  whoK-  profit  is  recoverable.'^^ 

The  (h'fciKhiiit  can  not  show  before  the  master  that  the  com- 
plainant slioiild  not  rccovci-  profits  because  of  his  ahiindoriment 
of  the  mark;  tlie  iiiterlocutoiy  decree  is  conclu.sive  as  to  tliat,-'"'* 
and  even  if  complainant  has  abandoned  the  mark  and  defemlant 
is  not  at  liberty  to  palm  off  his  goods  as  those  of  the  com- 
plainant''" 

Coujisel  fees  expended  by  plaintiif  in  the  cause  are  not  an 
element  of  damage,  and  can  not  be  con.sidered  in  assessing  dam- 
ages in  equity."  • 

The  court  will  refuse  to  decree  an  accounting  wliere  it  is  mani- 
festly impossible  to  segregate  the  profits  arising  from,  the  in- 
fringement.*"'^ 

In  jurisdictions  where  the  master  is  permitted  to  assess  dam- 
ages, he  may  do  so  even  in  the  absence  of  any  direct  proof  of 
loss  of  profit.*' 3     As  all  participants  in  torts  are  principals,  one 


Rep.  774.  Citing  X.  K.  Fairbank 
Co.  V.  Windsor,  118  Fed.  Rep.  90 
(overruled  as  to  some  points  in  124 
Fed.  Rep.  200;  61  C.  C.  A.  233); 
Walter  Baker  Co.  v.  Slack,  130  Fed. 
Rep.  514;  6.5  C.  C.  A.  1.38;  Williams 
V.  Mitchell,  106  Fed.  Rep.  108;  45 
C.  C.  A.  265;  Lewis  v.  Goodwin,  30 
Ch.  D.  1. 

Compare  the  Kentucky  rule:  "In 
the  action  for  fraudulent  simulation 
of  the  plaintiff's  goods  there  can 
be  no  accounting  of  profits  in  equity. 
The  remedy  is  by  the  common  law 
action  for  damages."  Hobson,  J., 
in  E.  H.  Taylor  &  Sons  Co.  v.  Tay- 
lor, 85  S.  W.  Rep.  1085;  27  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  625. 

58 — Saxlehner  v.  Eisner  &  Men- 
delson  Co.  (4),  138  Fed.  Rep.  22, 
24;  70  C.  C.  A.  452. 

59— DeLong  Hook  &  Eye  Co.  v. 
Francis  Hook  &  Eye  &  Fastener 
Co.,  159  Fed.  Rep.  292. 

60 — Saxlehner  v.  Eisner  &  Men- 
delson  Co.,  179  U.  S.   19,  31;   45  L. 


Ed.  60;  De  Long  Hook  &  Eye  Co. 
V.  Francis  Hook  &  Eye  Fastener  Co., 
159  Fed.  Rep.  292. 

61— Burnett  v.  Phalon  (1),  21 
How.  Pr.  100;  Cox'  American 
Trademark  Cases  292. 

()2 — Ludington  Novelty  Co.  v. 
Leonard,  62  C.  C.  A.  269,  127  Fed. 
Rep.   155. 

03 — Thus  in  a  chancery  case  in 
New  Zealand  the  court  said:  "First 
as  to  damages,  I  am  of  opinion 
that  there  has  been  no  direct  proof 
if  loss  of  profit  by  Messrs.  Little- 
jolin  &  Son,  consequent  upon  the 
sale  of  the  watches  which  improp- 
erly have  their  name  inscribed 
upon  them,  but,  as  I  have  inti- 
mated during  the  course  of  the  ar- 
gument, it  appears  to  me  that, 
apart  from  any  direct  proof  of 
loss  of  profit,  there  arises  in  cases 
of  this  class  an  inference  of  pos- 
sible damage  to  the  manufacturer 
whose  name  is  improperly  used — 
damage      to      his      well-established 


§  194]  HOPKINS   ON    TRADEMARKS.  458 

wlio  participates  in  uiifaii-  ti'adt'  liy  t'uniisliinj^  fraudulent  labels 
is  liable  in  ('(juity  to  tlic  pai-ty  iujurtni  for  the  uliule  damage 
resultiiii:  fi-oin  tlu'  unfair  coiupotition.'" 

Whether  or  not  a  teehnical  track'inark  is  involved,  tiie  success- 
ful complainant  in  an  action  for  unfair  eompetition  is  entitled  to 
an  aceount.'"'"'  A  bill  for  a  naked  acrount  of  profits  ean  not  be 
sustained;*"'  the  aceounting  will  only  l)e  granted  a.s  an  incident  to 
the  award  of  injunctive  relief."" 

In  rare  cases  the  court  will  deeree  the  destruction  of  the 
goods  bearing  the  infringing  mark.'"'** 

The  defense  of  laches  can  not  be  raised  for  tlie  first  time  before 
the  nuister,'"'"  and  the  same  is  tnie  as  to  the  defense  that  the 
plaintiff 's  goods  were  withdrawn  from  the  market  before  the 
infringement  commenced."^ 

§  194.  The  decree  in  unfair  competition  cases  as  to  the 
accounting. — It  has  been  held  that  Avhere  the  defendant's 
unfair  competition  was  not  willful  or  fraudulent,  the  account- 
ing would  be  limited  to  the  damages  sustained  by  the  plaintiff, 
and  would  not  extend  to  the  defendant's  profits.-'  While  the 
general  rule  has  been  stated  to  be  that  the  defendant  will  be  held 
to  account  for  profits, "^  it  is  clearly  for  the  court  to  determine 

reputation.      It    is    iniitossiljle    that  68 — Peerless   Rulthor   Mfg.   Co.   V. 

tlic    (luantum    of    dainajic    in    cases  Xichol,  187  Fed.  Rep.  238. 

of  this  class  can  hi-  matlicmatically  fiH — DcLonjr   Hook   &    Eye   Co.   v. 

ascertained;     no    account    can    pos-  Francis  Hook  &   Eye  &   F.  Co.,  168 

Hihly  reach  such  a  matter.     It  must  Fed.  Rep.  808;   04  C.  C.  A.  310. 

always    he    a    matter    of    discretion  70 — Ibid. 

for  the  court  and  jury."     Little john  71 — "I    do    not    think    (plaintifi") 

V.    MuUipan,    3    New    Zealand    Rep.  is    entitled    to    an    accounting    for 

446.  profits,  because  I  can  not  find  that 

04 — llildretli  v.   Sparks  Mfg.  Co.,  the  unfair  competition  was  so  'will- 

00  Fed.  Rep.  484.  ful  and  fraudulent'  as  to  justify  the 

0.') — Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  June  Mfg.  imposition  of  jjrofits  as  a  'punitive 

Co.,   103  U.   S.   100,  204;   41  L.   Ed.  addition   to   tlie   ordinary   decree   of 

118;    Worcester    Brewing    Corp.    v.  compensatory    damages.'"      Ilaiglit, 

Renter  &  Co.,  84  C.  C.  A.  OO.'i;   l.')7  J.,  in  Rubber  &  Celluloid  II.  T.  Co. 

Fed.   Rep.   217.  v.  F.  W.  Devoe  &  C.  T.  Reynolds  Co., 

CO— Root   V.    L.    S.    &    M.    S.    Ry.  233   Fed.   Rep.    MO.    100. 
Co.,  \0r>  U.  S.  189;  20  L.  Ed.  07r).  72— "The  general  rule  undoubtcd- 

07 — Van    Raalt    v.    Schneck,    ir>0  ly  is  that,  on  such  a  reference  in  a 

P\'d.  Rep.  248,  251.  case  of  unfair  competition,  it  is  the 


459 


ACTION    IN    E(il'ITY. 


[§194 


whether  the  account  shall   iuciiKJc  daiuages  only,  profits  only, 
or  hoth.    A  decree  reading  a.s  follows : 

"That  the  complainant  recover  of  the  defendant  dam- 
ages sustained  by  said  complainant  from  the  unlawful 
acts  of  the  defendant  iierein  adjudged,  in  its  use  of  said 
two  labels  recited  in  paragraphs  2  and  3  hereof,  in  the 
packaging  and  sale  of  Neufcliatel  cheese,  togetiier  with 
its  costs  of  suit  in  this  behalf  expended,  with  leave  to 
complainant  to  a])ply  hereafter  for  a  reference  to  a  mas- 
ter to  ascertain  and  assess  said  damages,  should  it  be  so 
advised, ' ' 

does  not  authorize  an  accounting  as  to  profits.''-'^ 


duty  of  tlio  master  to  fairlj'  take 
an  account  of  profits  realized  by  the 
defendant  upon  all  articles  or  goods 
manufactured  or  sold  by  him  under 
the  conditions  of  unfair  competi- 
tion, as  established  by  the  decree  of 
the  court."  Rowley  v.  Rowley,  113 
C.  C.  A.  386;  193  Fed.  Rep.  390 
(C.  C.  A.  3). 

73— P.  E.  Sharpless  Co.  v.  Law- 
rence, 130  C.  C.  A.  59;  213  Fed. 
Rep.  423.  "In  theory,  a  technical 
trademark,  like  a  patent  ri<,fht,  is 
a  species  of  property,  and  when  it 
is  invaded  or  appropriated,  the 
owner  thereof  is  entitled,  not  only 
to  protection  from  further  trespass, 
but,  to  the  recovery  of  the  profits 
issuing  therefrom,  as  incident  to 
and  a  part  of  his  property  right. 
In  suits  for  unfair  competition,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  complaint  is  not 
of  an  appropriation  of  a  property 
right,  but  of  a  tort  committed  by 
the  defendant,  in  that  his  conduct 
has  been  unlawful  by  reason  of  the 
consequential  injury  to  the  plaintiff. 
In  such  a  case,  it  is  contended  the 
recovery  should  be  for  damages 
actually  suffered  by  the  plaintiff, 
and  for  those  only,  the  wrong  com- 
plained of  b;ing  somewhat  analo- 
gous  to   that   which   would   be   the 


basis  of   an   action   on  the  case   at 
common  law. 

"It  is  true,  however,  as  contended 
by  the  plaintiffs  below,  that  courts 
of  equity,  in  granting  injunctive 
relief  in  cases  of  unfair  competi- 
tion, have  sometimes  decreed  tliat 
the  plaintiffs  should  recover  of  de- 
fendant, not  only  damages,  but  the 
profits,  gains  and  advantages  that 
have  accrued  to  the  defendant 
by  reason  of  his  unfair  competition. 
Such  an  enlargement  of  the  scope 
of  the  decree  is  generally  made  on 
the  ground  tliat  the  unfair  competi- 
tion is  adjudged  to  have  been  willful 
and  fraudulent,  and  the  recovery  of 
profits  in  such  cases  is  a  punitive 
addition  to  the  ordinary  decree  of 
compensatory  damages.  A  number 
of  cases  have  been  cited  in  the 
brief  of  plaintiffs  below,  where, 
under  these  circumstances,  an  ac- 
counting of  profits  has  been  allowed 
in  cases  of  unfair  competition.  We 
have  examined  all  of  them,  and  it 
is  to  be  observed  that  in  almost 
every  case  the  recovery  of  sucli 
profits  was  included  in  the  decree 
in  addition  to  the  recovery  of  dam- 
ages, and  in  none  of  them  was  the 
precise  question  here  presented  dis- 
cussed.   The  distinction  between  the 


195] 


HOPKINS   ON   TRADEMARKS. 


460 


i}  195.  Forbidding  publication  of  the  decree.  K\ «'r\(iiu» 
who  lia.s  fXpfrit'iUT  in  tlir  wst-  of  tk'cii'i's  \t\  way  ot  iiiilair  I'oiii- 
pi'tition  is  awaiv  of  tlu'  (hiiiiat;«'  that  may  Ix'  inllicti'd  tliereby. 
A  decree  of  injunction,  howt'ViT  tanfully  drawn,  i.s  apt  to  con- 
vey to  the  public  an  entirely  errontous  impression  of  its  .scope 
and  elTwt,  as  wt>ll  as  of  the  fact.s  wliicli  (K-ca-sioned  it.  Where 
the  defendant  hits  not  lu-en  jjuilty  of  intentional  fraud,  tlie 
|)laintilT  nwiy  be  re<|uiri'd  to  abstain  from  harmful  u.se  of  the 
injunction  as  a  condition  to  the  injuiictirtn  remaining'  in  etTect.''* 

§  196.  Restraining  misrepresentations  concerning  the 
decree.  A  defendant  ulio  circulates  false  statomcnts  rej;ard- 
iiiir  an  interim  order  made  in  the  cause  may  be  retrained  in  the 
cause,  on  motion,  from  further  circulation  of  the  false  state- 
ments, and  the  costs  of  the  motion  may  Ik-  a.s.scssed  ajjainst  him."* 

§197.  Punitive  damages  in  equity.  "The  (piestion  of  the 
true  measure  of  damages  in  cases  of  this  sort  is  an  interesting 
one.  The  injured  party  is  entitled  to  full  compensation  for  the 
injury,  hut  how  shall  that  he  measured?  Manifestly,  the  profits 
which  the  infrins^er  has  made  would  not  in  all  cases  l>c  com- 
pensation to  the  injured.  The  hitter's  loss  in  part  inheres  in 
the  failure  to  acquire  a  just  and  deserved  j^aiu;  also  in  the  injury 
to  the  reputation  of  his  product  by  reason  of  the  substitution  of 
the  spurious  article.     The  latter  element  is  dilTicult,   if  not  im- 


rocovcrv  of  dnmnpos  and  profits  \vn;< 
thuB  n'cofrnizcd. 

"\\'hat  we  conchido  from  the 
cases  cited  is.  tliat  courts  of  equity 
in  cases  of  unfair  competition  mry 
upon  what  s4'emH  to  tln-m  BU^;cient 
jrrounds.  include  in  their  decrees  an 
accduntin;;  of  jirofits  as  well  as  an 
award  of  daniii;:<-s.  We  think,  how- 
ever, that  the  distinction  between  a 
decree*  for  the  recovery  of  damaj.'e8 
and  one  for  the  recovery  of  profits, 
should  not  he  lost  si^dit  of,  anil  in 
(.'••neral  is  not  lost  sijrht  of.  and  that 
the  latt^T  is  not  included  in  the 
former."  fJray,  .1.,  in  1'.  K.  Sharj)- 
less  Co.  v.  I-awrcnce,  ttuprn,  '1\'.\ 
Fed.  lUp.  at  J.    12fi. 


74 — "I  see  no  reason  why  the 
j)laintifr  should  advertise  its  decree 
in  any  way.  There  is  nothing  un- 
fair in  the  defendant's  prior  adver- 
tisin;:  to  correct,  and,  when  that  is 
(lie  case,  neither  side  should  Imj 
allowed  to  scare  off  customers  by 
the  flourish  of  a  decree.  Tlie  plain- 
tiff will  then-fore  refrain  from  any 
advertis«'ment  at  the  peril  of  h)sin|f 
its  decree."  Learned  Hand,  J.,  in 
Champion  ."^park  Plug  Co.  v.  A.  R. 
MoHler  &  Co.,  2:i:J  Fed.  Rep.  112, 
lis. 

7.">— fJilhtte  Saf.ty  Razor.  Ltd.  v. 
I'.llett.  Ltd..  2<l  H.  I'.  C.  .ISft. 
l]ii;.'!iHh  authority,  but  »<iiiully  ap- 
plicable here. 


461  ACTION    IN    W^riTY.  [§  198 

possil)l('  ()!  acfuratf  adme-^Lsiirciiiciil.  It  can  only  ho  a|>i)roxi- 
niatcly  coiiipciisatcd  liy  an  all(y\vun(;e  in  the  natnn*  of  punitory 
(laniaj^i's,  rcslinj,'  lai'f^cly  in  discn'tion." '''  This  liappens  to  hi; 
merely  a  diclitin,  jls  the  issue  Wius  not  Indore  the  court.  Jiut  it 
is  the  statement  ol"  a  sound  jirineiple,  though  one  difficult  of 
praetical  application,  and  is  llatly  oppased  to  Ilcnnessy  v.  Wil- 
mcvduuj-LocH'c  Co."'  w jiich  denies  the  right  to  recover  punitive 
ilama<res  in  e<|ui1y  in  this  class  of  cases. 

§198.  Increase  of  damages  in  equity. — Sec.  19  of  the  Act 
of  11)0.")  provides  tliat:  'l  poii  a  dccnc  heinjJT  rendered  in  any 
such  ease  for  wrongful  use  of  a  trademark  the  comphiinant  shall 
he  entitled  to  recovi-r,  in  addition  to  tlie  profits  to  he  accounted 
for  hy  the  defendant,  the  danuiges  the  complainant  has  sustained 
therehy.  *  »  #  --pi^.  eourt  shall  have  the  same  power  to 
inereaNe  such  damages,  in  its  discretion,  lus  is  given  })y  section 
sixteen  of  this  act  for  increasing  damages  found  hy  verdict  in 
actions  of  la.w." 

This  ])rovision  was  doubtless  intended  to  enable  tlie  trial  court, 
having  regard  to  the  questions  of  fraudulent  intent  and  guilty 
knowledge  of  the  defendant,  to  asse-ss  damages  by  way  of  pun- 
ishment, in  addition  to  those  dama-ges  found  by  the  master  to 
have  ])een  actually  sustained  by  the  complainant. 

§199.  The  defendant's  credits  upon  accounting. — Sec.  19 
of  the  Act  of  11)0.3  jn-ovitles  that  "In  assessing  i)rofits  the  plain- 
tiff shall  "be  required  to  prove  defendant's  sales  only;  defendant 
must  prove  all  elements  of  cost  which  are  claimed." 

These  provisions  are  evidentiary,  shifting  the  burden  of  proof 
upon  the  defendant,  after  the  complainant  has  proven  the  extent 
of  swles.  to  establish  such  credits  or  ofT-sets  as  he  may  be 
entitled  to. 

Where  the  defendant  carried  on  the  iiifi-inLring  traffic  in  con- 
nection with  his  regular  business,  it  has  been  held,  the  master 
in  chancerv  Avill  not  make  any  deduction  for  the  general  expenses 

70— Jenkins.  J.,  in  Waltor  Bakor  77—103   Fed.   Rop.   00. 

&   Co.   V.    Slack.   1.30   Fed.    Rop.   514, 
519;   G5  C.   C.   A.   138. 


§200]  IIOI'KINS    ON    TICADKM  MvKS.  4G2 

ill  taking'  tlw  acioiiiit  of  profits ;^^  otluT  ra.st'.s  \\o\d  tlireetly  to 
till'  I'oiitrary.^" 

As  to  lossi's  I'nun  had  ilcbU,  ihc  rule  appears  to  bo  lu  treat 
such  siiles  ''as  if  they  had  not  been  made  at  uU — neither  ineroas- 
injj  the  amount  of  jirolits  by  reason  of  sueli  sales  nor  diminishinjj: 
that  amount  on  account  of  the  b>s.s  caus^'d  thereby."^" 

§200.  Label  designing  as  a  judicial  function. — The  willing- 
ness of  eoui'ts  of  cipiity  to  aid  in  iiiainlainiiiLT  lainiess  in  <'oiiipe- 
tition  has  been  evidenced  by  a  label  designed  by  Judge  Coxe  and 
exhibited  with  his  opinion  in  a  ejise  involving  the  Avord  "Carls- 
baxl"  as  applied  to  mineral  water,  with  the  statenuMit  that  "in 
tirder  that  there  may  be  no  misunderstandiuu'"  upon  the  settle- 
ment of  the  decree,  the  court  has  applied  a  copy  of  a  label  which, 
it  is  thought,  the  defendant  n)ay  use  with  impunity  as  truth- 
fully representing  the  water  sold  by  hini."'^' 

In  another  case,  Judge  Lacombe,  in  offering  alternative  forms 
of  decree  for  the  choice  of  a  defendant,  said  "the  mandate  will, 
if  defendant  prefers,  direct  a  modification  of  the  interlocutory 
decree  solely  by  reciuiring  the  affixing  upon  every  package  sold, 
in  type  as  prominent  as  the  title,  of  the  statement  that  'W.  II. 
Baker  is  distinct  from  and  has  no  connection  Avith  the  old 
chocolate  manufactory  of  Walter  Baker  &  Co.'  "  **-  The  Court 
of  Appeals  of  the  Seventh  Circuit  has  criticised  this  practice. 
Judge  Jenkins  observing  that,  "The  court  below,  upon  holding 
that  the  changed  label  of  the  defendant  infringed  the  com- 
plainant's riirlit,  caused  to  be  submitted  for  its  approval  another 
form  of  lal)el,  which  it  approved,  and  authorized  the  defendant 
to  use  upon  bottles  of  the  same  form  as  those  used  by  the  com- 
plainant.   We  greatly  doubt  the  propriety  of  such  action.    When 

78 — Socictc-   Anonynn'   v.    WCstcni  SO — .Sliddcii.    .1.,    in    .Nelson    v.    .1. 

Distillin},'    Co.,    4(5    Fed.     R.j>.    !t21  ;  H.    Wincli.ll    &    ("o..   20:{    Mass.    7.'); 

RcpiH   V.    .Iayn«'s   &    Co..    101    MaHH.  SO   \.    K.    Hfj).    ISO.    1S7:    following 

24.'"».   2.">1,   2.')2;    77    N.   K.    U<-p.    774;  l^dolstcn    v.    Edclsti-n.    Kt    I..    T.    N. 

NVlBon    V.    .1.    H.    WinohHl    &    Co.,  S.  7S0. 

2nrJ    MaBH.    7');    Sn    X.    K.    Rep.    180,  81— City    of   Carlslmd   v.    Sdinlt/, 

m7.  78  F«-d.  lli'p.  4fi!).  472. 

7n— Walt<T  BakcT  &  Co.  v.  Slack,  82— Waltor   Bakor  &,  Co.    v.   San- 

f\r,    ('.    C.     A.     138;     130    Fed.     Hep.  d.TH.   SO   Fed.    Rrp.    880,   Sn.!;    20   C. 

r.l4,    r>20;     Saxl<'lin<T     v.     KiKncr    &  C.  A.  220. 
^I.ndolHon  Co.,   l.'JH   Fed.    Rep.  22. 


4G3  ACTION    IN    EtiUITY.  [§  200 

;in  infringement  has  Ix-cn  found,  it  sliould  In-  ro.strained.  A 
court  of  ('([uity  docs  not  sit  as  an  arbiter  \t)  dct^'rndnc  in  advance 
upon  other  and  clian^^'tl  hil)els  which  the  infringer  may  adojjt 
to  avoid  the  coiuhMunation  of  the  couit.  Whether  such  changed 
forms  do  in  fact  infrinj^'e  is  matter  of  fact  to  be  (hrU^rmint^d  by 
the  t'ourt  in  its  usual  course;  of  i)roi'e(lur(!  upon  complaint  lodged 
by  the  pai'ty  danuiilieil.  The  duty  of  tlu;  court  Ix-low  was  to 
determine  whether  the  labels  complained  of  in  the  bill  infringed 
the  complainant's  right.  That  duty  was  fully  jx-rformed  when 
the  court  had  so  determined.  It  is  not  called  upon  to  decide 
Avhether  a  new  label'  proposed  for  adoption  ^vould  infringe.  Thi.s 
is  especially  so  here,  where  the  infringement  was  tlclibcrate  and 
designed.  In  such  case  the  court  ought  not  to  say  how  near  the 
infringer  may  lawfully  approximate  the  label  of  the  complain- 
ant, but  should  cast  the  burden  upon  the  guilty  party^  of  decid- 
ing for  himself  how  near  he  may  with  safety  drive  to  the  edge  of 
the  precipice,  and  whether  it  he  not  better  for  him  to  keep  as 
far  from  it  as  passible;"''''^  and  in  a  later  case,  quoting  from 
the  foregoing  opinion,  the  same  court,  per  curiam,  remarks,  "it 
will  be  time  enough  for  the  court  to  determine  the  question  upon 
issues  properly  framed  and  the  evidence  taken  thereunder."^-* 

Where  the  complainant's  counsel  has  stated  that  he  saw  no 
objection  to  a  proposed  new  label  submitted  to  him  by  defend- 
ant, the  fact  was  held  conclusive  again.st  an  application  for  a 
preliminary  injunction  to  restrain  its  use.^^ 

In  enjoining  unfair  competition  by  the  use  of  geographical 
and  descriptive  words  ("Spanish  tile"  and  "cohesive  tile"  as 
applied  to  arches)  the  alternative  was  offered  by  Judge  Hand 
by  "adding  as  a  suffix  substantially  the  following:  'not  made  by 
Guastavino,  the  original  inaker  of  such  arches' — or  by  abandon- 
ing the  plirases  altogether."'^'"' 

Generally,  decrees  will  ])e  so  draAvn  as  to  protect  any  sub- 
stantial right   of  the  complainant   against  unfair   competition; 

S.3— Charles  E.   Hires  Co.  v.  Con-  Co.,  r,{)  C.  C.  A.  Cuyl ;   112  Vod.  Rep 

sumers'    Co.,     100    Fed.     Rep.     800,  1000. 

813;   41  C.  C.  A.  71.  S.")— Wel.er    Medical    Tea    Co.    v. 

84— Williams   v.    Mitelull,   4.")    C.  WCl.er,  102  Fed.  Rep.  156. 
C.  A.  265;   106  Fed.  Rep.  168,   172;  86— R.  Guastavino  Co.   v.  Corner- 
to     the     same     effect     see     Stesling  ma,  184  Fed.  Rep.  549. 
Remedy    Co.    v.    Spermine    Medical 


§-01 J  HOPKINS  ON   TR.\DEMARKS.  4l)4 

with  tlic  result  ;it  tiiiu-s.  of  narrowing'  llic  iiijiiiiotiou  to  a  iioiiit 
near  zito.''^ 

§201.  Appeals.— S(>c.  17  of  the  Act  of  1!)().")  provides  that, 
'•TheCiri-uit  Tourts  of  Appeals  of  the  Initeil  States  and  tlie  Court 
of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia  shall  have  appellate  juris- 
(lietion  of  all  .suit.s  at  law  or  in  e<juity  respeetin^r  trademarks 
registereil  in  aveordance  with  the  provisions  of  this  act,  arising 
under  the  present  act,  without  repard  to  the  amount  in  con- 
troversy." 

Section  l-D  of  the  Judicial  C^odc,  following  the  Act  of  March 
3.  1891  (26  Stat.  826.  c.  517)  ostJihli.shinK'  the  circuit  court  of 
appeals  as  amended  l)y  the  Act  of  Fehniary  18,  1895  (28  Stat. 
666,  c.  06 ) ,  provides  : 

"Where  upon  a  hearing;  in  i'([uity  in  a  district  court,  or  hy 
a  judfje  thereof  in  vacation,  an  injunction  shall  he  granted,  con- 
tinued, refused,  or  dissolved  ])y  an  interloeutorv  order  or  decree, 
or  an  application  to  dissolve  an  injunction  shall  be  refused,  or 
an  interlocutor)'  order  or  decree  shall  be  made  appointing  a 
receiver,  an  appeal  may  l)e  taken  from  such  interlocutory  order 
or  decree  grantinfr.  coiitinuinfi.  rcfusiiifr.  di.ssolvinjr,  or  refusing 
to  dis.solve,  an  injunction,  or  appointiiiLr  a  receiver  to  the  circuit 
court  of  api)eals,  notwithstandin<r  an  appeal  in  such  ca.se  might, 
upon  final  decree  under  the  statutes  refrulatinir  the  same,  be 
taken  directly  to  the  supreme  <'ourt ;  Proviihd,  That  the  a[>peal 
nnist  be  taken  within  thirty  days  from  the  entry  of  such  order 
or  decree,  and  it  shall  take  precedence  in  the  np7iellate  court: 
and  the  proceedings  in  other  respects  in  the  court  below  shall 
not  be  stayed  unless  otherwise  ordered  l)v  that  court,  or  the 
appellate  court,  or  a  judge  thereof,  during  the  pendency  of  such 
appeal ;  Provided,  however.  That  the  court  below  nniy,  in  it^s 
dis^'retion,  re<|uire  as  a  condition  of  the  appeal  an  additional 
bond." 

A  decree  which  a<Ijudges  unfair  competition,  awards  an  injunc- 
tion, and  directs  that  the  defendant  deliver  up  for  destruction 
any  of  the  imitative  articles  on  hand,  and  also  orders  an  account- 

87 — SiH-  H<il«'|.nMif  Hi.hi<Ty  Co.   v.  Walliuli    Utoh.,    It'.T  Ffd.    Ucp.    37.'l. 

Wallarh   BroH.,    172   Fed.  i{«-p.   H.'tn-,  Sc-   iiIho    H«»If|>nK)f  IIoHifry   Co.    v. 

07    V.    C.    A.     2('.:J;     mcMlifyin;.'    tin-  Walliidi    Hnm..    112  C    C    A.    «:>.'.; 

decrw  in   Holeproof   HohIitv   C'(».   v.  102  Fed.  H<p.  r).34. 


465  ACTION    IN    KCil'ITY.  [§202 

in^  of  prolits  aii<l  (iiiiiia^cs  is  an  iiilcrlociitory  decree  and  must 
be  a|)[)c.ak'(l  iVoiii  within  thirty  days,  or  tin-  appeal  will  he  dis- 
missi'tl   upon  motion.'*"^ 

Under  this  section,  an  api)cal  from  a  decree  jnade  <U"t<'r  final 
heariiifj  on  the  merits,  declaring'  inlVinf,MMiient  of  a  tradeinark, 
awarding  a  perpetual  injunction  and  referrint,'  tlie  cause  to  a 
master  for  an  account iiif?,  is  not  an  appealahh-  final  decree  but 
is  interlocutory,  and  such  an  appeal,  to  lie  elTectual  must  he  taken 
within  thirty  days  Trom  entry  of  the  interlocutor^'  decree.''" 

A  decree  dismissing:  one  branch  of  the  issues  raised,  leaving 
other  sid)stantial  issues  undetennined.  is  not  a  final  decree,  and 
is  not  appealable."" 

The  I'nited  States  Circuit  Courts  of  Appeals  will  review  the 
action  of  the  district  courts  in  grantinf?  or  refusing?  preliminary 
injunctions  for  the  purpose  of  reviewinj^  the  di.scretion  of  the 
court  l)elow  and  correctintr  eiror  in  its  exercise.  In  a  proper 
case  it  will  enlarge  the  scope  of  a  preliminary  injunction  which 
falls  short  of  protecting  the  complainant's  rights."^ 

Where  such  a  preliminary  injunctive  order  is  appealed  from, 
however,  "the  question  for  consideration  is  whether  the  court 
below  improperly  exercised  its  discretionary  power  in  respect 
of  issuing  an  injunction  pendente  lite.  Unless  it  clearly  appears 
that  it  has  so  done,  the  order  should  be  afiBrmed.""- 

§202.     Certiorari.— See.  18  of  the  Act  of  IGO.".   provider  as 

follows : 

"That  writs  of  certiorari  may  he  granted  by  the  Supreane 
Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  review  of  cases  arising  under 
this  act  in  the  same  manner  as  provided  for  in  patent  cases  by  the 
act  creating  tlie  circuit  court,  of  appeals." 

88— Puritan  Cordapo  Mills  v.  !)1— Charles  E.  Hires  Co.  v.  Con- 
Sampson  Cordage  Works,  232  Fed.  sumers'  Co.,  100  Fed.  Rep.  809-813; 
Rep.  138   (C.  C.  A.  6).  41  C.  C.  A.  71. 

89_Raymond    v.     Royal    Baking  (12— Chickcring    v.    Chickering    & 

Poudor   Co..    76   Fed.    Rep.   46.5;    22  Sons,    120   Fed.    Rep.   60.   73;    50   C. 

C.  C.  A.  278.  C.  A.  47.5;   PfeifTir  v.  Wilde,  40  C. 

90— Memphis   Kecley   Institute  v.  C.   A.   415;    107   Fed.    Rep.    456;    af- 

Leslie   E.    Keeley   Co.,'  75  C.   C.    A.  firming  Pfeiffer  v.   Wihle,   102   Fed. 

430;    144  Fed.  Rep.  628,  631.  Rep.  658. 


§  -JOL']  IIOIKINS   ON    TRADEMAKKM.  4Gl) 

The  act  roforred  to  is  known  as  tlio  Jndii-iary  Aot  of  1801,  see. 
6  of  whioli  ait  providos,  "That  in  any  sucli  case  as  is  herein- 
lefore  niailf  linal  in  tlie  circuit  court  of  appeals,  it  shall  be  com- 
petent for  the  supreme  court  to  require  by  certiorari  or  other- 
wise, any  such  case  to  be  certified  to  the  supreJiie  court  for  its 
review  and  tlctcrniination  with  the  same  power  and  authority  in 
the  lasc  as  if  it  had  lu'cii  carried  by  appeal  or  writ  of  error  to 
the  supreme  court.'  Section  TIG  of  the  United  States  Revised 
Statutes  has  been  held  to  authorize  the  use  of  writs  of  certiorari 
by  the  supreme  court   in  all   pro-per  cases."^ 

The  {leneral  rule  concerninj?  the  issuance  of  a  writ  of  certiorari 
by  the  su|)rcme  court  is  that  it  rests  within  the  discretion  of 
the  court.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Fuli.r  has  said  that :  "When  soupht 
as  between  private  persons,  the  ijcncral  nde  i.s  that  the  writ  of 
certiorari  will  l)e  granted  or  denied,  in  the  sound  discretion 
of  the  court,  on  special  cause  or  f?round  shown  ;  and  will  be 
refused  where  there  is  a  plain  and  etpuilly  adcipiatc  remedy  by 
appeal  or  otherwise."  ""• 

Under  sec.  18  of  the  Trademark  Act  of  1  (•()'),  the  final  decision 
of  a  circuit  court  of  appeals  is  not  apix'alable  to  the  supreme 
court,  and  can  be  reviewed  only  upon  certiorari.'-^'^ 

93_/„    re    Tampa    Suburban    R.  838;   Street  &   Smith  v.   Atlas  Mfg. 

Co.,  168  U.   S.   .'»8.3;  42  L.  Kd.   r)8n.  Co..  2.31  U.  S.  348;   SS  L.  Ed.  262; 

n4_/„     rr    Tampa    Suburban    R.  O.   &    C.  Mi-rrinm   Co.   v.   Syndicate 

Co.,  168  U.   S.  ri83;    42  L.  Ed.   .580.  I'ub.  Co.,  237  U.  S.  018;   5U  L.  Ed. 

O."! — Ilutfliinson,    Pierce   &    Co.    v.  1148. 
Loewy,   217    U-   K.  457;    54   L.    Ed. 


OTTAPTETl  XTV. 

MATTERS  OF  PRACTICE  AND  EVIDENCE. 

§  203.  Matters  of  which  courts  will  take  judicial  notice.— 
This  subject  is  of  practM;al  iiiii)urlaiiee  in  tlic  trial  of  trademark 
otuises.  Tlio  courts  of  the  United  States  will  take  judicial  notice 
of  the  statutt'ts  of  the  several  states,'  and  of  the  decisions  of  the 
state  courts  upon  the  constitutionality  of  such  .statutes.'-s  All 
courts  will  take  judicial  notice  of  treaties  or  conventions 
with  a  foreign  government  or  power.-'  It  has  been  expressly 
held  that  judicial  notice  will  be  taken  of  the  convention  concern- 
ing trademarks,  of  April  16,  1869,  between  the  United  States 
and  France.^  As  in  other  classes  of  cases,  the  courts  take  judi- 
cial notice  of  political  facts,  legal  facts,  official  facts,  public  his- 
tory, natural  history  and  the  vernacular  language,  and  all  mat- 
ters of  common  and  ordinary  knowledge,  including  matters  of 
scienc 

§204.  Expert  and  other  evidence  on  the  question  of 
infringement. — Inspection  by  the  court  is  the  main,  and  indeed 
the  tinal  test  of  the  alleged  resemblance  in  trademark  cases.^' 
The  courts,  as  a  nde,  give  little  weight  to  expert  testimony  on 
questions  of  similitude.* 

l_/n    re    Jordan,    40    Fed.    Rep.  64;    Lippett    &    Myer    Tob.    Co.    v. 

2.38;  Gormlcy  v.  Buuyan,  138  U.  S.  Hyncs,    20    Fed.    Rep.    883;    .Joseph 

623;   34  L.  Ed.  1086.  Dixon    Crucible    Co.    v.    Bcnham.    4 

2— Knox     V.     Columbia     Liberty  Fed.  Rep.  527. 
Iron  Co.,  42  Fed.  Rep.  378.  6— Cook  v.  Starkweather,  13  Abb. 

3_^j.  pnrfc  :\teCabe,  46  Fed.  Rep.  Pr.   X.   R.   .392;    Popham  v.   Wilco.x. 

363.  66   N.   Y.    60;    In   re   .Jelley,   Son    & 

4— La  Croix  v.  Sarra/.zin,  1")  Fed.  .Tones,  .")1  L.  J.  Ch.  630;   Radam  v. 

Rep.  480.  Destroyer  Co.,  81  T»'xas.   122;    16  S. 

r,_Von  Mumm  v.  Frash,  .")6  Fed.  W.    Rep.    000;    P.    Lorillard   Co.    v. 

Rep.   830-838;    Filley   v.   Fasaett,  44  Peper,   86   Fed.    Rep.    0.-)6;    Monopol 

Mo.    173;    Gail   v.   Wackerbarth,  28  Tobacco    Works    v.    Oenisor.   66    X. 

Fed.    Rep.    286;    Drummond   v.    Ad-  Y.  Supp.   1.5.5.     Lord  Esher,  Master 

diaon-Tinsley     Tob.     Co..     .52     Mo.  of  the   Rolls,   has  tersely   said:    "If 

App.    10;    Collins    Chemical    Co.    v.  a    man    was    to    come    and    tell    me 

Capitol  City  Mfg.  Co.,  42  Fed.  Rep.  that    a    horse    was    like    a    cat,    he 

467 


§  204] 


IIOI'KINS    l)N    TKVnr.MAKKS. 


468 


Testimony  of  skilled  witiu'sscs  to  the  elTeet  that  in  their  opinion 
thf  j>ul)lir  is  likfly  to  he  tleceivoil  hy  the  similarity  of  two  trade- 
marks, althoujs'h  valualile  in  a  doubtful  easi'.'  is  not  of  itself 
suflieient  evidenee  of  infringement. **  Winn  trrimical  trade  or 
seientilic  (jnestions  are  involved,  iiowcver,  expert  evidence  is 
hijrhly  desirahle,"  ami  espt-eially  when  the  prahability  of  the 
ultimate  consumer  heinp  deceived  l)y  the  defendant's  goods  rests 
on  the  character  and  haliits  of  the  people  who  use  the  product,'" 
or  the  manner  in  which  t'.he  goods  are  usually  sold  or  exhihiteil 
by  the  retailer.'* 

Where  the  defendant  "svas  charged  with  refilling  "A.  V.  ii." 
gin  bottles,  evidence  of  an  expert  ganger  showing  a  variance  in 
alcoholic  proof  between  the  genuine  gin  and  that  sold  by  defend- 
ant in  the  trademarked  packages,  was  admitted. '2 

Where  the  compl.iinant's  ease  rested  on  the  testimony  of  hired 
witnesses  that  they  had  drunk  bitters  sold  them  by  the  defendant 
in  his  saloon  as  being  complainant's  bitters  and  that  s<iid  bitters 
were  imitation,  the  bill  was  dismissed  on  the  conliicting  testi- 
mony offered  in  defense,  the  court  remarking  tliat  hired  wit- 
nesses are  not  disinterested  and  their  testimony  for  that  reason 
should  be  scrutinized  with  unusual  caution. '^  In  dismissing  a 
bill  in  which  a  defendant  was  charged  with  refilling  genuine 
ml^ht  swear   it.  and  you  mij;ht  -.-t      Cartm.-ll,  i)".;  Gorham  Co.^v.  White, 


fifty  persons  to  swear  it,  l>ut  I 
liliould  not  act  on  such  evidence, 
beeau8e  it  is  pure  nonsense."  In  rr 
Christiansen,  3  R.  P.  C.  r)4-01. 

7— Celluloid  Mff.'.  Co.  v.  Read, 
47  Fed.  Uep.  712  710. 

8— Columliia  Mill  Co.  v.  Alcorn, 
40  Fed.  R«-p.  fi7f»;  C(>i>e  v.  Evans, 
L.  R.  18  Eq.  138.  But  in  one  case 
such  evid«iic<'  was  admitted  and 
approved  (Williams  v.  Brooks.  50 
Conn.  278;  47  Am.  Rep.  (5421, 
while  in  another  its  propriety  was 
questioned  ( Radam  v.  Capital  Mi- 
rrol.e  D.Htroyer  Co..  81  Tixas,  122; 
20  Am.  St.  Rep.  7H3). 

n_Mitchell  v.  Henry,  L.  R  IT' 
Ch.  D.  181;  43  I.  T.  180;  Cartm.ll, 
227;  !n  rr  Worthin^'ton.  14  Ch.  D. 
8;  49  L.  .1.  Ch.  040;  Ciirtm.ll,  3.'.1  ; 
In  re  ChristianBon.  3   K     !'■  C.   M; 


14  Wall,  f)!!;  20  L.  Ed.  731;  Wil- 
liam.-! V.  Brooks,  .'iO  Conn.  278; 
Price  &  Steu:irt.  6.'>4 ;  Celluloid  Mf^'. 
Co.    V.    R.ad,   47    Fed.    Rep.    712  710. 

10 — Drummond  v.  Addison-Tins- 
ley  Tob.  Co.,  r)2  Mo.  App.  10;  Sper- 
ry  V.  Pcrcival  Millinp  Co.,  81  Cal. 
2.''>2-200. 

ll_/„    rr  Worthinjrton,   L.    R.    14 

(^h.  n.  8. 

12 — Van  Holioken  v.  Mohns  A 
Kaltenl.aeh.    112   Fed.    Rep-    ^'-^^ 

13— Hostetter  Co.  v.  Bower.  74 
Fed.  Rep.  23.").  Tlie  quantity  of 
proof  adduced,  ainl  its  wc-i>rht,  nec- 
essarily must  he  fixed  hy  th'«  at- 
tendant eircumstanees  of  each 
case.  Thus,  in  oni-  case  it  was  held 
thill  a  sinj^le  wile  of  the  infrinj:in>» 
article  hy  tin-  ilif<ii<iaiit's  clerk 
was   inHunicient   to   warnint    injunc- 


Ki'J 


iMATTKKS   01<'    I'KACTICE    AND    EVIDKNCE 


§204 


packages,  wlicre  llie  evidence  was  coiillictint,',  .ludt^*-  Ooxe  rc- 
iiuii'ked  that  "the  l)iir(l('M  is  stronyrly  upon  llic  (•()iiij)laiiiarit  to 
j)r()ve  t'niiid  liy  a  fair  ])i('p<)M(leraiM'('  of  cvidcm-c."' ' 

\VherL'  proof  is  ollci-i'd  to  show  that  tlic  (•oiiiphnnanl  's  Imsiness 
has  increased  stea<lily  dui-iii^'  llir  period  ol"  the  allcj^'cd  unrair 
coiupctitioii,  and  IIk'I'c  is  no  evidence  of  injury,  sucli  laels  will 
he  e'oii.sidei-ed  in  deterniiiiin^  the  complainant's  li^dit  to  relief. '•'• 
Where  tile  only  evidence  of  deception  came  I'rom  purchasers  who 
were  not  misled,  it  was  held  that  the  facts  constituted  a  ease 
of  suhstitution  on  the  part  of  the  retailer,  and  not  unfair  com- 
petition."' 

Expert  trstinioini  on  other  Usues. — While  the  question  of  the 
likelihood  of  the  defendant's  acts  to  cause  deception  is  one  on 
which  opinion  evidence  is  inadmissihle,*^  it  is  competent  to  prove 
by  witnesses  familiar  with  the  trade  the  customs  of  the 
trade,  the  class  of  customers,  and  any  other  matters  of  fact 
which  may  be  useful  in  aiding  the  court  to  reach  an  opinion  on 
the  question  of  probability  of  deception. ^^ 


tioii.  Lcsiliy  V.  (ilovor,  10  R.  P.  C. 
141.  And  in  a  patt-nt  case  it  was 
hold  tliat  a  single  sale  was  not 
per  sc  an  infringement.  Byam  v. 
Bullard,  1  Curt.  100;  Fed.  Case  No. 
22(J2.  But  evidence  of  a  single  sale 
"may,  m  connection  witii  oilier 
proof,  be  persuasive  evidence  of 
other  sales,  and  convincing  proof 
of  an  intention  to  sell  \viienever  the 
opportunity  of  doing  so  without 
detection  is  presented."  Lacombe, 
J.,  in  Lever  Bros.  (Ltd.)  v.  Pas- 
field,  88  Fed.  Rep.  484.  Citing  De 
Florez  v.  Raynolds.  14  Blatchf. 
">0.").  "That  fraud  may  not  be  pre- 
sumed does  not  imply  that  it  may 
not  be  proved  by  circumstances, 
since  it  nuiy  be  apparent  from  the 
intrinsic  nature  and  subject  of  the 
transaction  itself.  In  rr  Walden 
Bros.  Clothing  Co..  1!)!)  Fed.  Rep. 
:n.'):  Lumpkin  v.  Foley.  204  Fed. 
Rep.  .372.  122  C.  C.  A.  r)42.  Direct 
evid(>nce  is  not  necessary  to  prove 
fraiul.  provided  the  circumstances 
relied  on  are  convincing,  and  incon- 


si.stent  with  a  presumption  of  hon- 
esty. Crowder  v.  Allen-West  Com- 
mission Co.,  213  Fed.  l{ep.  177;  12n 
C.  C.  A.  .')21;  Goodman  v.  Curtis, 
174  Fed.  Rep.  f»44;  98  C.  C.  A.  308." 
Toulmin,  .T..  In  re  Brincat,  233  Fed. 
Rep.  811.  810. 

14 — Ilostetter  Co.  v.  Comer  ford, 
07   Fed.   Rep.   58."). 

15 — Stevens  Linen  Works  v. 
William  &  John  Don  &  Co.,  121 
Fed.  Rep.  171. 

16 — Bickmore  Gall  Cure  Co.  v. 
Karns  Mfg.  Co.,  120  Fed.  Rep.  573. 

17— Payton  v.  Snelling,  17  R.  P. 
C.  035;  Alaska  Packers'  Assn.  v. 
Crooks  &  Co.,  18  R.  P.  C.  135; 
Ilinnessy  &  Co.  v.  Dompe.  10  R. 
P.  C.  3.33,  330;  Hennessy  &  Co.  v. 
Keating.  25  R.  P.  C.   125,  361. 

18— Payton  v.  Snelling,  (1001) 
A.  C.  308;  Bourne  v.  Swan  &  Edgar, 
(1003)  1  Ch.  211;  Royal  Ins.  Co. 
V.  Midland  Ins.  Co.,  25  R.  P.  C. 
728;  St.  Mungo  Co.  v.  Viper  Co., 
27  R.  P.  C.  420. 


§  20r>]  llOl'KINS    O.N    TK ADK.M  AKKS.  470 

A  witness  fninilinr  witli  the  tnidc  luay  testify  to  tlic  catch- 
word or  other  jui-uliar  ik'signatioii  l>y  wliitli  an  article  is  known 
to  the  trade.'-'  or  to  eonsuiuers ;-"  and  of  course  otiier  witnesses 
similarly  (jualilied  may  testify  to  the  contrary. -' 

Testimony  of  witnetsses  j)ro|U'rly  (|ualilied  is  aihnissihle  to 
show  that  owin^'  to  the  iKd\'ndant"s  infrin^'ement.  pUiintifT's 
sah's  liave  fallen  olT;  this  is  true  hoth  at  law--  and  in  e<iuity.--' 
In  the  action  at  law  it  is  competent  for  the  plaintiflF's  proof 
to  show-  tliat  his  sah's  fell  olT  cx)ncurrently  with  the  deftndant's 
infrini;ement,  from  which  the  jury  nuiy  infer  that  the  falling 
off  wjus  the  result  of  the  defendant's  acts.-' 

Evuleuce  of  defendant's  good  faith-. — The  relief  resting  ui)on 
the  charge  of  fraud,  the  fact  that  a  defendant  lias  transacted 
his  alleged  infringement  openly,  hy  extensive  advertising  of  his 
package  will  he  considered  as  hearing  on  the  question  of  intent, 
where  a  technical  trademark  is  not  involved.--'* 

§205.     Successive  changes,  approach  to  plaintiff's  dress. — 

Where  the  defendant  is  shown  to  liave  irradually  adopt'-d  laliels. 
forms  of  package,  and  other  distinctive  features  of  the  jilaintiff's 
goods,  from  a  heginning  in  whii-h  his  goods  hore  no  reseml)lanee 
to  those  of  the  plaintiff,  that  fact  is  strong  evidence  of  fraudu- 
lent motive.2«  Similarly,  the  defendant's  first  infringement  may 
he  so  flagrant  that  copying  is  manifest,  and  a  later  changed  and 
raodifie*!  lahel  may  show  he  was  anticipating  prosecution.-^ 

§206.  Exhibits. — It  is  particidarly  dosirahle  that  the  con- 
flicting marks  \h-  at  all  times  easily  accessil)le  to  the  court,  and 
that  they  he  filed  as  exhihits  whenever  possible.  The  jiractice 
of  the  courts  of  .several  states  does  not  pennit  exhibits,  other 
than  documentary,  to  he  filed,  as  no  provision   ha.s  Ix-en   made 

10— Pollon    V.    Tx-Roy.    HO    X.    Y.  2.1— Tlostrttor    v.    V..\v inkle,    Kod. 

.'■>40-.'-.01.  ("nno.    No.    (5714;    1    Dill.    .T2n ;    Cox, 

20 — IfdiriHon  i   .lofinHon   v.   BntuT  ^^amlnI.  No.  207. 

k    lilack.   27   {".   C".   A.   .'{74;    82   Fod.  24— Sliiiw  v.   Pillin-.  M//>r(;. 

K.p.    flfi2;    Hrad    v.    Hit-hardHon,   4.".  2.''>— T.   P.   Dunn  Co.  v.    Trix  Mfp. 

L.    T.    X.    S.    TA;    Cox.   Mnnuat.    Xo.  Co..  0.3  X.  Y.  Siipp.  X\. 

fins.  20 — C'nrmil  Wine  Co.  v.  PnlcHtino 

21_\VilkinHon     v.     Cnrly.     Kr.I.  Il.-f.n-w    Winr    Co,.    101    Fod.    R.«p. 

Caw  Xo.   17071;   1   Curt.  0.1.  0.^.4. 

22— Shaw  V.    Pilling',   17."»   I'a.   St.  27— Franck  v.  Frank  Cliicory  Co., 

78-ft4;  .34  Atl.  Hop.  440.  ».")  Fed.  Rip.  818. 


471  MATTKUS   OK    I'ltACTICK    AND   EVIDENCE.  [§207 

for  their  m'coiiianodatioii  and  .safe-kccpiii','.  In  Missouri,  where 
this  condition  prevails,  the  St.  Louis  Court  of  Appeals  ha,s  recoiii- 
inended  the  preservation  of  llif  brands  or  labels  us  a  i)art  of  tii«- 
record  on  appeal.-'' 

The  federal  eourt.s,  Iiowcvit,  afford  fvcry  facility  n-fpilrcd  for 
the  eare  of  exhibits  and  the  following'  rule  is  in  clVect  in  all  lli<- 
federal  circuit  court.s  of  appeals: 

"1.  Models,  diagrams  and  exhibits  of  material  forming  part 
of  the  evidence  taken  in  the  court  below,  in  any  case  pending 
in  this  court  on  urit  of  error  or  appeal,  shall  be  placed  in  the 
custody  of  the  niai-shal  of  this  court  at  least  ten  days  before 
the  case  is  heard  or  submitted. 

''2.  All  models,  diagrams  and  exhibits  of  material  placed  in 
the  custody  of  the  marshal  for  the  inspection  of  the  court  on  the 
hearing  of  a  case  must  be  taken  away  by  the  parties  within  one 
month  after  the  case  is  decided.  When  this  is  not  done,  it  .shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  marshal  to  notify  the  coun.sel  in  the  case,  by 
mail  or  otherwise,  of  the  requirements  of  this  rule,  and,  if  the 
articles  are  not  removed  within  a  reasonable  time  after  notice 
is  given,  he  shall  destroy  them  or  make  sucTi  other  disposition 
of  them  as  to  him  may  seem  best."^^ 

It  is  frequently  expedient  to  annex  to  the  order  of  injunction 
specimens  of  tlio  nuirks  used  by  the  defendant. •■^" 

§207.  Discovery. — The  resistance  of  discovery  is  usually 
met  with  by  I'oanplainants  in  trademark  causes. 

Lord  Romilly  compelled  a  defendant  to  make  a  full  discovery 
of  all  his  sales,  the  prices,  profits  realized  and  the  names  of  the 
purchasers,  notwithstanding  the  objection  of  the  defendant  that 
ihe  would  thereby  disclose  his  bu.siness  secrets;^'  and  full  dis- 
covery has  been  compelled  in  other  eases.32    The  power  to  compel 

28— Aldon  v.  Gross.  2.'.  Mo.  App.  but    that    of    the    seventh     circuit, 

123.      And    in    this    connection    see  where  it  is  numbered  rule   .32. 

Mahler  v.  Sanche.  22.3  Ills.  13fi;   70  30— Hansen    v.    Siepel-Cooper    Co. 

N.    E.    Rep.    fl.    reversed   because   of  (1).  lOfi  Fed.  Rep.  f>90.  601. 

insufficient  facts  in  the  record  as  to  31— TTowo  v.  "NrcKcriian.  30  Reav. 

similarity    of    instruments   dealt    in  •">47. 

by  the  respective  parties.     The  facts  32— Leather  Cloth   Co.   v.  Hirsch- 

are  embodied   in   Sanche  v.  INfahler,  feld   (2).  1  11.  &  M.  20.5;   Seb.  224. 

210  Ills.  340;   76  N.  E.  Rep.  48r..  Orr  v.   Diaper,  h.   R.   4  Ch.   D.   92; 

29 — The   above  rule   is   numbered  46  L.  J.  Ch.  41;  Seb.  519. 
rule    34    in    each   court    of   appeals 


§208] 


IIOI'KINS    ON    TKADI.MAHKS. 


472 


discovery  is  inluTi'ut  in  i'(|uit\,  l>ut  is  not  vrstcd  in  roiirls  of 
law  ill  tlie  absi'iK'e  of  statutory  I'liactinent.''-' 

' MciiiitaMf  jurisdiction  will  not  attai-li  for  discovfry  simply, 
I'Xci'pt  in  aid  of  a  suit  at  law."" 

In  artions  at  law  production  of  li(»oi<s  and  papers  is  fully 
provided  ft)r,  in  federal  |)raetit'e,  l»y  see.  7'J4  of  the  lirvised 
Statutes.  It  has  Ix'en  held  that  inspection  of  hooks  or  writiufjs 
may  he  ordered  to  lie  made  before  the  trial.-'"'  It.s  provisions, 
•when  alTordini:  an  adt'<piat«'  remedy,  preclude  resorting;  to  c(piity 
to  compel  discovery, •"•  and  render  the  issuaiu'e  of  a  subpoena 
duces  tecum  unnecessary.*''" 

In  e(piital)le  proceedin«r<  discovery  will  not  he  enfore<'d  -when 
it  may  tend  to  iiuTiminato  the  person  ajrainst  whom  disx'overy 
is  souplit,-''*  or  to  disclose  trade  secrets,'*''  and  the  same  rule  applies 
to  tlie  enforced  production  of  ])ool<s  and  papers  hy  such  persons.-*" 

Suhject  to  these  rest  fictions,  discovery  of  material  facts  -will 
be  compelled. ■•' 

"When  a  defendant  professes  to  answer,  he  must  answer  fully. 
If  he  desires  protection  against  discovery,  he  must  seek  such 
protection  l>y  ploa.'*^ 

§  208.  Evidence  of  recognition  by  others  of  plaintiff's  right 
to  the  mark. — The  rule  is  well  settled  that  a  former  adjudi- 
cation <'stahlisliiii<r  a  trademark,  where  there  lias  heen  an  adjudi- 
cation after  a  bona  fide  contest  on  the  merits,  and  the  same  i.ssues 


33 — C'ol;;utf  V.  C'omimynic  i'riiii- 
caiw,  23  F»d.  Uip.  82-8.1. 

34_(„lt,  .T.,  in  Lord  v.  Whito- 
hfad  &  Atlirrton  Maihinc  Co.,  24 
Fed.  Ri'p.  8(»1.  Discovery  is  now 
provided  f«>r  \>y  new  eciuity  rule 
30,  whicli  WM-,  post,  S  211. 

3.1 — Lufker  V.  Plurnix  Assur- 
ance Co.,  07  Fed.  Rep.  18;  Ex- 
clianj;e  Hank  v.  Wieliita  Cattle  Co., 
(51  Fed.  K.  p.  1!>0;  United  States 
\.  National  F.ead  Co.,  T'l  Fed.  P''n. 
I'l. 

3rt_\VaHlil.urn  A  Moen  Mf},'.  Co. 
V.  Fn-<'niun  Wire  Co.,  41  Fed.  Rep. 
410;    I'atnn   %     Majorf*.  •»<',   Fed.    Hep. 


21(1.  IJut  sec  Colgate  v.  Compapnie 
I'rancaise,  23  Fed.  Rep.  82. 

37 — Kirkpatrick  v.  Pop.-  Mf;.'. 
Co.,  01   Fed.   Hep.  40. 

38— ByasH  v.  Sullivnii.  21  How. 
T'r.  r.O;  Cox,  278. 

.'{0 — See  (inir,  ('liai)ter  VII.  and 
Dolison  V.  riraliam,  4!l  Fed.  Rep.  17. 

40 — Ihid.  See  also  I'nion  Paper 
Collar  Co.  v.  Metropolitan  C<dlar 
Co.    (Ltd.),  3  Oalv.  171 

41— RenLow  V.  Low.  L  R.  10  Ch. 
I).  !>3;  RvasH  V.  Sullivan.  21  How. 
I'r.  r.O;  Cox,  278. 

42— Howe  V.  McK.  man.  30 
Renv.  .147;  Slater  v.  Iliinwell,  T.O 
Fed.   Rej).    ir.O. 


473  MATTKKS    OI-    I'UACTICK    AND    KVIDENCE.  [§  209 

were  presented  us  in  tlic  later  suit,  is  of  i)ersuasive  if  not  bindint^ 
I'ortH!  ill  a  later  ease.''  Hut  a  mere  .showint;  that  tlie  claimant 
{)['  the  trademark  has  l)y  threats  ol'  lej^al  prosecution  compel I(m1 
or  imliiird  Dtiicrs  to  ciitci-  iiitu  undertakings  to  desist  from  the 
use  of  the  name,  or  that  others  have  suhmitted  to  injunctions 
without  a  contest,  is  very  slij,dit,  if  any,  evidence  of  the  jdain- 
tiH"s  ri;,dit  to  use  the  mark.  In  a  I'rcciit  case  ix-fon-  the  House 
of  Lords,  Lortl  J-)avi'y  said  in  re^'ard  to  evidence  of  easels  in  which 
other  j)ei'sons  had  sui)mitted  to  injunctions  and  had  paid  the 
costs:  "That  does  not  appeal-  to  me  to  he  very  strong  evidence 
in  favor  of  the  [)ui"suers.  Of  course,  a  shoi)-keeper  or  a  {)erson 
in  that  position  would  hesitate  a  long  time  l)efore  he  incurred 
tiie  expense,  wiiich  in  the  case  of  a  trademark  or  in  a  patent 
case  is  not  slight,  of  dcd'ending  an  action  of  this  character; 
probably  the  value  to  him  of  the  trade  he  wouhl  lose  would  not 
in  any  «way  compensate  for  the  risk  he  would  incur.  Therefore, 
as  evidence  of  the  fact.  I  do  not  attach  much  importance  to  those 
cases."  "•■*  An  interlocutory  decree  of  one  court  appears  to  be 
entitled  to  })ut  little  weight  in  a  proceeding  before  another.^^ 

§  209.  Contempts. — It  is  provided  by  sec.  725  of  the  United 
States  Re\ised  Statutes  tliat  the  courts  of  the  United  States  shall 
have  the  power  to  punish,  "by  fine  or  imprisonment,  at  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  court,  contempt  of  their  authority;  provided,  that 
such  power  to  punish  contempts  shall  not  be  construed  to  extend 
to  any  cases  except  the  misbehavior  of  any  person  in  their  pres- 
ence, or  so  near  thereto  as  to  obstruct  the  administration  of 
justice,  the  misbehavior  of  any  of  the  officers  of  said  courts  in 
their  official  transactions,  and  the  disobedience  or  resistance  by 
any  such  officer,  or  hy  any  party,  juror,  -witness,  or  other  person, 

4.3 — Moxii'  Xervo  Food  Co.  t.  States.  City  of  Carl.'^had  v.  Kut- 
Boach,  .3.-}  Fed.  Rep.  248;  Symonds  now,  fiS  Fed.  Rep.  794.  And  to 
V.  Greene,  2S  Fed.  Rep.  834;  La  the  same  effect  see  Hohner  v. 
Repnl)li(iue  Francaise  v.  Saratoga  Cratz,  '}()  Fed.  Rep.  .369. 
Vichy  Springs  Co.,  99  Fed.  Rep.  44 — Cellular  Clothing  Co.  v. 
7.3.3.  But  a  decision  of  the  En-  ilaxton,  L.  R.  (1899)  A.  C.  3-26-346. 
glish  high  court  of  chancery  ad-  4.5 — Walter  Baker  &  Co.  v.  San- 
verse  to  the  claimant  of  a  mark  is  ders,  80  Fed.  Rep.  889;  26  C.  C.  A. 
not  a  bar  to  a  suit  for  infringement  220. 
of  the  mark  brought  in  the  United 


§209]  1I01'KIN>    <»N     lUADKMAUKS.  474 

to  any  lawful  writ,  procfss.  onltT.  nilc.  ilccri'c.  or  ('oiiiiiiMiitl  of 
sail!  courts.  ■' 

Contempt  of  ronrt  is  a  spivifie  oriininal  ofTi-nse.^"  Imposition 
of  a  fnif  for  contempt  is  a  jiuljr'neiit  in  <i  eriminal  case.*^  It 
has  been  lielil  that  a  phiintilT  who  circiihit^vs  matter  prcjutlieial 
to  the  defense  of  a  pending::  action  for  trach'inark  infriiij;cmcnt  is 
piiilty  of  a  contempt,'''  as  has  also  hceii  held  of  a  j)laintin'  who 
published  a  false  and  |)ervertcd  construction  of  the  jjurpose 
and  elTcct  of  an  injunction.''' 

]U-  t*;ir  the  ^'reatcr  iniiriber  of  applications  to  X'ommit  for  con- 
tempt in  the  class  of  cases  under  consideration  are  ha.s<'d  upon 
the  failure  of  the  jiarty  enjoined  to  comidy  with  the  injunctive 
decree.  Where  no  attemi)t  has  been  made  toward  connpliance 
■with  the  decretal  order,  the  respomhtit  is.  of  cours<\  in  contempt 
and  liable  to  commitment,  like  any  other  cont-'unior.'"'  But  where 
some  effort  has  been  made  to  comply  with  the  order,  but  to  an 
extent  not  satisfactoiy  to  the  complainant,  an  issue  of  fact  is 
raised  for  the  determination  of  the  trial  court,  and  as  a  rule 
its  fiiulings  and  judgment  will  not  be  reviewed  on  appeal;'^' 
and  where  the  contempt  proceedings  are  referred,  the  court  is 
reluctant  to  disturb  the  findings  of  fact  made  by  the  referee.^^ 

It  is  a  contempt,  after  decree,  to  offer  the  infringing  goods  for 
sale,  even  though  no  sale  is  actually  effected  ;•''•*  nor  does  it 
exempt  the  defendant  from  comndtment  to  show  that  he  intended 
to  comply  with  the  decree,  if  in  fact  he  has  not  complied  with 
it,°^  But  wherever  the  court  detennines  that  the  defendant  has 
.so  altered  his  marks  or  packages  that  there  is  no  longer  any 
danger  of  the  public  mistaking  his  goods  for  those  of  the  plain- 

40 — FischiT  V.  Hayes,  fi  Fid.  Rep.  "yO — Rod^'crs   v.    Nowill    ('ii.  Cox, 

63-08.  IManual.   NO.    li:.;    A   \M'..   M.  &   G. 

47 — X»'w     OrlcaiiH    v.     St«'aniHhi|i  <il4. 

Co.,   20    Wall.    :{87-3n2:    22    L.    Kd.  ni— Devlin    v.    n.'vlin,    00    X.    Y. 

3r>4;     Butl.r    v.     PXv.Tweathtr,    iU  212;  Cox.  Manual.  No.  403. 

Kid.   H.p.  4r.«:   83  C.  C.  A.  025;  03  52— IIcnncHsy    v.    nuddo,   82    Fed. 

U.  S.  App.   123.  H.p.  .541. 

4R— CoatH     V.     Cliadwick,     L.     R.  53— Marcivitdi    v.    RraniMr.   Wil- 

(lRft4)    1   Cli.  I),  347.  kinH  &  Co.,  C..x,  Manual.  No.  505. 

40— Oorliam    Mfy.    Co.    v.    Fm.ry-  54— Devlin    v.    D.vlin.    00    N.    Y. 

Bird  Tliayir  Dry  CJoodH  Co.,  02  Fed.  212;  Cox,  Manual,  No.  403. 
INp.   774-770. 


475  MATTKKS   OPM'KACTICi;    AM)    i;\  IDENCE.  f  §  209 

tin",  he  will  be  diseharged."'''  Where,  hmvever.  tlie  change  is 
only  suHieient  to  avoid  the  letter  of  the  decree,  and  the  defend- 
ant'«  mark  or  package  is  still  calculated  to  promote  decei)tion, 
under  the  English  practice  the  injimction  may  be  enlarged  upon 
the  hearing  of  the  contempt  prwedings  so  as  to  cover  tiie  new- 
fraud,  even  though  the  motion  to  commit  must  be  refused.^" 
The  rulings  of  the  courts  in  this  regard  have  taken  a  wide  range. 
There  have  been  cases  in  which  the  court  has  declined  to  connnit 
upon  the  defendant  making  an  offer  to  devise  such  changes  in 
his  mark  as  would  meet  with  the  approval  of  the  court,'"'  and 
others  where  the  court  has  directed  the  defendant  to  make  such 
changes  with  the  alternative  of  being  conuiiitted.-"''*  Where  an 
injunction  is  in  part  mandatory  and  in  part  prohibitive,  and 
the  mandatory  portion  is  suspended  hy  an  appeal,  the  court  can 
not  punish  the  defendant  for  contempt  for  the  violation  of  such 
mandatory  portion,  although  his  act  is  a  joint  violation  of  both 
portions.''*^ 

And  a  defendant  who  sells  a  stock  of  bottles,  labels  and  wrap- 
pers to  a  third  party,  after  a  decree  enjoining  him  from  dealing 
in  an  infringing  liquor  put  up  in  the  bottles,  under  the  labels 
and  enclosed  in  the  wrappers,  under  circumstances  indicating 
that  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  purchaser  to  supply 
defendant's  former  customers  with  the  infringing  goods,  is  guilty 
of  contemf)t/''"  One  who  is  enjoined  from  preparing.  j)utting  up, 
selling,  offering  or  advertising  for  sale,  any  medicinal  beverage 
made  from  fermented  milk  under  the  name  of  -"Matzoon"  is 
guilty  of  contempt  if  he  aids  another  in  doing  the  forb<dden 
acts,  as  the  agent  or  servant  of  the  other.'- '  "Where  the  injunc- 
tive order  runs  against  agents,  servants  and  employes  "there  is 
no  restraint  laid  upon  the  ageM,  servant,  or  employe  personally, 
but  merely  as  the  agent,  servant,  or  emiploye  of  the  enjoined 
defendant.""-    One  enjoined  from  using  a  finn  name,  who  con- 

•'i'l — Swift    V.    Dey,    4    Robertson,  .l!) — Schwarz    v.    Superior    (.'ourt, 

(ill;  Cox,  319.  Ill  Cal.  106. 

;">6 — Cartier  v.  May,  Cox,  Manual,  00 — Sooiptc  Anonymt^  v.  Western 

>»'o.  200.  Distillin;:  Co.,  42  Fed.  Rep.  96. 

T)?— Croft  V.  Day    (2),  Cox,  Man-  61— Dadirrian      v.      Oullian.      79 

ual.  No.  77.  Fed.  Rep.  784. 

58 — Rodpers  v.   Nowill    (2),  Cox,  62 — Ihifl :    eitin-,'    Slater    v.    Mer- 

Manual,  Xo.   115;  3  DcG.  M.  &  G.  ritt,  75  X.  Y.  268. 
614. 


§210]  HOPKINS   ON    TRADEMARKS.  4  <  tj 

tinues  to  use  statioiu'ry  hearing  tlu-  ii;iiiu',  left  legible  through 
Imving  ink  spria«l  omt  it,  is  guilty  (if  rinitenipt,''-'  as  is  one  ^vho 
puMishes  a  einular  relltH-ting  upon  the  decree  under  Avhich  he 
is  en  joined.'' • 

The  foregoing  rulings  have  been  nuiile  in  unfair  trade  eases. 
It  would  he  foreign  to  our  purjjose  to  go  into  an  extended  dis- 
cussion (»f  the  law  governing  eontenipts,  which  npi)lies  to  this 
as  to  all  other  classes  of  cases.  It  is  well  to  note,  however,  that 
in  the  federal  courts,  at  least,  while  proceedings  in  contenipt  are 
not  reviewable  on  error  or  appeal,  they  may  he  reaohed  by  cer- 
tioran.'^^ 

§210.  AflBd'ivits. — Applications  for  restraining  orders  and 
prelriimiary  injunctions  are  usually  founded  upon  and  re.sisted 
by  allidavit.s.  A  preliniinary  injunction  will  not  be  awarded  on 
ex  parte  affidavits  unless  in  a  clear  case.'"'  The  complainant's 
affidavits  in  chief  must  show  all  the  fact.s  necessary  to  establish 
a  prima  facie  riglit  to  the  injunction  .sought."'  The  defendant's 
affidavits  nuiy  he  by  way  of  traverse,  in  which  case  no  counter 
affidavits  can  he  offered  by  the  complainant:  or  they  may  set  up 
matter  by  way  of  confession  and  avoidance,  in  whic^i  ease  the 
complainant  nuiy  produce  affidavits  in  reply.  Hut  where  such 
affidavits  are  otYered  by  the  complainant  in  reply,  no  further 
affidavits  can  he  olTered  by  the  defendant  by  way  of  rejoinder.''** 

All  affidavits  so  used  must  be  entitled  in  the  cause;  otheuwise 
they  are  mere  e.xtra-judieial  oaths.  P'TJiiry  could  not  be  assigned 
upon  them,  and  they  can  not  be  considered  as  evitlence."''     The 

63— Ilildreth  v.  McCaul,  74  N.  Y.  f.f.— Lan-    v.    Ilarptr    A    Bros..   8ft 

Supp.   1075.  Fed.    Il.p.    481;    30    C.    C.    A.    373; 

64 — .lanrn-y     v.     Pan-Coast     Ven-  New    York    Asbestos    Mfg.    Co.    v. 

tilator    &    MfK-    Co.    (2),    131    Fed.  Ambler    Aslnstos   Air-cell    Covering 

Rep.  143.  t'"-.     '•''     Fed.     Rep.     8.''.;     Dinmond 

(5.V_/„    rr    Chetwood,    Iflf)    U.    S.  Miiteli    Co.    v.    Safe    Harbor    Match 

443-402;    41    L.    Ed.    782;    Sehwart/  Co..   10!)   Fed.   Rep.   ir)4. 

V.    Superior    Court.     Ill     Cal.     100.  07— Leclancha      Ratl.ry      Co.      v. 

Compare     Hiitl.r    v.     I'Xvfrweather,  WeHtmi    Kl.ctric  Co..  '21    Fed.    Uep. 

91      Fed.      K.p.      4.'i8;      33     C.      C.  538. 

A.     025;      03     V.      S.      App.      123;  08— Day     v.    N.w     Fn>;land    Car 

holding  tliat   writ  of  error  will   li.-  Spring  Co..  3   Hlateh.    l.'.4-l.'in,   Fed. 

to  review   an   ordi-r   rommittiny  for  Case  No.  3,080. 

contemi.t  a  witniHs.  not  a  party  to  00— Tlawby  v.   Donnelly.  8  Paipe, 

the    cHxm:    for    his    refusal    to    an-  415;      Ruerk     v.      ImbaeuBer.     Fed. 

Bwer  rpieHtions.  Case  No.    2107^  .■    10   OlT.    f.az.    007; 


477  MATTERS   OF   PRACTICE   AND   EVIDENCE.  [§211 

iiiuviiig  alliiliuils  iti  coiilriiipl  iirocecciinps  must  directly  charge 
the  acts  ol  violation  of  the  decree;  il"  on  iiilonnation  and  belict' 
they  arc  insnUicient.''" 

§211.  The  taking  of  testimony. — In  actions  at  law  depo- 
sitions may  be  taken  on  ilue  notici!  at  any  time  sul)sequent  to 
the  filing  of  the  petition,  an'ci  it  is  immaterial  whether  the  cause 
is  at  issue  or  not.  Tiie  Act  of  March  !>,  ISirj,  c.  14,  27  Stat,  at  L. 
7,  U.  S.  Comp.  St.  l!)f)l,  p.  UG4,  permits  depositions  of  witnes.ses 
in  eases  pending  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States  to  be  taken 
in  the  mode  prescribed  by  the  laws  of  the  state  in  which  the 
courts  are  held.  For  practical  ordci-s  made  under  this  section 
the  case  cited  in  the  note  will  furnish  illustrations.'^' 

The  new  equity  rules,  as  promulgated  l)y  the  supreme  court 
at  the  October  term,  1!)12,  regulate  the  taking  of  testimony  in 
equity  causes  in  the  federal  courts,  as  follows: 

46. 

TRIAI^-TESTDIONY  USUALLY  TAKEN  IN  OPEN  COURT 
—RULINGS  ON  OBJECTIONS  TO  EVIDENCE. 

In  all  trials  in  equity  the  testimony  of  witnesses  shall  be  taken 
orally  in  open  court,  except  as  otherwise  provided  by  statute 
or  these  rules.  The  court  shall  pass  upon  the  admissibility  of  all 
evidence  offered  as  in  actions  at  law.  When  evideace  is  offered 
and  excluded,  and  the  party  against  whom  the  ruling  is  made 
excepts  thereto  at  the  time,  the  court  shall  take  and  report  so 
much  thereof,  or  make  such  a  statement  respecting  it,  as  will 
clearly  show  the  character  of  the  evidence,  the  form  in  which 
it  was  offered,  the  objection  made,  the  ruling,  and  tlio  exception. 
If  the  appellate  court  shall  he  of  opinion  that  the  evidence 
should  have  been  admitted,  it  .shall  not  reverse  the  decree  unless 
it  be  clearly  of  opinion  tJiat  iiiaterial  jirejudice  will  result  from 
an  aflfiniiance.  in  which  event  it  shall  direct  such  further  steps 
as  justice  may  require. '^ 

Goldstein   v.  ^Vhplan,   62  Fed.   "Rep.  70— Davidson  %•.  :Mimsry.  20  T'tali 

124.     To  the  contrary  see  Sliook  v.  181 ;  SO  Pac.  Rep.  74:J. 

■Rankin,  0  Biss.  477,  480,  481,  Fed.  71— Wallace  v.  D.  Appleton  c^.  ' 

Case   12.   804;    IModox  Co.   v.  Moxie  If.l   Fed.  Rep.  884. 

Nerve  Food  Co.,  1(52  Fed.  Rep.  049,  72 — A    mw    nili-.    al>olisliinir    ' 

651;  89  C.  C.  A.  441.  practice    of    former    rule     67     a:;'. 


§--'H] 


IIOI'KINS    ON     TKAUKMAKKS 


478 


47. 

DEPOSITIONS— TO    BE    TAKEN    IN    EXCEPTIONAL 
INSTANCES. 

The  t'Oiirt.  upon  application  of  oithor  party,  when  allowed  by 
statute,  or  for  irood  and  ('X('»'i)tioiial  cause  for  departing  from 
the  general  rule,  to  he  shown  liy  atHicLivit.  iiia\-  permit  the  depo- 
sition of  imnied  witnesses,  to  l)o  useil  l)efore  the  eourt  or  upon  a 
reference  to  a  nuuster,  to  he  taken  hefore  an  examiner  or  other 
named  oflieer.  upon  the  notii-e  and  terms  specified  in  the  order. 
All  depositi(Mis  taken  under  a  statute,  c  under  any  sueh  order 
of  the  court,  shall  he  taken  and  tiled  as  follows,  unless  otherwise 
ordered  by  the  court  or  .iudge  for  good  cause  sho^vn :  Those  of 
the  plaintiff  within  sixty  days  from  the  time  the  cause  is  at 
issue ;  those  of  the  defendant  within  tiiirty  days  from  the  expira- 
tion of  the  time  for  the  tiling  of  plaintiff's  depositions;  and 
rebutting  depositions  by  eitiier  party  within  twenty  days  after 
the  time  for  taking  original  depositions  expires.^^ 


48. 

TESTIMONY  OP  EXPERT  ^YITN ESSES  IN  PATENT  AND 
TRADEMARK  (^ASES. 

In  a  case  involving  the  validity  or  scope  of  a  patent  or  trade- 
mark, the  district  court  may,  upon  petition,  order  that  the  testi- 
mony in  chief  of  expert  witnesses,  whose  testimony  is  directed 


adopting  tlio  Enfilish  practice 
of  oral  tt'stimonv  in  open  court 
save  where  special  cause  exists 
for  takinfr  the  testimony  otherwise. 
For  the  Enfrlish  practice,  see  Order 
XXXVIT,  Rules  5  to  2."),  both  in- 
clusive. 

By  empowcrin},'  thi'  trial  court  to 
pass  upon  the  admissibility  of  the 
evidence,  and  providing.'  for  ajipellate 
review  of  questifins  of  evidence,  tlio 
rule  restores  the  practice  as  it 
existed  prior  to  1842,  as  explained 
in  Blease  v.  r.arlinpt«m,  02  U.  S.  1  ; 
23  L.   Kd.   r)21. 


For  a  discussion  of  the  reasons 
which  led  to  the  adoption  of  this 
rule,  see  Nortli  v.  Herrick,  203  Fed. 
Uep.  fiOl. 

73 — A  new  rule,  supplementary  to 
Rule  46,  next  preceding. 

This  rule  docs  not  vary,  abro<»atc 
or  limit  the  application  of  §  803, 
R.  S.  U.  S.,  and  depositions  taken 
under  that  statute  need  not  he  taken 
liy  leave  of  court,  or  within  the  time 
limited  hy  Rule  47.  Iowa  \Vashin<x 
Maeh.  Co.  v.  Montjromery  Ward  i 
Co.,  227  Fed.  Rep.  at  p.  1007  (S. 
Dist.  X.  Y.,  Mayer.  TTouph,  A.  \. 
Ifand  and  Learned   Hand,  JJ.). 


479 


MATTERS  OP   PRACTICE   AND    EVIDENCE. 


[§211 


to  matters  of  opinions,  be  set  forth  in  affidavits  and  filed  as  fol- 
lows; Those  of  the  plaintiff  within  forty  days  after  the  cause 
is  at  issue;  those  of  the  defendant  within  twenty  days  after 
plaintiff's  time  has  expired;  and  rebutting  affidavits  witiiin  fif- 
teen days  after  the  expiration  of  the  time  for  filing  original 
affidavits.  Should  the  opposite  party  desire  the  production  of 
any  affiant  for  cros.s-e.\amination,  the  court  or  judge  shall,  on 
motion,  direct  that  said  cross-examination  and  any  re-examina- 
tion take  place  before  the  court  upon  the  trial,  and  unless  the 
affiant  is  produced  and  submits  to  cross-examination  in  com- 
pliance with  such  direction,  his  affidavit  shall  not  be  used  as 
evidence  in  the  cause.""* 


74 — A  now  rule,  supplcmpntary  to 
the  two  rules  next  preceding. 

The  provisions  as  to  affidavits  in 
the  English  practice  are  to  be  found 
in  Order  XXXVII,  Rules  20  and 
24;  Order  XXXVIII,  Rules  2.1,  26, 
27  and  28. 

It  is  not  clear  why  Rule  48  should 
distinguish  between  opinion  wit- 
nesses in  patent  or  trademark  cases, 
and  otlier  cases.  N^o  such  distinc- 
tion obtains  in  England,  where  the 
rule  is  that :  "Affidavits  shall  he 
confined  to  such  facts  as  the  witness 
is  able  of  his  o^vn  knowledge  to 
prove,  except  on  interlocutory 
motions,  on  which  statements  as  to 
his  belief,  with  the  grounds  thereof. 
may  be  admitted"  (Order  XXXVIIT, 
Rule  3). 

It  is  particularly  obscure  why 
trademark  cases  should  be  specified 
in  the  rule,  as  practically  no  opinion 
witnesses  are  employed  in  such 
cases,  in  view  of  the  repeated  rul- 
ings that  the  best  tests  of  resem- 
blance (the  point  upon  which  expert 
testimony  was  formerly  occasionally 
introduced)  are  proof  of  actual 
instances  of  substitution,  and  visual 
inspection  by  the  court. 

Is  this  Rule  in  Contravention  of 
Statute? — In     sec.     917     it     is     en- 


acted that  the  supreme  court  shall 
have  power  "to  prescribe  •  •  • 
in  any  manner  not  inconsistent  icith 
autf  law  of  the  United  States 
*  *  *  the  modes  •  *  *  of 
taking  and  oI)taining  evidence." 
So,  also,  in  sec.  fll3,  Revised  Statutes 
of  the  United  States,  it  is  provided 
tliat  the  forms  and  modes  of  pro- 
ceeding in  suits  of  equity  are  subject 
to  regulation  by  the  supreme  court 
by  rules  prescribed  not  inconsistent 
with  the  laws  of  the  United  States. 
See  Ex  parte  Plienix  Ins.  Co.,  118 
U.  S.  610;  30  L.  Ed.  274.  In  the 
.Judiciary  Act  of  1789.  1  Stat,  at 
L.  88,  sec.  30,  it  was  provided 
that  the  mode  of  proof  by  oral 
testimony  and  examinations  of 
witnesses  in  open  court  should  be 
the  same  in  all  the  courts  of  the 
United  States,  as  well  in  the  trial 
of  causes  in  equity  as  of  actions  at 
common  law:  and  this  provision 
remained  in  force  until  the  adoption 
of  the  Revised  Statutes,  of  whicli 
sec.  862  repealed  it.  Blease  v. 
Garlington,  92  U.  S.  1;  23  L.  Ed. 
.i21. 

It  is  provided  by  sec.  862  that 
"the  mode  of  proof  in  causes  of 
eqtiity  *  *  ♦  shall  be  according 
to  rules  now  or  hereafter  prescribed 


§211] 


HOI'KINS   0:«.    TRAUKMAItKS. 


480 


\i\  till'  8iij)rri«f  luurt.  fXtvj)!  as 
luTrin  s|>«'iially  proviilctl."  Ah  tn 
hUfl  .^|H'oiaI  provisioiiH  nn  art'  tluTf- 
l>y  »'Xct'|)U'«l  from  llu-  powi-r  of  tlio 
Huprvnit'  court  to  make  rtiK-s,  that 
court  lias  wild  "wlu-n  the  stututcs  of 
tlic  Uiiittnl  States  make  special  pr(»- 
visiona  as  to  th»'  comju'tcncy  or 
adniissihility  of  testimony,  tliey 
must  he  followed  in  tlie  courts  of 
the  United  States."  Mr.  Chief 
Justice  Waite,  in  Whitford  v. 
County  of  Clark.  110  U.  S.  522;  .SO 
L.  Ed.  500. 

Section  8G3  contains  the  follow injr 
provision:  "The  testimony  of  any 
witness  may  he  taki'u  in  any  civil 
cause  depending  in  a  district  or 
circuit  court  hy  dei)osition  <lc  bene 
case,  when  the  witness  lives  at  a 
j,'rcater  distance  from  the  place  of 
trial  than  one  hundred  miles,  or  is 
l>ound  on  a  voya;;e  to  sea,  or  is 
about  to  ^o  out  of  the  United  States, 
or  out  of  the  district  in  which  the 
case  is  to  he  tried,  and  to  a  f^reater 
distance  tiian  one  hundred  miles 
from  the  place  of  trial,  before  the 
time  of  trial,  or  when  lie  is  ancient 
and  infirm."  Of  sec.  803,  Mr.  Justice 
Miller  has  said.  "No  one  can  examine 
these  provisions  for  procurin;,'  tes- 
timony to  he  used  in  the  courts  of 
the  Ignited  States,  and  have  any 
reasonahle  doubt,  so  far  as  they 
apply,  they  were  intended  to  povcrn 
the  practice,  in  that  respect,  in  those 
courts.  They  are,  in  the  first  place, 
t«f)  cnmpl<'t<'.  too  far-reaeliinf^.  and 
too  minute  to  admit  of  any  other 
conclusion.  But  we  have  not  only 
tliis  inference  from  the  character  of 
the  le^rislation,  but  it  is  enforced  i>y 
the  express  lan;.'uaf;e  of  tlie  law  in 
providing;  a  defined  mode  of  proof 
in  thf»H<'  courts,  and  in  specifyin;; 
the    only    exceptions   to    that    mode 


whieli  shiill  Ik-  admitted."  Kji  parte 
Fisk.  ll.i  r.  S.  7l:{;  2S  L.  Kd.  1117; 
followed  in  Kaiiks  Dental  Assn.  v. 
Internatioiuil  'i»)otli  Cn)wu  Co.,  lO-l 
U.  S.  ao;j;   48  L.   Kd.  S>8U. 

We  see,  therefore,  that  8t>c.  803  doe» 
not  distinguish  between  classes  of 
witnesses.  Tlie  (|m'sti<in  therefore 
arisi'S  whether  the  supreme  court 
has  any  authority  to  witiidraw  from 
the  operation  of  sec.  8(5.*}  opinion  wit- 
iieSLU's  as  a  class.  Does  the  pro- 
nHil;;ation  of  Rule  48  have  the  effect 
of  de|)rivinp  a  party  litigant  of  the 
absolute  ri},'ht  to  take  the  testimony 
of  an  expert  or  opinion  witness, 
where  tiuit  witness  resides  at  a 
f;reater  di.Htance  from  the  place  of 
trial  than  one  hundred  miles,  or  the 
other  statutory  causes  for  taking  his 
deposition  under  sec.  803  exist?  Have 
the  district  courts  authority  by  a 
local  rule  to  require  a  notice  to  take 
depositions  under  sec.  803  to  specify 
whetlier  the  witnesses  are  expert  or 
fact  witnesses?  Coneedinj,'  the  valid- 
ity of  the  rule  as  to  witnesses  resi- 
dent within  tlie  lOO-mile  radius  from 
the  place  of  trial,  it  is  diflicult  to  see 
how  a  district  court  may  on  petition 
make  an  order  in  the  terms  of  Rule 
48  which  will  be  of  any  force  as 
afjainst  a  party  who  may  see  fit  to 
use  the  testimony  of  an  expert  wit- 
ness under  circumstances  entitlin<T 
that  party  to  take  the  testimony  of 
the  witness  under  sec.  803.  It  then 
seems  that  Rule  48  must  he  con- 
strued to  mean  that  a  party  may, 
under  its  provisions,  olFtT  his  own 
expert  testimony  in  allidavit  form; 
not  that  he  can  deprive  the  opposite 
party  of  the  rijiht  to  take  expert 
testimony  by  deposition  under  sec. 
803. 

For  an  illustration  t)f  the  applica- 
tion  of  this   rulu  bC'c,  1*.   M.   Co.   v. 


481  MATTKKS    OK    I'KACTICK    AM)    K\  lUENCK.  [§-11 

49. 

EVIDKNCK  TAKEN  HEFOKH  EXAMINERS,  ETC. 

All  evidence  offered  before  an  examiner  or  like  officer,  tofj;(.'thtT 
with  any  objections,  shall  l)e  saved  and  returned  into  the  court. 
Depositions,  whether  upon  oral  exaiiiiiuition  hefor*;  an  examiner 
or  like  oflicer  or  otherwise,  shall  l)e  taken  u|)on  (piestions  and 
answers  reduced  to  writing,  or  in  the  form  of  narrative,  and  the 
witnes.s  shall  be  subject  to  cross  and  re-examination.'^ 

50. 

STENOGKAPIIEK— APPOINTMENT— FEES. 

When  deemed  necessary  by  the  court  or  officer  taking  testi- 
mony, a  stenographer  may  be  appointed  who  shall  take  down 
testimony  in  shorthand,  and,  if  required,  transcribe  the  same. 
His  fee  shall  be  fixed  by  the  court  and  taxed  ultimately  as  costs. 
The  expense  of  taking  a  deposition,  or  the  cost  of  a  transcript, 
shall  be  advanced  by  the  party  calling  the  witness  or  ordering 
the  transcript. ^'^ 

51. 

EVIDENCE  TAKEN  BEFORE  EXAMINERS,  ETC. 

Objections  to  the  evidence,  before  an  examiner  or  like  officer, 
shall  be  in  short  form,  stating  the  grounds  of  objection  relied 
upon,  but  no  transcript  filed  by  such  officer  shall  include  argu- 
ment or  debate.  The  testimony  of  each  witness,  after  being 
reduced  to  writing,  shall  ])e  read  over  to  or  by  him.  and  shall 
be  signed  by  him  in  the  presence  of  the  officer ;  provided,  that  if 
the  witness  shall  refuse  to  sign  his  deposition  so  taken,  the  officer 
shall  sign  the  same,  stating  upon  the  record  the  rea-sons,  if  any, 
assigned  by  the  witness  for  such  refusal.  Objection  to  any 
question  or  questions  shall  be  noted  by  the  officer  upon  the 
deposition,  but  he  shall  not  have  power  to  decide  on  the  compe- 
tency or  materiality  or  relevancy  of  the  questions.     The  court 

Ajax  Rail  Anchor  Co.,  21G  Fed.  Rep.  7;")— A  now  nilo,  based  upon  pro- 

r.34.      That   the   rule   furnishes   the  visions  of  former  Rule  67. 

means  of  preventing  a  plaintiff  from  76 — A  new  rule,  based  upon  simi- 

beinp  taken  by  surprise  at  the  trial,  lar   provisions   of    former   Rule    67. 

see  Todd  v.  Wliitaker.  217  Fed.  Rop. 

319. 


§211]  HOPKINS    ON    TUVDKMAKKS.  482 

shall  liuM'  power,  and  it  sliuU  hv  its  iluty.  to  deal  v  itli  tin*  ('(xsts 
of  im'onipcteiit  and  innmitcriul  or  irrelevant  depositions,  or  part« 
of  them,  iw  may  be  just."^  , 

52. 

ATTHNDANCE   OF   WITXKSSKS   BKFOHK    COMMIS- 
SIONER, MASTKK'  OH  HXAMIXEK. 

Witnesses  who  live  -witliin  the  district,  and  whose  testimony 
may  he  taken  out  of  eourt  hy  these  rules,  may  he  sumiiioiied 
to  appear  before  a  comimissioner  appointed  to  take  testimony, 
or  before  a  master  or  examiner  api)ointed  in  any  cause,  by  sub- 
poena in  the  \isual  form,  whieli  may  be  issued  liy  the  clerk  in 
blank  and  filled  up  by  the  party  praying  the  same,  or  by  the 
eommissioner.  master,  or  examiner,  recpiiriiifr  tlie  attendance  of 
the  witnesses  at  the  titne  and  place  specified,  who  shall  be  allowed 
for  attendance  the  same  compensation  as  for  attendance  in  court ; 
and  if  any  witness  shall  refuse  to  appear  or  jrive  evidence  it 
shall  be  deemed  a  contempt  of  the  court,  which  l>eing  certifie<l 
to  the  clerk's  ofTice  by  the  commissioner,  master,  or  examiner,  an 
attachment  nuiy  issue  thereupon  l)y  order  of  the  eourt  or  of 
any  judge  thereof,  in  the  same  manner  as  if  the  contempt  were 
for  not  attending,  or  for  refusing  to  give  testimony  in,  the  court. 

In  ease  of  refusal  of  witnesses  to  attend  or  be  sworn  or  to 
answer  any  question  put  by  the  commissioner,  master  or  exam- 
iner, or  by  counsel  or  solicitor,  the  same  practice  shall  be  adojited 
as  is  now  practiced  Avith  respect  to  witnesses  to  be  produced  on 
examination  before  an  examiner  of  said  court  on  written  inter- 
rogatories."** 

KOTICK  OF  TAKINC   TEST  I  MOW  HHFOHF    KXA.M- 
\\K\i.   FTC. 

Notice  shall  he  given  by  the  respective  counsel  or  parties  to 
the  opposite  counsel  or  parties  of  the  time  and   place  of  exam- 

77 — A  n«'\v   rulo.  rontninint;  Honn-  ttif  trnnKcri|)t  wns  nuulf  ini|MTntive 

of    tlir    provi(«ifinH    of    former     UuU-  hy  tlir-  aluiHi-  of  (In-  old  rule. 
Cil .      'Ilie    proviHJon    tliiit    nr^ninient  "S — .A  new  rule  tinlirnriiij;  part  of 

and    dc'liat*'   shall    b«'   omitted    from  former  Rule  07. 


483 


MATTEK.^^    OK    rKACTlCK    AND    KVIDKNCK. 


[§21l 


illation   bt'lorc  an   cxaiiiiiiLr  or  like  ofliccr   for  .sut,*li    reawjiiabU; 
time  as  the  court  or  officer  may  fix  by  order  in  each  case.^® 

54. 

DEPOSITION  UNDER  HEV.  STAT.  §§  863,  865,  866,  867— 
CKOSS-EXAMINATION. 

After  a  cause  is  at  issue,  depositions  may  ))e  taken  as  provided 
by  sees.  86:},  H65.  866  and  vS(i7,  Revised  Statutes.  Hut  if  in  any 
case  no  notice  has  been  ^iven  the  opi)osite  party  of  the  time  and 
place  of  taking  the  deposition,  he  shall,  upon  application  and 
notice,  be  entitled  to  have  the  witness  examined  orally  hefore 
the  court,  or  to  a  crass-exatnination  before  an  examiner  or  like 
officer,  or  a  ne^'  deposition  taken  with  notice,  as  the  court  or 
judge  under  all  the  circumstances  shall  order.^^ 


7!) — A  now  rule;  a  parapliraso  of 
a  para<?raph    in   former    Rule   (17. 

80 — Substantially  former  I^ulc  (>8. 

Statutorji  provisions. — Section  863, 
Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States: 
"The  testimony  of  any  witness  may 
he  taken  in  any  civil  cause  depend- 
injr  in  a  district  or  circuit  court  by 
deposition  <le  bene  esse,  when  the 
witness  lives  at  a  greater  distance 
from  the  place  of  trial  than  one 
hundred  miles,  or  is  bound  on  a  voy- 
age to  sea,  or  is  about  to  go  out 
of  the  United  States,  or  out  of  the 
district  in  which  the  case  is  to  be 
tried,  and  to  a  greater  distance  than 
one  hundred  miles  from  the  place 
of  trial,  liefore  the  time  of  trial,  or 
when  he  is  ancient  and  infirm.  Tlie 
depositionj  may  be  taken  before  any 
judge  of  any  court  of  the  United 
States,  or  any  commissioner  of  a 
circuit  court,  or  any  clerk  of  a  dis- 
trict or  circuit  court,  or  any  chan- 
cellor, justice  or  judge  of  a  supreme 
or  superior  court,  mayor  or  chief 
magistrate  of  a  city,  judge  of  a 
county   court   or   court  of   common 


pleas  of  any  of  the  United  States, 
or  any  notary  public,  not  being  of 
counsel  or  attorney  to  either  of  the 
parties,  nor  interested  in  the  event 
of  the  cause.  Reasonable  notice 
must  first  be  given  in  writing  by 
the  party  or  his  attorney  proposing 
to  take  sucii  deposition,  to  the  oppo- 
site party  or  his  attorney  of  record, 
as  either  may  l)e  nearest,  which 
notice  shall  state  the  name  of  the 
witness  and  the  time  and  place  of 
the  taking  of  his  deposition;  and 
in  all  cases  in  rem,  the  person  hav- 
ing the  agency  or  possession  of  the 
pro])erty  at  the  time  of  seizure  shall 
be  deemed  the  adverse  party,  until 
a  claim  shall  have  been  put  in;  and 
whenever,  by  reason  of  the  absence 
from  the  district  and  want  of  an 
attorney  of  record  or  other  reason, 
the  giving  of  the  notice  herein  re- 
quired shall  be  impracticable,  it  shall 
be  lawful  to  take  such  depositions  as 
there  shall  be  urgent  necessity  for 
taking,  upon  such  notice  as  any 
jiidge  authorized  to  hold  courts  in 
such  circuit  or  district  shall  think 


§211] 


HOPKINS    ON    TKAni:.M  AKK^ 


484 


n-aitonablo  niul  (linn-t.  Aii^  iutsoii 
inuy  Ik'  ot>ni|>flliHl  tt>  npixiir  muI  il<' 
)His4-  UH  pnividcii  liy  tliirt  Kcotioii,  in 
tlif  Kiiinr  inaiiiHT  uh  witiit-hHi-H  niH\ 
Ik"  ctitu|Mll((l  to  apprur  and  tt-Htify 
in  court." 

St'ction  SV)',\  always  a|i|ilif<l  to 
tijuity  as  wfll  ax  coininon  law  fftUswH. 
Stejrn.r  v.  lUako.  M  Fed.  Rep.  1H3, 
1S4.  Depositions  may  Ih'  taken 
undtr  s«'e.  SU.'l  outside  the  district  in 
wliich  the  caw  is  to  he  tried  ( Pa- 
tapasco  Ins.  Co.  v.  Southj^ate,  5 
I'eters.  (504,  r.Ki;  S  L.  Kd.  •24;{,  248), 
and  outside  the  circuit  containin;^ 
that  district.  Thum  v.  Andrew?.  r>'.i 
Fi>d.  Rop.  84,  8."».  No  order  of  court 
is  ni-cessary  under  sec.  8(53.  "The 
right  to  take  (the  d(>position )  upon 
notice  merely,  in  the  manner  pre- 
8cril)e4,  is  ^iven  ahsolutely  to  the 
party  i>y  act  of  con','ress."  Lacombe, 
J.,  in  Henninji  \.  Hoyle.  112  Fed. 
Rep.  3't7. 

"There  are  two  {general  methods 
for  takinj:  depositions  to  he  used  on 
the  trial  of  law  cases  provided  for 
in  the  Revised  Statutes;  the  one  lie- 
ing  the  mode  pointed  out  in  see.  8().'5, 
and  the  other  in  sec.  8(iti.  When  taken 
under  the  provisions  of  the  former 
section,  a  commission  to  the  oflicer 
is  not  sued  out  from  the  court  in 
which  the  cauw  is  pending,',  hut  the 
party  desirin;:  to  take  the  testimony 
gives  notice  to  the  o|(posite  |>arty  or 
liis  attorney  of  the  time  and  place 
when  and  where  the  testimony  is  to 
he  taken,  and  selects  as  the  com- 
missioner any  one  of  the  parties 
named  in  the  section.  Wln-n  deposi- 
tions are  thus  taken,  no  opportunity 
is  H(Tor<le<l  to  the  opposite  party  to 
he  heard  upon  the  matter  of  the  se- 
lection of  the  commissioni-r.  Hence 
't  is  re<|uire<l  of  the  party  taking 
the  <leposition   that   Iw   nhall  schrt   a 


disinterested  commissioner,  and  tiie 
statute  re<|uires  tlie  j>arty  selected 
to  certify  that  he  is  nt>t  of  couhm'I 
for  either  jmrty,  nor  interesti'd  in 
tile  e\c-nt  of  the  suit.  If,  however,  the 
depositions  are  not  taken  uniler  sec. 
8(53,  hut  under  the  authority  granted 
in  sec.  8(5(5,  then,  i»y  the  exprcsa 
tt-rms  of  the  latter  section,  the  pro- 
visions of  sees.  8ti3,  804  and  803  are 
in)t  applicaide'thereto.  Section  800 
provides  for  the  court  granting  a 
(Ivilimus,  and  in  so  doing  it  is  pre- 
sumed that  the  court  will  seh^t  a 
proper  per.son  to  act  as  the  commis- 
sioner, and  the  parties  can  he  heard 
upon  the  question  of  the  appoint- 
ment before  the  commission  issues. 
The  authority  conferred  hy  sec.  80(5 
is  the  granting  a  drdimun  to  take 
dej)ositions  according  to  common 
usage.  In  MeI.eniuui  v.  Railroad 
Co..  22   Fed.    Rep.    l!i8,   it   was  held: 

'•  'When,  however,  tiie  facts  are 
such  in  a  given  case  that,  under  the 
provisions  of  statutes  of  the  United 
States,  the  right  to  take  the  testi- 
mony of  witnesses  l>y  deposition 
exists,  then,  as  to  tiie  mere  mode 
of  procuring  the  di'j  osition.  parties 
may  follow,  at  their  election,  either 
tlie  provisions  of  the  state  law  or 
of  the  act  of  congress." 

"Tn  other  words,  if  the  right  to 
takf  (iipositions  existed,  then  the 
party  desiring  to  take  the  same  miglit 
ilo  so  under  tlie  jirovisions  of  si'c. 
SC.t.  (ir  aeeordiiiL'  to  coninion  usage, 
wliieh,  in  an  action  at  law,  would 
he  deemed  t«)  he  in  accordance  with 
the  mode  provided  for  hy  the  statutes 
of  the  state."  .Sliiras.  .1.,  in  Ciles 
V.    Paxtcni.    :5«5    Fed.    Rep.    882.    883. 

"Reasonable  notice"  depends  upon 
the  |iartieular  <Mr(iimHtanees  of  the 
ease.  American  l'!xchangi'  National 
Hank   v.    First  Natl.   Hank.  82   Fed. 


485 


MATTERS    OK    I'UACTICK    AM)    K\  IDKNCK. 


[§211 


K.'p.  !Mil  ;  27  C.  ('.  A.  -274.  'Iliat 
to  be  UHcd  ujion  tlie  trial,  dcpoHi- 
tions  takfii  in  a  cehc  removed  from 
a  statu  court  hofon-  its  removal  must 
comply  with  sec.  S(»l{,  see  Texas  &  1'. 
R.  Co.  V.  Wilder,  !»2  Fed.  Hep.  U').'} ; 
35  C.  C.  A.  lur».  Ah  to  nam  in;,'  the 
oJlicer  in  the  notice,  see  (Jormlev  v. 
Bunyan,  13S  U.  S.  «)2.{ ;  34  I..  Kd. 
1086. 

Section  8(1'),  Revised  Statutes  of 
the  United  States:  '"Kvery  deposi- 
tion taken  under  the  two  preceding 
sections  shall  be  retained  by  the 
magistrate  taking  it,  until  he  deliv- 
ers it  with  his  own  hand  into  tlie 
court  for  which  it  is  taken;  or  it 
shall,  togetiier  witli  a  certifieatr  of 
the  reasons  as  aforsaid  of  taking  it 
and  of  the  notice,  if  any,  given  to  the 
adverse  party,  he  by  him  sealed  up 
and  directed  to  such  court,  and  re- 
main under  his  seal  until  opened  in 
court.  But  unless  it  appears  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  covirt  that  the  wit- 
ness is  then  dead,  or  gone  out  of  the 
United  States,  or  to  a  greater  dis- 
tance than  one  hundred  miles  from 
tlie  place  where  the  court  is  sitting, 
or  that,  by  reason  of  age,  sickness, 
bodil}'  infirmity,  or  im])risonment, 
he  is  unable  to  travel  and  appear  at 
court,  such  deposition  shall  not  be 
used  in  the  cause." 

As  to  the  requisites  of  the  officer's 
certificate,  see  Sage  v.  Tauszky,  Fed. 
Case  12,214;  Jones  v.  Knowles,  1 
Cranch  C.  C.  523;  Fed.  Case  7,474; 
Bussard  v.  Catalino,  2  Cranch  C.  C. 
421;  Fed  Case  2,228;  Egbert  v. 
Citizens'  Ins.  Co.,  7  Fed.  Rep.  47; 
United  States  v.  Julian,  162  U.  S. 
324;  40  L.  Ed.  984.  As  to  sealing, 
see  In  re  Thomas,  35  Fed.  Rep. 
337. 

Section  866,  Revised  Statutes  of 
the  United  States:  "In  any  cases 
where   it  is  necessary,   in   order  to 


preMiit  a  failure  or  delay  (»f  justice, 
any  of  tin-  courts  of  the  United 
States  may  grant  a  didimuH  poteata- 
1 1  III  to  take  de|)oHitionH  according 
to  eoninion  usage;  and  any  circuit 
court,  upon  application  to  it  aa  a 
court  *if  (Mjuity,  may,  according  to 
the  usages  of  chancery,  direct  dep- 
ositions to  be  taken  in  pcrpcluam 
rri  mcmorinm,  if  they  relate  to  any 
matters  that  may  be  cognizable  in 
any  court  of  the  United  States.  And 
the  provisions  of  sees.  863,  864  and 
865  shall  not  apply  to  any  deposi- 
tion to  be  taken  under  the  authority 
of  this  section." 

For  the  circumstances  under  which 
a  ilrdimus  under  §  866  should  be 
awarded,  see  Zych  v.  American  Car 
&  Foundry  Co.,  127  Fed.  Rep.  723,  ' 
727  ;  and  see  note  to  sec.  863,  Revised 
Statutes  of  the  United  States,  above. 

"The  method  of  taking  deposition 
by  commission  is  cumbersome  and 
unsatisfactory,  and  not  resorted  to 
when  the  convenient  metliod  of  taking 
proof  prescribed  by  sec.  863,  Revised 
Statutes  of  the  United  States,  is 
available."  Lacombe,  J.,  in  Henning 
v.  Boyle,  112  Fed.  Rep.  397.  "The 
words  'common  usage'  in  regard  to 
a  suit  in  equity  refer  to  the  prac- 
tice in  courts  of  equity."  Blatch- 
ford,  C.  J.,  in  BischofTscheim  v.  Balt- 
zer,  10  Fed.  Rep.   1. 

Section  867,  Revised  Statutes  of 
the  United  States:  "Any  court  of 
the  United  States  may,  in  its  dis- 
cretion, admit  in  evidence  in  any 
cause  before  it  any  deposition  taken 
in  pcrpctxinm  rri  mcmoriam,  which 
would  be  so  admissible  in  a  court 
of  the  state  wherein  such  cause  is 
pending,  according  to  the  laws 
thereof." 

"The  provision  is  intended  to  per- 
mit tlie  courts  of  the  United  States 
to  admit  in  evidence  testimony  per- 


§211]  IIOI'KINS    ON    TUADKMAKKS.  486 


DKrosiTioN  i)i:i:.MKi)  i'iiiLisiii-:i)  \viii:.\  kilkd. 

upon  the  filing  ol  any  (Icjjosition  or  aflidavit  taken  under  these 
ruli's  or  any  statute,  it  shall  l»e  deeiiieil  published,  uidess  other- 
wise ordered  l)y  the  eourt.""' 

OX    1:XIMKATI0N    OF    TLMK    FOK    DKrosiTIOXS,   CASE 
GOES  OX    IHIAL  OALEXDAK. 

After  the  time  has  elapsed  for  taking  and  filing  depasitions 
under  these  rules,  the  ease  shall  he  placetl  on  the  trial  calendar. 
Thereafter  no  further  testimony  by  deposition  shall  ])e  taken 
except  for  some  stronir  ri'ason  shown  by  aflidavit.  In  every  such 
application  the  reason  why  the  testimony  of  the  witness  can  not 
be  had  orally  on  the  trial,  and  why  his  deposition  has  not  been 
before  taken,  shall  be  set  forth,  tojretlier  with  the  testimony 
which  it  is  expected  the  witness  will  grive.''- 

58. 

DISCOVFRV— IXTKHUOCiATOKIKS— TXSPECTIOX      AXD 

PKODTCTIOX  0'^^  iXXTMEXTS— AD.MISSIOX 

OP  EXECUTIOX  OR  (JENUINEXESS. 

The  plaintitT  at  any  time  after  iW'uv^  the  bill  and  not  later 
than  twenty-one  diiys  after  the  joinder  of  issue,  and  the  defend- 
ant at  any  time  after  liling  Ins  answer  and  not  later  than  twenty- 
one   days  after  the   joinder  of  issue,   and   eitiier   party   at  any 

p«'tuat»'<l    ncfordiii^'    t<>    tlw    laws    of  in   at    issiir,    tliis    niU'    may    Ik-   oon- 

th»'  Htatf,  uiul  in  no  wise  rcluifs  to  strm-d  to  nu-an  tliat  no  lusi-  can  go 

t«'Ktimony    iHTpctuatfd   l)y   (liri-ction  on  tlu-  trial  rali-mlar  until  tliat  tiinu 

«if  a  circuit  court  in  i>urrtuanc('  of  tli<'  lias   elapsed. 

htatutcH  of  the  Uniti-tl  States  under  What  showing'  must  he  made  under 

which  this  liill   is  filed."     Benedict,  this  rule  on  the  application  for  leave 

.(.,    in    New    York    &    Balto.    Co.    v.  to   take   testimony,   and    wlien    Buch 

New  York  Co.,  \)  Ked.  Rep.  578,  .'iTrt.  leave   is  propt-r  to  I»o  granted,  and 

HI — A     new    rule    aholishing    the  that   it  may   he  made  without   pre. 

order  of  puhlieation  re<|uind  hy  for  judiee    to    the   opposing    party   even 

mer    Rule  (»!t.  tliough  he  attends  tiie  taking  of  the 

H2 — A    new   rule.  testimony,  are  matters  dis<-UHsed  in 

Am  Bule    17   allows  a  t<.tal  of    110  rnit<d    Lace    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Barthola 

iliiVH    fi.r    difiDHil  iiiiir*    after    fhe    eaUM-  Mfg.    Co.,    217     Fed.     Kep.     17'). 


487  MATTKHS   OF    PRACTICE    AND    KVIHENCK.  l§^li 

time  tliereaftcr  liy  leave  of  llie  court  or  .jii<l^'e,  may  file  inter- 
rogatories in  writint^-  lor  tlie  discovery  by  tlie  ojtposite  party  or 
l>arties  oi"  facts  and  docunients  material  to  the  sujiport  or  delense 
of  the  cause,  with  a  note  at  the  foot  thereof  stating  which  of 
the  interrogatories  each  of  the  parties  is  recpiired  to  answer. 
But  no  i)arty  sliall  tile  more  than  one  set  of  interrogatories  to 
the  same  party  without  leave  of  the  court  or  judge. 

If  any  party  to  the  cause  is  a  public  or  private  corporation, 
any  opposite  party  may  apply  to  the  court  or  judge  for  an  order 
allowing  iiim  to  file  interrogatories  to  be  answered  by  any  officer 
of  the  corporation,  and  an  order  may  be  made  accordingly  for 
the  examiiuition  of  such  officer  as  7nay  appear  to  Ije  proper  upon 
such  interrogatories  as  the  court  or  judge  shall  think  fit. 

Copies  shall  l>e  filed  for  the  use  of  the  interrogated  party,  and 
shall  be  sent  by  the  clerk  to  the  respective  solicitors  of  record, 
or  to  the  last  known  address  of  the  opposite  party,  if  there  be 
no  record  solicitor. 

Interrogatories  shall  be  answered,  and  the  answers  filed  in 
the  clerk's  office,  within  fifteen  days  after  they  Hiave  been  served, 
unless  the  time  l)e  enlarged  by  the  court  or  judge.  Each  inter- 
rogatory shall  be  answered  separately  and  fully  and  the  ans^vers 
shall  be  in  writing,  under  oath,  and  signed  by  the  party  or 
corporate  officer  interrogated.  Within  ten  days  after  tlie  service 
of  interrogatories,  objections  to  theni,  or  any  of  them,  may  be 
presented  to  the  court  or  judge,  with  proof  of  notice  of  the 
purpose  so  to  do,  and  answers  shall  be  deferred  until  the  objec- 
tions are  determined,  which  shall  be  at  as  early  a  time  as  is  prac- 
ticable. In  so  far  as  the  objections  are  sustained,  answers  shall 
not  be  required. 

The  court  or  judge,  upon  motion  and  reasonable  notice,  may 
make  all  such  orders  as  may  be  appropriate  to  enforce  answers 
to  interrogatories  or  to  effect  the  inspection  or  production  of 
documents  in  the  posse.s.sion  of  either  party  and  containing  evi- 
dence material  to  the  cause  of  action  or  defense  of  his  adver- 
sary. Any  party  failing  or  refusing  to  comply  with  such  an 
order  shall  be  liable  to  attachment,  and  shall  also  be  liable,  if  a 
plaintilT,  to  have  bis  bill  dismissed,  and  if  a  defendant,  to  have 
his  answer  stricken  out  and  be  placed  in  the  same  situation  as 
if  he  had  failed  to  answer. 


§211j  IIOI'KINS    ON    TKAnKMAlCKS,  488 

liy  a  tlciMimd  scrvi'd  ten  days  hdoiv  the  trial,  oitlier  [tarty 
may  call  on  thf  otIuT  to  admit  in  uritiiij^  t.lu>  (.'xecutioii  or  ^ji'im- 
inemvis  of  any  ilocumcnt,  letter  or  other  writing,  siuiikg-  all  just 
exceptions;  and  if  sueli  iulmission  1)e  iiotinade  within  five  days 
after  sueh  service,  the  costs  of  jirovinj;  the  dcKMiment,  letter  or 
writinp  sliall  he  paid  hy  the  party  refusing  or  negleeting  to  make 
such  admission,  unless  at  the  trial  the  court  shall  find  that  the 
refusal  or  neglect  was  reasonahle/^ 

§  212.  Eflect  of  former  adjudication.  A  fonnor  decision 
adjudging  the  plaintiff's  title  to  the  trademark  is  a  sufficient 
basis,  where  infringement  is  clear,  for  a  preliminary'  injunction.''* 
Of  course  the  former  adjudication  Ls  not  conclusive,  lyut  it  is 
always  of  persuasive  value.*''^ 

When  a  fonner  adjudication  is  urged  as  a  bar  to  a  later  suit, 
the  questions  to  be  determined  are,  wliat  was  the  judgment,  was 
it  within  the  jurisdiction  of  t^ie  court,  was  it  between  the  same 
parties  or  their  pri\ie.s,  and  is  it  still  in  force  and  efTect?'*'^ 
Where  privity  exists  between  tlie  successive  defendants,  the  de- 
cree in  the  earlier  ca.se  must  be  given  the  same  force  and  effect 
as  if  the  original  defendant  were  the  defendant  in  the  later 
case.*" 

The  effect  of  a  voluntary  dismi.ssal  of  a  bill  for  trademark 
infringement  has  been  held  in  England  to  l)e  the  abandonment 

83 — A  now  nilo  ndoptinp  the  Enp-  fiiahle  tlip  court  to  niako  ii  Hummary 

lisli    practice    nf    Order    XXI,    "Dis-  dinposition  of   a   cauHfJ)y    a|)j>lyinp 

covprj'  and   Tnnpfction."  the    law    to    an    admitted    state    of 

Under  this  rule  the  plaintitT'w  in-  facts."     Bronk  v.  Scott  Co.,  211  Fed. 

terropatoriPB  are  no  lonper  a   part  Rep.  338;    128  C.  C.  A.   17. 

of  the   hill,   nor   defendant's   a   part  84 — Symonda   v.   Greene,   28    Fed. 

of  the  answer;   in  other  words,  they  Rep.    834,   835;    Moxie   Nerve    Food 

nri-   no  lonpr   phadinps.      Liiten  v.  Co.    v.    Beach,    33    Fed.    Rep.    248; 

Camp.  221  Fed.  INp.  424.     Iiiterro-j-  Carniel    Wine   Co.   v.    Palestine   He- 

atories    may     l.e    filed     after    issuefl  hrew   Wim-  Co.,    101    Fed.   Rep.   n.")4. 

are  joined.    Ibid.    By  inference  from  R'i — Price   Baking   Powder   Co.    v. 

this    rule,    there    ia    no   lonper   any  Fyfe,  4r)  Fed.  Rep.  700. 

n-qiiirement     that     the     answer     in  Rfl — Mr.  .Justice   Day,   In   Deposit 

j-quity  he  made  under  oath.      Pitts-  Bank   v.    Frankfort.    101   U.   S.   510; 

htirjjh    Water    H.-at^-r    Co.    v.    Beler  48  L.  Fd.  270. 

Water    Heater    Co..    222    Fed     Rep.  87— W.    A.   Oaines  *    Co.   v     Rock 

950.      "rndouhtedly    the    piirjx.Hr.   of  Si)rinK  Distillinj,'  Co.,  220  Fed.   Rep. 

authorizing'    interro^'atori«'s   was   to  531,  537;    141   C.  C.  A.  287. 


48f)  MATTKKS   OF    PRACTICE    AND    LTIDENCK.  [§  211 

of  tlio  trademark;'"'^  Imt  it  lias  Ik'Oji  held  that  the  dismissal  of 
such  a  bill  for  want  oL"  proHCcution,  through  the  failure  of  the 
plaintiff  to  pross  the  case,  is  not  a  l)ar  U>  a  hiter  action  against 
the  successor  in  business  of  tlie  oriijrinal  defendant. "» 

88— Browne  V.  Frecmun,  12  VV.  R.  8!)— Cliapiii-Sacks     Mf^.     Co.     v. 

305.  Hendler  Crodmory  Co.,  231  Fed.  Rep. 

C50,  555. 


ciiAi''n:ix  xv 

COSTS. 


§213.  Generally. — In  rasos  of  unfair  trade  the  samo  rules 
as  to  rosts  olitaiii  as  in  other  actions.  The  ^'eneral  rule  is  tliat 
eosts  follow  the  event.  A  successful  plaintiff  will  l>e  awarded 
costs,'  and  costs  will  he  refused  to  one  who  is  unsucees-sful  - 

So  costs  will  1h-  awarded  to  the  suecessful  plaintitT.  even  thoug-h 
he  is  denied  ilaniaires.''  and  apainst  an  infant,^  or  a  married 
woman  hiivin^'  a  si-parate  estate.^ 

§  214.  Avoiding  costs  by  submission. — We  have  had  occa- 
sion t'lM'wIiere  to  refer  to  the  rule  laid  down  hy  Sir  George 
Jessel.  that  the  eonii>lainant  in  actions  of  tJie  character  now  under 
consideration  .should  not  jrive  notice  to  the  infringrer  before  suit;" 


1— Coats  V.  Holbrook,  2  Sandf. 
C'h.  i)8G;  Cox,  20;  Sel>.  7» ;  Pierce  v. 
Frank.  1.^)  L.  J.  Ch.  122;  Seh.  81; 
Rodgers  v.  Now  ill.  (i  Hare.  '.\2'i\ 
Sob.  82;  Burjiess  v.  Ilately,  20 
Beav.  249;  iSeb.  1(59;  Burgesp  v. 
Hills,  26  Beav.  244;  28  L.  J.  Ch. 
3')6;  Seb.  170;  Collins  Co.  v. 
Walker,  7  \V.  R.  222;  Sel).  171; 
.Jurfienson  v.  Ale.xander,  24  How. 
I»r.  209;  Cox,  298;  Seb.  211;  Edel- 
sten  V.  Edelsten,  1  DeO.  J.  &  S. 
18.');  Seb.  21.3;  McAndrews  v.  Bas- 
Bt'tt,  4  DeG.  J.  &  S.  380;  Seb.  234; 
Chubb  V.  Griffiths,  35  Beav.  127; 
Seb.  2.')');  Field  v.  Lewis,  Seton 
(4th  Ed.).  2.37;  Seb.  280;  Weed  v. 
IVUrnon.  12  Abb.  Pr.  X.  S.  178; 
Seb.  3K7 ;  ( '<>ni|)a.'nie  Laferme  v. 
Hendriek.  Seb.  r)12;  Sawyer  v.  Kel- 
logg, 9  Fed.  Rep.  fiOl;  Cox,  Mail 
iial,  082;  Mcl^un  v.  Fleming.  9(i 
U.  S.  14.'');  24  L.  F-d.  828;  Cbup|Hll 
V.  Davidson.  2  K.  &  .1.  123; 
.Seb.     130;     In     re     Kulin    &.     Co'a 


Trademark.  .Vt  I..  .1.  Cli.  238. 
Coats  "are  always  awarded  to 
the  sueeessful  side,  unless  there 
has  been  something  in  tlie  conduct 
of  the  party  wliieh  renders  sucii  a 
course  ine<]uital)le  and  unjust  to 
the  losing  side."  Nixon,  .1..  in  Bun- 
ker V.  Stevens,  20  Fed.  Rep.  24.">- 
249. 

2— Bass  V.  Dawl)er.  10  L.  T.  N.  S. 
020;  Seb.  310;  Appeal  of  the  Put- 
nam Nail  Co..  Cox.  Manual.  No. 
72.");  Weener  v.  Brayton,  l.")2  Mass. 
101. 

a_W,.rd  V.  Peterson.  13  Abl).  Pr. 
N.  S.  178;  Seb.  387. 

4— Chubb  V.  Grimths.  3.)  Beav. 
127:  Seb.  2.-)r);  Cory  v.  Gertcken.  2 
Madd.  49;  Woolf  v.  Woolf.  Al]  Sol. 
.F.    127. 

.")  Nitliolls  V.  Kimpton,  3  Times 
I..    K.  071. 

0  I'pniann  v.  Fnr.sfrr.  I-.  R.  24 
Cli.   I).  231. 

400 


491  COSTS.  [§2U 

uiul  it  luis  Ikm'ii  held  in  this  couiilry  tliiit  no  (Iciiiaiid  or  imjIIcc 
is  necessary.^  It  is  of  the  gravest  importance  to  the  praetitioiicr 
to  iK'ur  this  nih'  in  niiiul,  whether  lie  l)e  for  the  i)laiiititT  or 
defeiidant.  A  failure  to  ol)serv('  it  will  oftentimes  involve  an 
innocent  Jind  injui-cd  client  In  the  payirieiit  of  costs  which  wouhl 
otherwise  fall  upon  the  oilier  party;  for  it  is  no  defense  to  an 
assessment  of  costs  a^'ainst  the  defendant  that  no  demand  was 
made  or  notice  served  before  suit."*  A  defendant  who  makes 
a  full  submission  will  not  be  nndcte(l  in  costs.  Thus,  a  label 
inanufacturer  who  had  iiuioeently  made  labels  upon  the  order 
of  a  customer  e\aded  costs  by  pi-omisinir  to  desist  from  the  marni- 
facture,  ajid  ofTerinfr  to  surrender  the  litho<,n-apli  stone  with 
which  the  Avork  wa.s  done."  Lord  R<^nnilly,  in  a  leadinj?  ease 
in  which  the  defendants  were  forwarding  agents  holding  as  bailee 
goods  bearing  a  spurious  mark,  gave  the  doctrine  this  succinct 
expression:  "It  is  his  (the  defendant's)  duty  at  once  to  give 
all  the  information  required,  and  to  undertake  that  the  gooils 
shall  not  be  removed  or  dealt  with  until  the  spurious  l)rand  has 
been  removed,  and  to  offer  to  give  all  facilities  to  the  person 
injured  for  that  purpose.  If.  after  that,  the  person  injured 
files  a  bill,  though  be  Avill  be  entitled  to  all  that  he  a.sl<s  in  the 
shape  of  relief,  as  he  might  have  got  it  all  without  suit,  he  will 
not  get  from  such  defendant  the  costs  of  the  suit,  and  he  may 
have  to  pay  them."'" 

This  rule  has  been  uniformly  followed.''  A  defendant  may 
make  .such  an  offer  of  submission,  by  answer  or  otherwi.se,  at  any 
stage  of  the  proceedings,  and  .so  throw  upon  the  plaintiff  all  costs 
subsequently  accruing.' - 

7 — SawytT  V.  Kellogg,  9  Fed.  Rep.  12 — "If   the   defendant   had   offer- 

f,Oi.  ed   tlie   plaintiffs   all   they   were  en- 

8 Ihid.  titled  to,  and  after  that  the  plain- 

9_Basa,    Ratcliff    &    Gretton    v.  tiffs   had    proceeded    in    the   suit,    I 

Guggenheimer,  fiO  Fed.  Rep.  271.  most  certainly  should  not  have  giv- 

10_Upmann   v.   Elkan,   L.    R.    12  en    the    plaintiffs    a    penny    of    the 

Eq.   140;  Seb.  309.  costs    incurred    after    that    period; 

11— :Millington   v.   Fox,   3  Myl.    &  indeed,    T    should    have    endeavored 

Cr.  338;   Sel).  r.3;   Burnett  V.  Leueh-  to    make    them     pay    them."      Lord 

ars,   13  L.  T.  X.   S.  495;    Sel>.  2."i3;  Romilly  in  Burgess  v.  Hills,  2r>  Bcav. 

Wharton  v.   Thurber,  Co.x,  Manual,  244;    Seh.    170.      And   to   the    same 

f)63;     Nunn    v.    D'Albuquerque,    34  effect  see   the   opinion   of   the   same 

Beav.  595.  Master  of  the  Rolls  in  Moet  v.  Cous- 


§215]  lll>|•KI^■^    ON     linPKM  \RKS.  .}!I-J 

§215.  Svbmission  to  avoid  costs  must  be  complete. — It 
is  the  lU'ct'ssjii-y  i-orri'lativf  of  tlif  nilf  stati'tl  in  tlw  priH-cdin^ 
.*;tx'tioii  that  n<»  .suhiiiission  can  avail  a  (Ict'cndant  wnh'^s  it  is  full, 
adt'tjuati'  and  iT)nipli'tc.  Tims  a  .suhinission.  otlicrwisc  ^rood,  wiLs 
rt-ndercd  inefTct'tive  bccau.st'  the  defendant,  did  not  couple  with  it 
an  olTer  to  ]>ay  all  costs  accrued.' •  An  olVer  of  submission  on 
conditio!!  that  each  party  pay  his  own  costs  w jus  held  incire-etive.'* 
Further  adjudications  in  support  of  the  "i  ncral  doctrine  of  tliid 
section  will  be  fount!  in  the  note.''* 

§  216.  Costs  refused  successful  defendant. — There  arc  a 
nuiiiltcr  ol  instances  wherein  a  delendant  a^Minst  whom  the  plain- 
tilV  ha.s  been  denial  relief  has  been  left  to  pay  his  own  cost.s. 
These  cases  are  not  always  |)redicated  upon  the  defjMidant's 
absolute  fraud,  for.  even  ^vhere  fraud  could  not  l>e  established, 
lie  may  have  b(>cn  fjuilty  of  conduct  so  suspicious  as  to  justify 
the  imposition  of  his  own  eost.s."'-  Thus  where  the  defendant  had 
dealt  in  bitters,  and  n.ssented  to  suurjicstions  that  they  nii^'ht  be 
passetl  ofT  on  the  public  as  the  "  Ilostetter's  Hitters"  of  the  plain- 
tiff, the  court  thought  tiu'  faets  did  not  warrant  an  injunction, 
but  that  the  defendant  had  invit"<l  the  litiLration  by  his  conduct 
and  (Misiht  not  to  have  his  costs.'" 

In  a  ease  where  a  charjie  of  unfair  c()mp«'titioM  has  been 
e.stablished,  but  relief  denied  the  comj)lainant  because  of  fraud- 
ident  r»f)resentation8  respectini;  its  Lr<K)(ls,  the  bill  will  Im*  dis- 
missed without  costs.'" 

ti)ti.    Xi    Hcav.    r>78;    Sol).    2:i'y;    Colo  S.h.    7!» ;    K.-nncssy   v.   Dny,   .'..'.   L.   T. 

V.  C'oIc'h  Many-use  Oil  Co.,  147   F.-il.  N.  S.    1(11. 

Rep.  930.  ItJ— Talcott     v.     Moore,     rt     Ilun, 

].'} — HiitchitiAon    V.    Hhiml)crjr,    -tl  lati;    Sch.   478;    Uds*'   v.    Loftus,   47 

Fed.    Hep.   82!l;    McAndrews  v.    Bas-  L.     .1.     Ch.    .'>7«;     S«>!).     008.       Thus, 

8€'tt,  4  DfO.  .1.  &  S.  380;  Si'b.  2.34;  wli.r.'    »)uth     plaintifT    and    dcfond- 

Burj.M'HH    V.    Hatdy,    2(5    Boav.    240;  ant     made     cij;a.s     falncly     markod 

Sch.  100;  Bur>:i-KH  v.  HHIh,  20  Bcav.  "Hahaiia,"     tlic     Kn^'liHli     court     of 

244;  Seh.  170;  CollinH  Co.  V.  Walker,  appeal    disniiHsed    tlie    liill    witliout 

7    W.    R.    222;    ."^eh.    171;    CnatH    v.  cohIh  and   ailjudp-d   the  eoMtft  of  the 

Ifollir(H)k,    2   San<lf.    Ch.    .'">80 ;    Weed  a|>peal  a^'uiuHt  tlie  defendant.     New- 

V.   V  U'THtm,   12  Ahh.   I'r.   N.   .S.   178.  man  v.  I'into,  4  R.  V.  C.  .'.08;   .')7  L. 

14— Moot    V.    CouHton.    :;:«     Heav.  T.  X.  S.  .31. 
r,7H.  17— HoHtett.r    V      \im    Nornt,    02 

15— Ton^e   V.    Ward.  21    L.   T.    \.  F.<I,   R.-p.  000. 
S.    480;     .S«-h.     :i21;     CoatH    v.     llol  IH— Moxie     Nerve      F.n.d     Co.     v. 

I.rfok,   2   Sandf.   Ch.   .'.<»0;    Cox,  20;  Mod<.x  Co.    (.T),   laf.  Fed.   Rep.   304. 


493  COSTS.  [§217 

§217.  Miscellaneous  matters. — Innocent  wharfingers  in 
whose  possession  was  found  cliampagne  bearing  a  false  brand, 
and  who  were  iiiade  parties  defendant  to  an  action  but  at  once 
submitted  to  aet  as  the  court  might  direct,  were  award<;d  their 
costs,  and  given  a  lien  for  their  warehouse  charges,  and  that  lien 
given  priority  over  the  plaintifT's  claim  for  cost.s.'" 

Where  the  defendant  is  a  retail  dealer,  who  has  acted  inno- 
cently and  handled  only  a  small  quantity  of  the  infringing  goods, 
a  plaintiiT  may  not  be  awarded  costs  even  though  the  injunction 
issues.-"  Some  courts  apply  this  rule  where  it  appeai-s  that  the 
defendant's  sales  have  not  been  large  enough  to  justify  the 
expense  of  taking  an  account.-^ 

Where  it  appeared  that  the  defendant  had  adojjted  plaintiff's 
trademark  (which  consisted  of  words  understood  by  many  sim- 
ply to  indicate  quality),  and  did  so  in  ignorance  of  the  plaintiff's 
existence,  the  plaintiff  was  granted  an  injunction  but  Avithout 
costs.22  A  plaintiff  may  be  denied  costs  because  of  his  delay  in 
instituting  suit.^^^ 

If  in  his  bill  the  plaintiff  makes  specific  charges  against  the 
defendant  which  he  is  unable  to  substantiate  with  proof,  he  may, 
under  the  English  practice,  obtain   an   injunction  with  costs, 

19 — Moet   V.    Pickering,   L.    R.    8  plaintiffs    are    entitled    to    an    in- 

Ch.  D.  372.  junction,  yet  I   can   not  think  it  is 

20 — Thus  where   a   small   retailer  the  duty  of  the  court  in  every  case 
was     charged     with     infringing     a  in  which  a  small  retail  dealer  who 
cigarette    trademark,     and     it     was  has    innocently    (and    I    think    that 
shown  that  the  transaction   related  the    defendants    in    this    case    have 
only     to     five     hundred     cigarettes,  acted  innocently)    happened  to  pur- 
valued   at    178.   6d.,   which    the   de-  chase    a     small     quantity     of     the 
fendant    had    bought    in    ignorance  spurious    goods,    to     say    that    he 
of   the    infringement,    it   was    said:  ought  to  be  fixed  with  the  costs  of 
"I  think  that  this  is  not  the  kind  the  action."     Shilling,  .J.,  in  Amer- 
of    action    which    ought    to    be    en-  ican    Tobacco    Co.    v.    Guest,    L.    R. 
couraged.     If  the  owner  of  a  trade-  (1892)    1    Ch.    D.    630-632. 
mark  finds  that  it  is  being  pirated,  21 — Saxiehner   v.   Eisner   &    Men- 
surely   it  is  not  the   small  retailer  delson  Co.,  88  Fed.  Rep.  61-70. 
who  ought  to  be  punished,  but   an  22 — Millington  v.    Fox,  3   Myl.  & 
endeavor     ought     to     be     made     to  ("r.  338;  Cox,  Manual,  642. 
prosecute     those     who     place     the  23 — Amoskeag    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Gar- 
spurious     goods     on     the     market;  ner    (2),  54  How.  Pr.  298. 
and    although    I    agree    that    the 


§  217]  nOPKINS   t)N    TU ADEMARKS.  494 

but  bo  ntljiidpod  to  pay  all  of  tli*-  tii'f.ndnnt's  costs  occasioned 
by  tin'  making  of  t.lio  unrounded  (thar^fr.-^ 

Wherv  tlu»  iufrin^jenuiit  was  not  iunoi'cnt,  hut  the  dctt-niiants 
oflferi'd  to  pay  eoNts  and  publish  any  reasoiuil)le  advertLseinents 
announcing  that  they  had  no  eoniUH'tion  Avith  the  plaint ifTN,  it 
was  held  tJuit  by  ignoring  this  olTer  the  plaintJtTs  had  lost  their 
right  to  relief,  aiid  the  action  was  dismissed.  It  is  doubtful  if 
this  deinsion  would  be  given  much  consideration  l)y  an  Ameri- 
can court.-'' 

One  who  procures  the  preparation  of  an  article  bearing  an 
infringement  of  another's  trademark  will  be  liable  to  refund  to 
the  manufacturer  such  reasonable  sum  as  he  may  pay  to  the 
owner  of  the  tradenmrk  in  comi)romise  of  an  action  for  the 
infringement,  together  with  the  costs  of  such  action.^" 

In  reg-anl  to  appeals,  the  .siime  general  rules  as  to  eosts  ol)tain 
as  are  applied  by  the  inferior  courts.  Thus  on  an  a{)peal  from 
a  committal  for  contempt,  based  on  the  violation  of  an  injunc- 
tion in  a  trademark  case,  the  upper  court  sustained  the  ruling 
of  the  lower,  ])ut,  because  the  violation  .seemed  open  to  disputes, 
gave  no  costs  of  the  appeal. 2' 

In  the  leading  ease  of  McLean  v.  Fleming  the  defendant  ap- 
pealed from  a  decree  awarding  the  plaintitT  an  injunction  and 
accounting.  The  supreme  court  reversed  the  decree  as  to  the 
accounting,  on  the  ground  that  the  plaintiff  was  guilty  of  laches, 
but  let  the  decree  of  injunction  stand.  It  then  gave  plaintiff 
his  costs  in  the  lower  court,  and  the  defendant  the  costs  of  the 
appeal. 2** 

The  costs  of  an  uui^uccessful  tiiotion  to  commit  for  contempt 
will  be  taxed  against  the  moving  party.20  The  costs  of  con- 
tempt prweedings  ean  be  tjixe<l  against  defendant  only  when\ 
upon  the  facts,  he  might  have  been  committed.'"'  While  it 
would  seem  the  l)etter  practice  to  make  no  order  as  to  costs 

24 — Saxl«'hn«r  v.   Apollinnris  Co.,  28— MoI..nii   v.   Fl.mint;.  00  U.  S. 

L.  R.   (18fl7)    1  C'h.  80.1.  24.');  24   L.   IM.  828. 

25 — Valrntino  v.  Vah-ntirif,  :n   I..  20— ll.nnt'HHV   v.    Bu<l(l.-.    82    r.d. 

R.   Ir.  488.  I^'p    ;'>41. 

20 — Dixon    v,    Fiiwcuh,    :\    KM.    A  :{0— Dcnot'  v.   nniiul.  \V.  N.   1881, 

Kil.  r.37.  p  ;Jl- 

27— Dc-vlin    v.    D.vlin,    fiO    N.    Y. 
212. 


495  COSTS.  [§217 

upon  tho  rntrj'  of  intorloontory  doorccs,  and  to  withhold  such 
order  until  the  entry  of  final  decree  upon  tlic  ina.ster's  reiMjrt, 
we  find  very  respeetuhle  authority  for  the  contrary  i)ra<'ticc.'" 

In  a  ease  where,  although  the  injunction  is  granted,  the  defen- 
dant is  found  to  have  acted  without  fraudulent  intent,  so  that  the 
case  appears  to  be  "one  of  honest  trade  difrei\;nces, "  no  costs 
should  he  allowed  to  either  party. '^^ 

A  party  who  prevails  to  a  substantial  extent  upon  tht;  mer- 
its may  be  awardfcl  the  full  costs  of  the  appellate  court.''-' 

31— The    Collins     Co.    v.    Oliver  cree."     Dick,   J.,  in   Avory  v.   Wil- 

Ames  &   Son   Corporation,    18   Fed.  son,  20  Fed.  Rep.  8r)(i-Hr>f). 

Rep.    501-571.      "Courts    of    equity,  32 — Champion  Spark  Plug  Co.  v. 

having  a    large   discretion    in    mat-  A.  R.  Moslor  &  Co.,  233  Fed.  Rep. 

ters  of  costs,   frequently   give  costs  112,   117. 

in    intermediate   stages  of   a   cause,  33 — Knahe  Bros.  Co.  v.  American 

without    waiting    for    the    final    de-  IMuno  Co.,  232  Fed.  Rep.  140   (C.  C. 

A.  C). 


APPENDIX 


497 


CONTENTS  OF  APPENDIX 


A. 
B. 

C. 

D. 
E. 


G. 

H. 

I. 

J. 
K. 

L. 

M. 

N. 


Tradomark  Act  of  July  8,  1870.     Annotated. 

Label   Registration    Act  of  June   18,    1874.      Annotated.      Patent  Office 

Rules,  and   Forms   relative  thereto. 
Trademark  Act  of  August   14,    1870.     Annotated. 
Trademark   Act  of   March    3,    1881.     Annotated. 
Trademark    Act    of    February    20,    1905.      Annotated.      Patent    Office 

Rules,  and   Forms  relative  thereto. 
Trademark  Statutes  of  the  States  and  Territories.     Annotated.     With 

Forms   for   Registration    Applications. 
Canadian  Trademark  and  Design  Act,  with  Rules  and  Forma. 
Bills  of  Complaint  and  Answers.     Judicially  Approved. 
Forms  of   Injunction — Interlocutory  and   Final   Decrees. 
Classification  of   Registered  Trademarks. 
International  Convention  of  March   20,   1883. 
Trademark  Provision  of  an  Act  incorporating  the  American  National 

Red  Cross. 
Federal  Trade  Commission  Act;   Rules  of  the  Commission. 
False  Stamping.    Act  of  June  13,  1906,  Ch.  3289,  34  Stat.  L.  260. 


•109 


APPENDIX  A. 


ACT  OF  CONGRESS  OF  JULY  8,  1870.^ 

Section  77.-     And   be   it   rurtlier  enacted,  that  any   person 
or  firm  domiciled  in  the  United  States,  and  any  corporation  creat- 

1 — Altliou},'h  this  uct  is  no  lonj^- 
er  in  forcr,  having  been  held  un- 
constitutiunal,  and  the  Acts  of  1881 
and  190;')  having  Imvii  since  enacted, 
it  is  thought  adviwaljle  to  set  forth 
the  earlier  act,  in  order  that  the 
decisions  under  it  may  De  under- 
stood. In  Leidersdorf  v.  Flint  (1), 
8  Biss,  327,  the  validity  of  the  Act 
of  1870  was  questioned  by  the 
United  States  Circuit  Court,  on  the 
ground  that  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States  did  not  author- 
ize legislation  by  congress  on  the 
subject  of  trademarks,  except  such 
as  had  been  actually  used  in  com- 
merce with  foreign  nations  and 
among  the  several  states,  or  with 
the  Indian  tribes;  and  in  Trade- 
mark Cases,  100  U.  S.  82,  the  act 
was  formally  declared  by  the  su- 
prem'.'  court  to  be  on  this  ground 
unconstitutional  and  invalid.  But 
this  does  not  entitle  persons  hav- 
ing marks  registered  under  the 
invalid  act  to  recover  back  the 
fees  paid  by  them  (Woodman  v. 
United  States,  1")  Ct.  of  CI.  541), 
though  they  will  be  credited  with 
such  fees  when  applying  for  regis- 
tration under  the  new  act.  See  Act 
of  18S1,  §  (),  infra.  Nor  does 
the  invalidity  of  the  act  justify 
the  disregard  of   injunctions  grant- 


ed under  tlie  general  jurisdiction 
of  the  court.  United  States  v. 
Roche,  1  McCrary,  385.  And  it  has 
been  held  that  registration  of  a 
mark  under  the  invalid  act,  even 
witiiout  re-registration  under  the 
Act  of  1881,  is  sufficient  to  prevent 
registration  of  a  similar  mark  un- 
der the  new  Act  of  1881.  A'jc  parte 
Lyon,  Dupuy  &  Co.,  28  Off.  Gaz. 
191.  Since  the  passing  of  the  Act 
of  1870,  it  has  been  considered  in 
the  Patent  Office  that  while,  on  the 
one  hand,  the  benefits  of  registra- 
tion as  trademarks  were  to  be  re- 
served for  trademarks,  and  for 
trademarks  only  (e.  g.,  In  re 
Parker,  13  Off.  Gaz.  323,  registra- 
tion as  a  trademark  was  refused 
to  that  which  could  at  most 
amount  to  a  design ) ,  so,  on  the 
otlier  hand,  it  was  only  by  regis- 
tering them  as  trademarks,  and 
not  by  patenting  them  as  designs 
{Ex  parte  King,  Comm.  Decis. 
1870,  p.  109;  In  re  Whyte.  Id.  1871, 
p.  304),  or  registering  them  as  la- 
bels (In  re  Godillot,  6  Off.  Gaz.  641 ; 
hi  re  Simpson  &  Sons,  10  Id.  333; 
Kx  parte  Davids  &  Co.,  16  Id.  94; 
Ex  parte  Schumacher  &  Ettlinger 
( 1 ) ,  10  /r/.  701 ) ,  that  the  benefits  of 

2— See  Act  of  1881,  sees.  1,  2. 
501 


f)02 


Al'l-KSPIX    A. 


etl  by  the  authority  ol'  the  Unitetl  States,  or  of  any  st-ate  or  terri- 
tor)'  thereof,  and  any  i)erson,  firm  or  corporation  resident  of  or 
loi'ated  in  any  foreign  country  which  l)y  treaty  or  convention  af- 
fonis  similar  privileges  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  State's,  and 
who  are  entitleti  to  the  exclusive  use-'  of  any  lawful  trademark,  or 
wJu)  intend  to  adopt  and  use  any  tradeioark.'*  for  exclusive  use 
within  the  I'nited  States,  may  ohtain  protection  for  such  lawful 


the  8tntuU'  ooulil  1k'  obtaiiu'd  for 
tradt>niark8.  Doscriptivf  words 
not  ri'^'istfrahU-  a»  trademarks 
were  propfrly  allowod  to  hv  n-^^iH- 
t«*n'd  as  lalK'ls.  Hx  parte  Wavivr- 
linjr.  1(>  III.  74(i;  /-'j  parte  Bri;,'liatn, 
20  /(/.  SlU;  Kx  parte  Lutz,  M  Id. 
138U;  and  wo  In  re  Park,  12  /rf.  2,  in 
which  it  was  sought  to  ropistor  as 
part  of  a  lalK-l  a  device  for  which 
the  applieaiit  liad  previously 
houf^lit  rc;.'ist  ration  as  a  trade- 
mark. In  L'nitrd  States  v.  Marble, 
22  /il.  VMtCi.  howev<'r,  the  Supremr 
Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia 
held  that  the  Commissioner  of  Pat- 
ents had  no  authority  to  refuse 
registration  to  a  label  merely  on 
till-  ground  that  it  might  have  been 
registen'd  as  a  tradrmark ;  but 
in  the  later  ease  of  Hx  parte  Schu- 
macher &  Ettlinger  (2).  22  Id. 
1201.  the  eommissioni-r  again  re- 
fused registration  as  labels  to 
what  h«-  considered  to  lie  trade- 
marks; and  in  Hx  parte  Moodie, 
2H  Id.  1271,  and  Hx  parte  Wiesel, 
.Ifi  Id.  689,  the  commissioner  re- 
p«'at<-d  this  decision,  and  his 
pours<'  was  in  the  former  case  up- 
held on  a|>peal  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia 
in  Fx  parti'  Mowlie,  2R  Id.  1271. 
Th*'  federal  courts  have  also  held 
that  a  trademark  must  be  r<-gis- 
tcred  as  such,  nn«l  not  ••opy righted 
as    u     lalxl.       SchumaclH-r    &     Ett- 


linger V.  \\  Ograni,  ;t"i  l\'tl.  Kep. 
210.  It  is  for  the  commissioner  to 
tlecide  whether  what  is  presented 
to  him  is  a  trademark  or  label.  Hx 
parte  Moodie.  2S  OfT.  Cas.    1271. 

:{— In  MeKlwee  v.  Hlackwell,  15 
Oir.  (;az.  U5S,  it  was  held  that  al- 
though where  registration  had 
been  wrongfully  granted  to  one,  it 
might  subsequently  be  properly 
granted  to  another  who  was  really 
entitled  to  the  exclusive  use,  yet 
it  would  not  be  granted  to  another 
who  was  not  entitled  to  the  ex- 
(•lusive  use,  even  though  he  might 
be  entitled  to  use  the  mark  to 
some  extent.  And  see  Wright  v. 
Simpson,  15  Id.  908;  also  Sorg  v. 
Wc'l.sh,  Ifi  Id.  910.  as  to  admissions 
of  right  in  another;  and  Yale 
Cigar  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Yale, 
:!(>  Id.  lis:i.  Cnder  the  Act  of  IS81 
registration  will  be  refused  where 
it  appears  that  the  applicant  is 
only  one  of  s<'verul  wlio  have  a 
right  to  use  the  mark.  Fx  parte 
Langdon.  01  OfT.  Ga/.  280. 

4  —  I'nder  tln'se  words  a  new 
tradi-mark  might  be  registered 
prior  to  any  actual  use.  In  re  Roths- 
child. 7  (Xr.  flaz.  220;  and  we 
Hoosier  Drill  Co.  v.  Ingels,  14  Id. 
785.  This  is  not  the  case  under 
the  Act  of  1881.  Si-e  sih-s.  1  and  2, 
notes.  an<l  Fx  parte  Strasburger  &. 
Co.,  20  UJ.  (jaz.  155. 


ACT   OK    CONGKKSS   OK   .HJI.Y    8,    1870. 


5o:j 


trademark^'  by  complying'  witli  tlic  following  roqiiirement*?,"  to- 
wit: 

First.  By  causing  to  be  recordeci  in  tbe  i'uteut  OfTice,'  the 
names  of  the  parties  and  their  residence  and  placf  of  business," 
who  desire  tiie  protection  of  the  trademark. 

Second.  The  class  of  inereliandise''  and  the  particular  descrip- 
tion of  goods'"  comprised  in  such  clas.s,  by  which  the  trademark 
has  been  or  is  intended  to  l)e  appropriated. 


f) — Art  to  what  is  a  lawful  trade- 
mark, see  infra,  §  79.  Registra- 
tion can  not  make  lawful  trade- 
mark out  of  that  which  does  not 
contain  tlie  necessary  elements 
(iMoorniiin  v.  Hoge,  2  Sawy.  78; 
tSchunmelier  &  Ettlinger  v. 
Schwenke  (2),  30  Off.  (Jaz.  457); 
but  by  see.  7  of  the  Act  of  1881  reg- 
istration is  prima  facie  evidence  of 
ownership.  It  has  been  doubted 
whether  the  use  of  a  registered 
trademark  can  be  restrained 
(Decker  v.  Decker,  r)2  How.  Pr. 
218)  ;  but  in  Cilen  Cove  Manufac- 
turing Co.  V.  Ludenian,  2'.i  Blatchf. 
46,  an  injunction  was  granted  in 
such  a  case.  See  also  Schumacher 
&  Ettlinger  v.  Schwenke  (2),  36 
Off.  Gaz.  457.  Separate  registra- 
tion must  be  obtained  for  each 
mark  which  differs  from  another 
by  the  addition  of  a  symbol:  e.  g., 
"k,"  "XX,"  "XXX."  were  held  to 
require  separate  registration.  In  re 
English,  Comm.  Decis.  1870,  142; 
and  see  In  re  Eagle  Pencil  Co.,  10 
OflF.  Gaz.  981. 

6 — Absolute  compliance  with 
these  requirements  is  necessary  on 
the  part  of  applicants.  In  re  Ilank- 
inson,  8  Off.  Gaz.  89.  But  it  is  not 
necessary  tliat  the  very  words  of 
the  act  should  be  cited,  so  long  as 
the  spirit  of  it  is  satisfied.  In  re 
Vidvard  &  Sheehan,  8  Id.  143. 

7 — In  Lacroix  v.  Escobal,  37  La. 


Ann.  533,  it  was  held  that  a  French 
citizen,  who  had  not  deposited 
his  mark  in  the  United  States  pat- 
ent oflice,  as  required  l)y  the  Con- 
vention of  18(i9  between  the  United 
States  and  France,  was  not  en- 
titled to  maintain  an  action  for  in- 
fringement. But  see  Soci6t6,  etc. 
de  la  Benedictine  v.  Micalovitch,  36 
Alb.  L.  J.  364. 

8 — The  registration  of  the  name 
of  a  firm  has  been  held  to  be  suf- 
ficient, without  giving  the  particu- 
lars as  to  each  of  the  partners. 
Smitli  v.  Reynolds  (2),  3  Off.  Gaz. 
213;   10  Blatchf.  100. 

9 — This  requirement  has  been  in- 
terpreted to  exclude  from  registra- 
tion the  marks  of  persons  other  than 
manufacturers  or  merchants:  c.  g., 
a  carj)et  cleaner.     In  re  Ilankinson, 

5  Ofr.  Gaz.  89. 

'ID — It  has  been  held  tliat  a  de- 
scription of  the  class  and  goods  as 
"paints"  is  sulTicient  (Smith  v.  Rey- 
nolds (2),  10  Blatchf.  100),  and  so 
with  "alcoholic  8pirits"(/n  re  Boehm 

6  Co.,  8  Off.  Gaz.  319);  but  that 
"fancy  goods"  is  insufficient,  as  being 
too  general  a  term.  In  re  Lisner, 
13  Id.  455.  Different  pcr-sons  may 
register  tlie  same  trademark  for  dif- 
ferent descriptions  of  goods  even  in 
the  same  class.  Sorg  v.  Welsh,  16 
Id.  910.  In  Smith  v.  Reynolds  (2i. 
10  Blatchf.  100,  and  s.  c.  (3),  3  Id. 
213,  it  was  held  that  a  firm  which 


504 


APPENDIX    A. 


Third.  A  ilcscriptiou  of  tin-  tnulcmark  itself  "  with  facsimiles 
thereof  '-  and  the.  ino«le  in  whicli  it  hits  been  or  is  intended  to  bo 
applied  and  used.  '•' 

Fourth.  Tlie  length  of  tiino.  if  any.  during'  which  the  trade- 
mark has  been  used.'^ 

Fifth.  The  pa\nnent  of  a  fee  of  twenty-live  dollars,  in  the 
sajue  manner  and  lor  the  same  purpose  as  the  fee  reijuired  for 
patents  >•'• 

Sixth.  The  compliance  with  such  regulations  as  may  be  pre- 
scribed by  the  Commissioner  of  Patents.  "' 

Seventh.  Tin-  iiliiig  of  a  declaration,'^  under  the  oath  of  the 
person  or  of  some  member  of  the  (inn  or  oflficer  of  the  corporation, 
to  the  etTect  that  the  party  daimiufj  protection  for  the  trademark 
has  the  right  to  the  u.se  of  the  same,  and  that  no  other  person,  firm 
or  corporation  has  the  right  to  .such  use,  either  in  the  identical 
fonn,  or  having  such  near  resemblance  thereto  as  mig'ht  be  caleu- 

14 — Sec    Kx    parte    Consolidated 
Fruit  Jar  Co.,  IC  OlT.  Gaz.  079. 
If) — A    fee   paid   can    only    l>e    re- 


had  registered  a  trademark  for 
"paints"  was  not  entitled  to  re- 
strain tlie  usi-  of  the  mark  on  white 
lead  by  another  firm  which  had  used 
the  mark  on  tliat  variety  of  paint 
before    the    plaintiffs    had    used    or 


covered  when  it  was  paid  by  actual 
mistake:  c.  g.,  a  payment  in  excess, 
or      one      not      required      by      law 


registered   tlieir   mark;    and   in    the      When,  therefore,  an  application  has 
former   case    it    was   held    that    the 
registration    iM-iiig   l)nd   as   to  white 
lead  was  bad  in  toto,  though  but  for 
that   it   might   have  be<'n  good. 

11 — The  trademark  must  be  suf- 
ficiently described  for  it  to  be  pos- 
sible to  clearly  distinguish  between 
the  essential  and  non-essential  ele- 
ments. In  n  \'<.lta  Uelt  Co.,  8  Off. 
Gaz.   144. 

12 — The  favsimilv  limits  the  ver- 
bal de8cripti«>n  of  the  mark.  Duke 
V.  Grwn,  10  Off.  Gaz.  1094. 

13 — The  previous  uwr  of  the  ap- 
plicants or  their  derivative  title 
must  be  Htatefl.  A'x />nr/r  Consolidat- 
ed Fruit  .Jar  Co..  HI  Off.  Gaz.  (579. 
Only  one  example  of  the  mode  of 
use  will  1m-  a<lmitt4Hl.  /n  re  Kimball, 
11  Id.  1109.  And  we  Smith  v.  Key- 
nolds   (2),  10  Dlatchf.   lUU. 


failed  because  the  proposed  mark 
was  not  registrable,  the  fee  paid  can 
not  be  recovered,  although  a  re- 
newed application  for  the  registra- 
tion of  an  essentially  different  mark 
has  proved  successful.  Jn  re  Block 
&  Co..  14  Off.  Gaz.  2:}.').  See  note  1, 
p.  501,  supra,  as  to  crediting  fees 
])aid  under  this  invalid  act. 

1(> — See  §  81,  infra,  and  note 
thereto. 

17 — As  to  the  necessity  for  the 
filing  of  this  d«'claration,  and  for 
the  production  of  sufficient  evidence 
of  it,  on  a  trial  for  infringement, 
m-e  Smith  v.  Reynolds  (1),  10 
Ulatchf.  Sf),  where  an  injunction  was 
refused  on  the  ground  of  the  deflci- 
ency  of  bUcL  cvidcucc. 


ACT   OF    CONGRESS  OF   JULY    8,    1870.  505 

lated  to  deceive,'"  and  that  the  description  juid  facsimiles  pre- 
sented for  record  arc  tnif  i-oiiics  of  llir  tiii<h'iii;irk  souj^dit  to  \ui 
protected. 

SiXTioN  7S.'''  And  lie  it  lurtlicr  cnucted,  tliat  such  trademark 
shall  remain  in  force  lor  thirty  years  from  the  date  of  such  regis- 
tration, c.\ccpt  in  cases  where  such  trademark  is  claimed  for  and 
applied  to  articles  not  manufactured  in  this  country,  and  in 
which  it  receives  protection  under  the  laws  of  any  foreign  country 
for  a  shorter  period,  in  which  case  it  shall  i-ease  to  have  any  force 
in  this  country  hy  virtue  of  this  act,  at  the  same  time  that  it  he- 
comes  of  no  eflFect  elsewhei-e,  and  during'  the  period  that  it  re- 
nuiins  in  force  it  shall  entitle  the  person,  tirm,  or  corporation 
registeriiifr  the  same  to  the  exclusive  use  thereof  so  far  as  regards 
the  description  of  goods  to  which  it  is  a|»propriated  in  the  state- 
ment filed  under  oath  as  aforesaid,  and  no  other  jx-rson  shall  law- 
fully use  the  same  trademark,  or  substantially  the  same,  or  so  near- 
ly resembling  it  as  to  be  calculated  to  deceive,  upon  substantially 
the  same  description  of  «roods.  -'•  Provided  that  six  montks  prior  to 
the  expiration  of  the  said  term  of  tliirty  years,  application  may  be 
made  for  a  renewal  of  such  registration,  under  regulations  to  be 
prescribed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Patents,  and  the  fee  for  such 
renewal  shall  be  the  same  as  for  the  original  registration,  certifi- 
cate of  such  renewal  shall  be  issued  in  the  same  manner  as  for  the 
original  registration,  and  such  trademark  shall  remain  in  force 
for  further  term  of  thirty  years;  and  provided  further,  that 
nothing  in  this  section  shall  be  construed  by  any  court  as  abridg- 
ing or  in  any  manner  affecting  unfavorably  the  claim  of  any  per- 
son, firm,  corporation,  or  company  to  any  trademark  after  the 
expiration  of  the  term  for  which  such  trademark  was  registered. 

18 — A   declaration   tliat   no   other  use,  was  held  not  to  justify  issuing,' 

person,    firm   or   corporation   has   a  another   certificate  to   another   part 

right  to  the  use  of  the  satne,  or  sub-  owner   of  the   same   mark,   in   order 

stantially  the  same,  mark,  is  a  suffi-  to  put  him  on  an  equal  footinjj   in 

cient  compliance  with   this   retjuire-  court.      McElwee    v.    Blackwell,    I.'> 

ment.     In  re  Vidvard  &   Sheehan.  S  Off.   Gaz.    658.      In   an    interference, 

Oflf.  Gaz.  143.  the  applicant  was  "granted  repistra- 

19 — See   Act   of    1881,   sees.    5,   7,  tion   as  apainst   a    prior    re<riptrant 

11.  whose   \iser    had    t)e<'n    experimental 

20 — An   illegal   registration   hy   a  and      intt-rrupted.      Sternhergcr      v. 

part  owner  not  entitled  to  exclusive  Thalheimer,  3  Off.  Gaz.  120. 


50C 


APPENDIX    A. 


JSection  T!K='Anil  bo  it  fiirtlicr  onactcil.  that  Any  person  or 
oorporation  who  shall  rcprodiu-i',  copy.  i-oviiitortVit.  or  iinitatt'  any 
siK'h  rocortled  traiii'inark,  and  atlix  th«'  same  to  j,'o(h1s  of  sul>stan- 
tially  the  same  description,  properties  and  (pialitu's  as  those  re- 
ferred to  in  the  registration.--  shall  he  lialile  to  an  a<'tioii  on  tl>e 
ease  for  ilania^es  for  sweh  unlawful  us^^-  of  sueh  tradenuirk  at  the 
suit  of  the  owner  thereof  in  any  court  of  competent  jurisdiction  in 
the  United  States,  and  the  party  a<rKrieved  shall  also  have  his  rem- 
eily  aecorilinir  to  the  course  of  e<piity  to  enjoin  the  wronjrful  use  of 
his  trademark  and  to  recover  compensation  therefor  in  any  court 
havin<r  jurisdiction  over  the  person  p-uilty  of  such  wronj?ful 
use.--'  The  C'onnnissioner  of  Patents  -♦  shall  not  receive  and  record 
any  proposed  trademark  which  is  not  and  can  not  l)Ccome  a  lawful 
trademark.-''  or  which  is  merely  the  name  of  a  person,  firm,  or  cor- 


21— Sco  Act  of  18S1,  8PC9.  :«.  7. 

22 — See  OsgiKMl  v.  Hockw  ood,  1 1 
Blatchf.  310;  Fed.  C'as.  No.  lOGOf), 
wlicrc  it  was  ludd  lliat  ihtsoiis  who 
had  registcTfd  a  trademark  for 
prints  made  according'  to  a  patented 
j)roccs3  were  not  i-ntitlfd  under 
this  act  to  an  injunction  a^'ainst  a 
person  who  had  used  the  mark  on 
prints  not  made  in  accordance  with 
the  patent. 

2.'} — The  United  States  circuit 
courts  liad  jurisdiction  under  tliis 
act  in  cases  of  infrin;;ement  of 
trademark,  even  when  Ixjth  par- 
ties Wen-  citizens  of  the  same 
state.  Duwd  v.  Bohnur,  14  (MX. 
Claz.  270;  hut  we  sees.  7  and  11  of 
the  Act  of   1881. 

24 — Tlie  validity  of  the  decisions 
i>f  the  actin;;  commissionjT  was 
upheld  in  Simpson  v.  \\'ri;:lit  ('2(. 
IT)  OfT.  C.a/..  2'.y.i. 

25 — The  <pi<-Htioii  wliat  may  \»- 
rejjistered  as  In-in;,'  a  "lawful  tradr 
mark"  has  Im-ch  eonsidiTtd  in 
many  cas4'M.  The  ilevicc  nf  u 
<Town  is  a  ;;o<i<l  trademark.  Smilli 
V.  Reynolds  (2t.  10  Hlateiif.  100. 
Tlie    arms     of     one     of     tlie     states 


could  not  lie  re;x'**tered  as  a  trade- 
nuirk. Kx  parte  Davids  &  Co.,  !(> 
OfT.  Gaz.  04.  And  it  has  heen  held 
that  the  same  is  the  case  with  the 
Freemasons'  h(juare  and  compass. 
He  Tcdle.  2  /il.  41");  and  the  word 
"Masonic,"  Hjt  parte  Smith  (3),  Irt 
/./.  704.  In  re  Tliomas,  14  /(/.  821, 
tiie  Freemasons'  symhols  were  al- 
lowed to  he  rejjistered  in  comhina- 
tion,  and  In  re  Tolle,  supra,  was 
overruled.  In  /,'x  parte  King  (2), 
4f>  /(/.  110,  tlie  decision  In  re 
Thomas,  14  Id.  821,  was  followed, 
and  the  desi;:n  of  tlie  l)ad;,'e  adopt- 
ed hy  the  (!rand  Army  of  the  Re- 
puhlic  was  allowed  to  l>c  registeri*d 
as  a  trademark  for  writing  paper 
liy  a  person  who  had  no  connection 
with  that  stK'iety,  and  it  was  said 
that,  that  society  not  having  used 
tlu-ir  hadge  as  a  mark  on  writing 
paper,  they  would  he  infringing 
llie  ji|)|»licant's  rights  if  they  wore 
til  hegiii  to  do  HO.  The  wordn 
"Knigiits  of  Lalwr"  were  refused 
registration  as  a  mark  for  whisky 
•  in  this  ground  and  hecanso  decep- 
tive. Kx  parte  Bloch  A  Co.,  40  OfT. 
C»a/..    443.      A    word    which    has    he- 


ACT   OV   CONGRESS  OF   JIII.Y   8,    1870, 


507 


oomo  common,  r.  </.,  "Callioiin" 
|)lo\v,  can  not  he  rc^iintt-n.-tl.  /n  rr 
Hnll  &  Co.,  i:{  /«/.  'i2!».  K.^'istra- 
tion  liaH  bi'rn  ri'fuscd  to  tlic  fol- 
lowing words  anil  cxprcHHions,  on 
the  ground  i>i  dcscriptivtMU'SH: 
"Beeswax  oil,"  In  re  Iluutliaway 
(1),  Comm.  Dccis.  1871,  97;  h.  c 
(2),  III.  'iS4;  "Razor  Sti'cl,"  In  rr 
Robi-rts  (4 1.  I<l.  100;  "Invisildi-" 
face  powdi'r,  J-!x  parte  Palmer,  Jil. 
280;  "A.  Richardson's  I'att-nt 
Union  Lfatlu-r  Splittinf^  Macliinc," 
In  re  Richardson.  :i  OlT.  Gaz.  120: 
"Fiu-r  Familicn-Gchrauch,"  and 
"Lawrcncr  Fi-incr  Familit-n-Flan- 
nel",  In  re  Lawrence,  10  Id.  1(53; 
"Iron  Stone"  drain  ]>ipes.  In  re 
Rader  &  Co.,  Comm.  Decis.  1878, 
G7;  "Crouj)  Tincture,"  In  re  Roach, 
10  OfT.  C.az.  :V.l.\;  "C"rack-proof '  In- 
dia rulilxr.  In  re  (ioody^'ar  Rubber 
Co.,  11  Id.  1062;  "Evaporated"  ar- 
ticles of  food,  Kx  parte  Alden,  1') 
Id.  389;  "Standard  A"  cigars,  Kx 
parte  Cohn  (1),  10  Id.  080;  "Dru<,'- 
jnjists'  Sundries,"  A'jt  parte  Cohn 
(2),  10  /(/.  680;  "Safety"  powder, 
Rx  parte  Safety  Powder  Co.,  16  Id. 
136;  "Medicated  Prunes,"  Ex  parte 
Smith  (2),  16  7rf.  679;  "Satin  Pol- 
ish," shoe  polisli.  In  re  Brigham, 
Comm.  Decis.  1881,  38;  "Swing" 
scythe  sockets.  Ex  parte  Tliomp- 
son,  Derby  &  Co.,  16  OIT.  Gaz.  137 ; 
"Granulated  Dirt  KiHer"  soap.  Ex 
parte  Waeferling,  16  Id.  764; 
"Famous,"  merchandise  generally, 
In  re  Brand  Stove  Co..  62  Off.  Gaz. 
r>S8;  and  "Splendid"  flour.  Ex 
parte  Stokes.  64  Off.  Gaz.  437.  And 
the  same  has  been  the  case  with 
respeet  to  the  figure  of  a  fish  for 
fisliing  lines.  In  re  Pratt  &  Farmer, 
10  III.  866;  and  the  representation 
of  a  twig  with  three  leaves  and  a 
plu  n,    for   prunes,  Ex  parte   Smith 


(2),  16  Id.  679;  and  Beo  PophaiD 
V.  Wileox,  06  N.  Y.  69.  On  thft 
other  liand,  "Ibi'  Blanchard 
Churn,"  In  re  PorU-r  Blaiu-hard's 
Sons,  Comm.  Decis.  1871,  97; 
"Heaverine"  boots  and  slioes,  In  re 
I'rancis  &  .Malion,  Id.  283;  and 
"i)r.  Lijlienthal's  Kssi-ntiu  Antiph- 
tliisiea,"  In  re  Rohland,  10  Off.  Gaz. 
980,  have  been  admitted  to  regis- 
tration as  being  non-descriptive. 
In  a  series  of  cases  registration 
bas  been  refused  on  the  ground 
that  the  term  claimed,  if  properly 
apj>licable  to  the  goods  with  re- 
sjiect  to  which  it  was  used,  was  de- 
scriptive, but  if  not,  was  deceptive: 
r.  f/.,  "Bromo-Quinine,"  In  re  Grove 
07  Off.  Gaz.  1447;  "American  Sar- 
dines," In  re  American  Sardine  Co., 
3  Id.  495;  "Egg  Macaroni,"  In  re 
Bole  Bros.,  12  Id.  939;  "Cachemire 
Milauo,"  In  re  Warburg  &  Co.,  13 
Id.  44;  "French  Paints,"  Ex  parte 
Marsching  &  Co.,  1.")  Id.  294;  "Lon- 
don" animal  foods.  Ex  parte 
Knapp,  10  Id.  318;  but  see  In  re 
Green.  8  Id.  729,  where  registration 
was  granted  to  "German  Syrup." 
On  the  latter  ground  of  decepti'  ,- 
ness,  the  word  "patent"  can  not  be 
registered  as  a  part  of  a  mark  for 
an  article  made  under  an  expired 
])atent.  In  re  Richardson,  3  Id.  120. 
A  geographical  name  is  not  usual- 
ly registrable.  Armistead  v.  Black- 
well,  1  Id.  003,  "Durham"  tobacco; 
In  re  Tolle,  2  /(/.  41.-).  "Cherry 
Street  Mills,"  and  ":Market  Street 
Mills;"  Ex  parte  Knapp,  16  Id.  318. 
"Tvondon"  animal  foods;  Ex  parte 
Marsching  &  Co.,  15  Id.  294. 
"French  Paints;"  Ex  parte  Far- 
nuni  &  Co..  IS  Id.  412.  "Lancaster" 
goods.  But  such  a  name  may  be 
registered  when  arl)itrarily  select- 
ed. In  re  Cornwall    (2),  12  Id.  312, 


50S 


ArrKNDlX    A. 


"Ihjhiin"   Ronp.      Similnrly,   numor- 
hIh    may    Ik-    n'pi«tori><l    whon    nrhi- 
tmri'y    BoUi'titl.      Kinney    v.    AUt-n, 
I    Hu^'lu'H,    100;    Kx  partf   l)nwr»   i 
Kaiitiin^,    1   OlT.   IJu/..  27;    Amrrioun 
S<ilitl    U-HthtT    Button    (.'<>.    v.      An- 
thony, i:.  U.  I.  :J.1S.     Hut  not  otlitr- 
wiw.  In  rv  Ka;:lf  IVnoil  to.,  l(t  Off. 
liaz.  *.)1.     It  has  iMt-n    h«-ld    that    a 
IH-culiarity  in  the  form  of  a  barrel 
is  not   re^'ititrahle  as  a    trademark, 
MiKirman  v.  Ilo^re,  2  Sawv.  7S;  nor 
a     reprewntation     of     bucIi     barn-l 
when     applied     to     the     yoods     eon- 
tained    in     it,     Kx    parte     llalliday 
Hros.,    1(J  Ofl".   Gaz.    ."»00;    nor     is    a 
special  kind  of  barrel-hoop  re<:i8tra- 
ble.      In   rr  Kane  &   Co.,  9   Id.    10.".. 
But  see   Cook   v.    Starkweather,     13 
Abb.   Pr.   N.  S.  302.     A  special  col- 
lar Ik)X   was  lield  not  to  constitute 
a   trademark,   Carrinjjton   v.    Libhy, 
14    Blatchf.    128;     and     a     sampler 
pattern  was  refus«'d  rejiistration,  In 
re  Parker,   13  Off.  Gaz.  323;   and  a 
strip    of    tobacco    intended    to     be 
wrapped   around   the   mouthpiece   of 
«i;:arette8,  on    the    ground     that     it 
was    intended    to   serve    purposes   of 
convenience  rather  than  of  identifi- 
•  ■ation.   In   rr  Gordon,   12    /(/.    r>17; 
and  the  use  of  a  tin  tag  or  ticket 
on  the  goods,  irrespective  of  shape 
and  design,  is  no  trademark,  Loril- 
lard    V.    Pride,   28     Fed.     Hep.     434; 
though    a    tin    tag  of   special    shape, 
si/e  and   cohir  may  be.   Lorillard   v. 
Wiglit.  ir.  F.d.   Hep.  383.     Til.  re  is 
no   trademark    in    the    shape    of    a 
plug  of  tobacco,    Liggett    &     Myi-rs 
Tobacco  Co.  V.  n\TneH,  20  Fed.  Rep. 
883;    or  <»f   a  box.   Sawyer  v.   Horn, 
4    Hughes.   230:    Ball   v.    Siegel.    11(1 
111.    137:    or  of    sticks    of    chewing 
gum     Adams     v.     Heim-l,     31     Fed. 
Hep.    270;    or    of    the     frame     of     a 
Bcwing    machine    originally     made 


under  a  patent,  Wilcox  &  Giblm 
Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Gibbons* 
Frame,  21  Blatchf.  431;  Brill  v. 
."dinger  Manufacturing  Co.,  41  Ohio 
St.  127;  n«>r  in  a  manner  of  ar- 
ranging in  lM>.\es  cakes  of  s<)ap 
wrapped  in  dilferently  colored  pa- 
ju-r  wrappt-rs,  Davis  v.  Davis,  27 
Fed.  Hep.  400;  nor  in  a  nom  dc 
plume,  Clemens  v.  Belford,  11  Biss. 
4.")!).  But  registration  has  been 
granted  to  a  p«'culiarly  shaped 
stick  intended  to  l»e  so  placed  in 
a  roll  of  carpet  as  to  show  an  oc- 
tagoiuil  ring  at  eaeli  end.  L<)W«'I1 
Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Larntnl,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  8570.  Hegistration  can 
not  be  granted  to  minor  and  non- 
essential features  in  a  compound 
mark.  I.'x  parte  Coats,  H!  Off.  Gaz. 
.■|44.  Occasionally  a  mark  has  bi-en 
allowed  to  be  registered  in  alter- 
luitive  forms,  e.  g.,  "The  Star 
Sliirt,"  the  same  words  with  the 
figure  of  a  star,  and  "The  *  Shirt," 
Morrison  v.  Cas«',  9  Blatchf.  548; 
the  figure  of  a  lion,  the  word 
"Lion,"  or  both,  In  re  Weaver.  10 
Off.  Gaz.  1 ;  and  see  In  re  Park,  12 
/(/.  2;  In  rr  Thomas,  14  Id.  821;  Ex 
parte  Peper,  10  Id.  078.  A  bad  trade- 
mark does  not  become  a  good  one 
by  the  addition  of  unobjectionable 
elements.  In  re  Blakeslee  &  Co.. 
Comm.  Decis.  1871,  284,  "Cundu- 
rango  Ointment  Co.;"  In  re  Dick  &. 
Co.  0  Off.  Gaz.  .".38.  "D.  D.  &  Co. 
tasteless"  drugs;  In  rr  Hader  4  Co.. 
13  Id.  r.OO.  "Iron  Stone"  in  an  oval 
Iwrder.  But  it  appears  to  be  possi- 
lile  for  two  marks,  which  separate- 
Iv  are  not  good  trademarks,  to 
form  one  in  combination.  Ft  parte 
Davids  &  Co..  10  Id.  04.  A  trade- 
mark can  not  be  registered  for  the 
purj)os<'  of  being  used  l»y  all  the 
mcmbtrtt     uf     uu     asbociation      on 


ACT   OF    CONGRESS   OF   JULY    8,    1870. 


509 


poration  only,^''  imaccompanie<l  hy  a  inark  sufficient  to  distin- 
guish it  fronj  the  same  name  where  usi-d  ])y  otlier  ])ersons,  or 
wliich  is  identical  with  the  trademark  ai)i)ropriated  to  the  same 
class  of  merchandise  and  helonging  to  a  different  owner  and  al- 
ready registered  or  received  I'or  registration,  or  which  so  nearly 
resembles  such  last  mentioned  trademark  as  to  be  likely  to  deceive 
the  public.-"    Provided,  that  this  section  shall  not  prevent  the 


<,'ood8  of  any  (luality,  nor  ciin  a 
mark  wliicli  is  intended  to  be  used 
in  furthering?  a  scheme  for  tlie  re- 
straint of  trade,  Kx  parte  Cigar 
Makers'  Association,  16  Id.  958; 
and  in  Schneider  v.  Williams,  44 
N.  J.  Eq.  301,  tlic  court  refused  to 
protect  such  a  mark  at  the  in- 
stance of  a  member  of  the  associa- 
tion. In  Strasser  v.  Moonelis,  108 
N.  Y.  611;  People  v.  Fislier,  .')?  N. 
Y.  Sup.  Ct.  552;  Allen  v.  McCar- 
thy, 37  Minn.  347 ;  and  Bloete  v. 
Simon,  49  Abb.  N.  C.  88,  however, 
a  difTerent  view  was  taken  of  the 
propriety  of  such  a  mark.  It  seems 
that  the  decision  of  a  competent 
court  as  to  the  validity  of  a  mark 
is  bindinj,'  upon  the  patent  office. 
In  re  India-rubl)er  Comb  Co.,  8  OflF. 
Gaz.  905.  If  an  application  is  re- 
fused on  the  ground  that  the  pro- 
posed mark  is  not  registrable,  a 
renewed  application  for  the  regis- 
tration of  a  mark  not  open  to  ob- 
jection must  be  treated  as  a  new 
application,  and  it  can  not  b"  treat- 
ed as  an  amendmenx,  of  the  original 
application,  nor  can  the  fee  orig- 
inally paid  be  returned.  In  re  Block 
&  Co.,  14  Id.  235. 

26 — Thus,  In  re  Rowe  &  Post, 
0  Off.  Caz.  406,  the  name  "The 
New  York  Cutlery  Co."  was  re- 
fused registration  as  a  new  mark. 
As  to  the  registration  of  names  as 
old  marks,  see  In  re  Porter  Blanch- 
ard's  Sons,  Coram.  Decis.   1S71.  07; 


In  re  Rolx-rts  ( 1 ) ,  7t/.  113;  8.  c.  {2), 
Id.  100;  s.  c.  (3),  Id.  101;  In  re  In- 
(lia-rultber  Comb  Co.,  8  Off.  Gaz. 
005;  In  re  Consolidated  Fruit  Jar 
Co.,  14  Id.  260;  Ex  parte  Davids  k 
Co.,  16  Id.  94;  In  re  Creedmore 
Cartridge  Co.,  56  Id.  1333.  The 
prohibition  does  not  extend  to  the 
registration  of  the  name  of  a  per- 
son otlier  than  the  applicant,  and 
such  names  may  be  registered,  at 
all  events  with  their  owners'  con- 
sent, if  living.  Ex  parte  Sullivan 
&  Burke,  16  Id.  765;  Ex  parte  Pace, 
Talbott  &  Co.,  16  Id.  909. 

27 — Thus,  In  re  American  Lu- 
bricating Oil  Co.,  9  Off.  Gaz.  687, 
registration  was  refused  to  the 
word  "Star"  as  a  trademark  on 
oil,  the  device  of  a  star  having 
already  been  registered  for  the 
same  article;  so  In  re  Coggin, 
Kidder  &  Co.,  11  Id.  1109,  to  a  de- 
vice in  which  the  principal  feature 
was  the  name  "Haxall,"  which  had 
long  been  the  trademark  of  an- 
other firm;  so  In  re  Bush  &  Co., 
10  Id.  164,  to  a  combination  mark 
consisting  of  the  applicant's  own 
registered  trademark  and  two  other 
devices  appropriated  by  other 
firms;  so  in  Ex  parte  Claire,  15  Id. 
248,  to  the  words  "Black  Swan," 
the  word  "Swan"  being  already 
registered;  so  in  Ex  parte  Smith 
(1  I,  16  W.  679,  to  "A.  S.  California 
Family  *  Soap,"  "California"  and 
"    •    "   being  already   separately   on 


510 


APPKNDIX    A. 


registry  of  any  lawful  ti-juloniark  riphtfully  used  at  tho  time  of 
the  piucsa^'i'  of  this  act.-'^ 

Sectkin  so.-"  And  he  it  fiirthcr  cnaetcd.  thai  the  time  of  the 
receipt  of  iiiiy  trailfiiiai'k  at  the  Pati'iit  Olliff  for  refjist ration 
shall  1)1'  noted  and  reeordeil  ami  eopies  of  tile  trademark  and  of 
the  date  of  the  reeeipt  thereof,  and  of  the  statement  lile(i  there- 
"vvith,  under  the  se.d  of  tin-  Patent  Olliee.  eertified  hy  the  eoTuinis- 
sioner,  shall  he  evidence  in  any  suit  in  wliirh  such  tradeuiark 
shall  he  hrouj^ht  into  eontroversy. 

Section  81.^"  And  ha  it  further  enacted,  that  the  <  'minnissioner 
of  Patents  is  authorizi'd  to  make  rules  and  rc^'ulations  •"  and   to 


tin-  n-jristcr;  and  hoo  Kx  parte 
Wi-isiTt  llros.,  1(5  Id.  680.  On  the 
otluT  liand,  /n  re  Imbs,  10  Id. 
Atui.  rt';.;i8tration  was  granted,  not- 
withstanding that  two  other  marks 
contained  Homcwliat  similar  feat- 
ures; and  In  re  C'ornwall  (1),  12 
Id.  i:}8,  a  device  of  a  star  and  a 
crescent  was  rej,'istered,  altliou},'li 
a  star  had  previously  been  regis- 
tered. 

28 — Under  this  proviso  registra- 
tion was  granted  to  a  name  used 
as  a  trademark  before  1S70,  r.  g., 
"The  India-rubber  Coml>  Co.  of 
New  York,"  In  re  India  Rubber 
Comb  Co.,  8  Off.  Gaz.  905;  "The 
Itubber  Clothing  Co."  In  re  Rul)ber 
Clothing  Co.,  Kl  Id.  111.  Sr.-  In  rr 
Dole  Bros.,  12  Id.  939;  In  re  Con- 
solidated Fruit  Jar  Co.,  14  Id.  3fi9; 
Kx  parte  Consolidated  Fruit  Jnr 
Co.,  IG  Id.  079.  Tliis  saving  proviso 
is,  however,  «»niittcd  from  tlie  Act 
of  1881,  HO  that  tlie  prohibition  as 
to  names,  etc.,  is  universal.  See  Act 
of  1881,  sec.  3,  and  Ex  parte  Fair- 
child,  21  Off.  fJaz.  789,  in  which 
rase  registration  was  refused  to  a 
name  wliich  liad  Iteen  used  as  a 
trad'mark  for  twenty  years,  and 
liad  been  regisUTed  under  the  Act 
of    1870. 


29— See    Act    of    IHHl,    sees,    3,    4. 

30— See    Act    of    1881,   sec.    12. 

31  —  It  was  fonueilv  decided  tliat 
the  authority  given  to  the  commis- 
sioner by  section  81  to  make  regu- 
lations empowered  him  to  declare 
an  interference  in  a  trademark 
case,  for  tlie  purpose  of  deciding  a 
(|ue8tion  of  title  to  the  trademark, 
on  the  analogy  of  the  practice  in 
patent  cases.  Lant/.  Bros.  &  Co.  v. 
Schultz  Si  Co..  9  Off.  Oa/..  791; 
Duke  v.  Oreen.  U>  Id.  1094.  And 
thougli  it  was  thought  in  Swift  v. 
Peters,  11  Id.  1110,  that  the  ques- 
tion wlietlicr  n  registered  propri- 
etor of  a  mark  was  entitled  to  the 
exclusive  use  of  it  against  an  ox- 
)i!»rtiiiT  wjis  a  question  for  a  court 
of  law,  and  not  for  the  office,  it 
was  held  in  Tloosier  Drill  Co.  v. 
Iii^'fls,  14  /(/.  78."),  that,  in  investi- 
gating the  title  of  the  mark,  all 
matters  relating  to  the  ownership 
should  be  gone  into;  and  in  llan- 
ford  V.  Wescott.  10  Id.  1181,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  0022,  it  was  held  that  a 
decision  of  the  examiner  of  inter- 
ferences, unappealed  from,  was 
conclusive  as  (o  the  right  to  a 
mark;  and  see  .Tosselyn  v.  Swe/.ey 
\  Dart,  If)  Off.  Oa/..  702,  as  to  re- 
opening   tlie   evidence    taken    on     an 


ACT   OF   CONGRESS  OF   .JI'LY    8,    1870. 


511 


prescribe  lonns  lof  the  t i-.iiislVr  ol'  tln'  y\f^\\i  to  use  such  trade- 
marks, conrormiiig  as  nearly  as  practicable  to  the  requirenicnts  of 
the  hiw  respoctiii^r  the  transfer  and  transmission  of  copyrif^lit.s. 

Skction  82.''-  And  be  it  further  enacted,  that  any  [jerson  who 
shall  procure  the  registry  of  any  trademark,  or  of  himself  as  the 
owner  thereof,  or  an  entry  respecting?  a  trademark,  in  the  Patent 
Office  under  tliis  act,  by  makinj:^  any  false  or  fraudulent  repre- 
sentations or  declaration  verl)ally  or  in  writing,  or])y  any  fraudu- 
lent means,  shall  be  liable  to  pay  damages  in  consequence  of  any 
such  registry  or  entry  to  the  person  injured  thereby,  to  be  recov- 
ered in  an  action  on  llie  case  in  any  court  of  competent  jurisdic- 
tion w  itbin  the  United  States. 

Section  S:^'''*  And  lie  it  further  enacted,  that  nothing  in  this 
act  shall  prevent,  lessen,  impeach  or  avoid,  any  remedy  at  law  or 
in  equity  which  any  party  aggrieved  hy  any  wrongful  use  of  any 
trademark  might  have  had  if  this  act  had  not  been  passed.^"* 

Section  84.''^  And  be  it  further  enacted,  that  no  action  shall  be 
maintained  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  by  any  person  claim- 
ing the  exclusive  right  to  any  trademark  which  is  used  or  claimed 


interforencc,  and  Simpson  v. 
Wri{,'lit  (1).  1.')  /(/.  248,  and  s.  c. 
(2),  1.")  /(L  2!);{.  as  to  rchcarinj.'  an 
intcrforonce.  After  the  case  of  United 
States  V.  StefTons,  100  U.  S.  82,  25 
L.  Ed.  5.-)n,  it  was  held  that  tlie  Pat- 
ent OflTioe  lias  no  lonjrcr  any  author- 
ity to  decide  questions  of  disputed 
titles  to  trademarks,  or  to  declare 
interferences  in  such  cases.  Braiin 
&  Co.  V.  BlackAvell,  19  Off.  Gaz. 
481;  and  see  Ex  parte  Strasburger 
&  Co.,  20  /(/.  1.1.5,  and  .Tacohy  &  Co. 
V.  Lopez  &  Co.,  23  Id.  .342.  And  in 
Yale  Cigar  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Yale,  .30  Id. 
1183,  it  was  decided  that  a  declara- 
tion of  interference  is  authorized 
by  section  3  of  the  Act  of  1881.  In 
such  cases  the  only  duty  of  the 
office  is  to  decide  whether  th(>  op- 
ponent has  or  has  not  a  better  title 
than  the  applicant,  not  to  decide 
any   further  question.    Ibid.    If,   on 


an  iMtcrfcrciicc  hctwcen  an  appli- 
cant and  a  registered  owner  with 
respect  to  the  same  mark,  the 
right  to  registration  is  adjudged  to 
the  applicant,  notwithstanding  the 
o])])osition  of  the  registered  owner, 
the  H'sult  is,  while  strictly  giving 
tlic  ap])lioaiit  merely  the  right  to 
register,  practically  to  displace  the 
registered  owner,  though  his  mark 
is  not  removed  from  the  register. 
Ihid.  For  the  present  rule  as  to 
interferences  see  note  7  to  sec.  3 
of  the  Act  of  1881 ;  and  see  sec.  7, 
Act  of  lOOfi. 

32— See  Act  of  1881,  sec.  0. 

33— S(>e  Act  of   1881,  sec.   10. 

34 — See  Osgood  v.  Kockwood,  11 
Blatchf.  310;  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10605; 
United  States  v.  Roche,  1  McCreary, 
38.5;   Fed.  Cas.  No.  10180. 

35 — See  Act  of  1881,  sec.  8. 


512  APPENDIX    A. 

in  aj33'  unlawful  business  or  upon  any  article  wliich  is  injurious  in 
itself,  or  upon  any  trademark  wliich  has  been  fraudulently  ob- 
tained, or  whii'li  has  Uvvn  lornu'd  aiul  used  witii  the  di'sitjn  of  de- 
ceiving the  public  in  the  purchase  or  use  of  ;my  article  of  iiwr- 
eJiandise.''" 

30 — It    ft(>om«    thnt    this   net    pro-  nU-ad  v.  lilackwoU,  1  Off.  (la/..  603 

vidtMi  no  nu-niiH  for   nniovin^'   from  McKhvoo  v.   Ulackwi-U,  15  Id.    658 

r<';:istrHtion    a     mark      which      was  Wri^'ht    v.     Sinii>son.     l.'i    Id.    968 

wron^'fiilly  rojiisttrod,  r.  p.,  a  mark  Yah-  Cigar  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Yale,  30  Id 

which    did    not  contain    any    of    the  1183. 
o»»cntial     j)articular8.     See     Armi- 


APPENDIX  B 


LABEL  ACT  OF  JUNE  18,  1874. 

(18   Statutes  at   l.-AVin-.    7S.) 

An    act    to    aun'iul    the   law    relating,'    to    patcntn,   trademarks 
and  copyriglits. 

Section  3.  That  in  tho  construction  oi'  this  act  the  words  "en- 
graving," "cut"  and  "jjrint"  shall  ])e  applied  only  to  pictorial 
illu.strations  or  works  connected  with  the  fine  arts,  and  no  prints 
or  labels  designetl  to  be  used  lor  any  other  articles  of  manufacture 
shall  be  entered  under  the  copyright  law,  but  may  be  registered  in 
the  Patent  Office.  And  the  Comanissioner  of  Patents  is  hereby 
charged  with  the  supervision  and  control  of  the  entry  or  registry 
of  such  prints  or  lal)cls,  in  conformity  witli  the  regulations  pro- 
vided by  law  as  to  copyright  of  prints,  exc*ej)t  that  there  shall  be 
paid  for  recording  the  title  of  any  print  or  label  not  a  trademark, 
six  dollars,  which  shall  cover  the  expense  of  furnishing  a  copy  of 
the  record  under  the  seal  of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents,  to  the 
party  entering  the  same.^ 


1 — This  law  can  be  sustained 
only  under  the  constitutional  del- 
egation of  authority  to  congress  to 
legislate   upon   copj'righta. 

The  provision  quoted  has  refer- 
ence only  to  such  writings  as  are 
the  result  of  intellectual  labor  and 
are  founded  in  tlie  creative  powers 
of  the  mind. 

"It  does  not  have  any  reference 
to  labels  which  simply  designate  or 
describe  the  articles  to  which  they 
are  attached,  and  which  have  no 
value  separated  from  the  articles, 
and  no  possible  influence  upon 
science  or  the  useful  arts."  Mr. 
Justice  Field  in  Higgins  v.  KeuflFel, 
140  U.  S.  428,  35  L.  Ed.  470. 


No  action  at  law  or  in  equity 
can  be  maintained  for  the  in- 
fringement of  a  label  so  registered 
(copyrighted)  unless  the  provision 
of  the  copyright  law  in  regard  to 
the  notice  has  been  complied  with, 
1.  c,  "by  inscribing  upon  some  vis- 
il)le  portion  tliereof,  or  of  the  sub- 
stance on  which  the  same  shall  be 
mounted,  the  following  words, 
viz. :    'Entered   according  to   Act   of 

Congress,    in    the    year    ,    by 

A.  B.,  in  the  office  of  the  Librarian 
of  Congress,  at  Washington;'  or 
(at  the  option  of  the  registrants 
the  word  'Copyright,'  together  with 
the  year  the  copyright  Avas  entered, 
and     the     name    of    the    party    by 


513 


514 


ArrtLNPix  n. 


whom     it     wft«    taken     out;"    tliu«, 

••l'opyrij:ht.   18 -..  by   A.   li."   Hifj- 

pinB  V.  K.'ulTi'l,  140  U.  S.  42S,  Ilf) 
L.  Etl.   470. 

It  18  manifi'st  that  undtT  thin  di'- 
cision  thf  act  atTonlH  no  proU*cti<>n 
to  lalK>l8,  and  n'j;i»trntion  undi-r  it 
i«  idh*.  Lul)y.  Patent  OtWco  Prac- 
tici',  p.  121.  Hut  until  thi-n-  in  a 
dtfinion  dtt'larin;;  tiu'  law  uncon- 
htitutional  tho  Patrnt  OHioc  is  opi'n 
for  this  cla»8  of  n'j;iHtrati<>n.  Kx 
parte  U.  J.  Hoinz  Co.,  (.2  OfT.  C.a/.. 
1004.  It  is  hold,  however,  that  a 
lalu'l  will  not  bo  admittod  to  roj;- 
i!*try  unloss  it  has  tho  same  doj^roo 
uf  artistic  oxcollcnco  as  would  on- 
tith'  it  to  c<>pyri;;iit  in  the  oflicc  of 
tlio  Lilirarian  of  ("(Hif^roHS.  /.'j- 
parte  Palmer,  r,H  OfT.  CJaz.  38:5.  And 
labels  containing  or  con8istin<;  of 
matter  constitutinj;  trademarks 
will  not  be  rej^'istored  until  such 
trademark  matter  has  boon  rojiis- 
tered  as  trademark.  Kx  parte  Dia- 
mond Laboratory  Co.,  44  MSS.  Doc. 
HI;  Kx  parte  Ruckstuhl,  ;')(>  OlT. 
Gaz.  927.  A  label  boarinjj  the 
name  and  address  of  the  owner, 
the  name  of  the  article  to  whicli 
it  is  applied,  with  the  price  and 
directions  for  use,  exhibitin<;  no 
attempt  at  artistic  or  literary 
merit,  will  not  be  roRistored.  Kx 
parte  Eldred;,'e  Co.,  of)  Off.  Caz. 
1278.  The  same  ruling  has  been 
made  as  to  a  label  purely  descrip- 
tive of  the  articles  to  which  it  is 
int^-nded  to  be  applied.  Kx  parte 
C.  C.  Hainlino  &  Co.,  r>8  OfT.  Oaz. 
047. 

PrintH  and  InhriN  defined. — "Rej;- 
iHt<*red  labels  or  prints  and  tra<le- 
markfl  are  riTognized  by  the  terni>< 
of  the  law  and  deciHionH  of  the 
rourtH  an  a|>plieable  only  to  some 
kind  of  merrhandi84-:  labels,  as 
jriving    the   names  of    the    manufac- 


turers, j)laoe  of  manufacture,  na- 
ture ur  (juality  of  j;ootis,  directions 
for  use,  and  tlie  like.'  Doolittle, 
Assistant  Commissioner,  in  Ex 
parte  Parker,  13  Off.  Oaz.  323. 

Long  prior  to  the  decision  of 
Iliggins  V.  Keuffel,  140  U.  S.  428,  3.'» 
L.  Kd.  470  (wHprai.  .Judge  lUatcli- 
ford  had  lield  tluit  tliis  section  was 
|)urely  II  copyrigiited  act,  and  tluit 
under  the  general  copyrigiit  n-gula- 
tion  of  congress  ( 8«'c.  4!)r>0,  R.  S, )  no 
person  could  claim  jiroti-ction  for 
a  lalK'l  so  registered  unless  "be- 
fore publication"  he  had  deposited 
a  printed  copy  of  the  title  of  the 
article  in  respect  of  wliich  the 
e(i[)yriglit  was  claimed,  in  the  Pat- 
•  ■nt  Oflice.  Marsh  v.  Warren,  14 
lUatdif.  2t;;{;  14  Off.  (!az.  078;  Fed. 
(as.  No.  ni21;   10  Fed.  Caa  821. 

It  has  been  held  that  the  mere 
fact  that  words  or  designs  which 
appear  upon  the  label  might  be 
used  as  trademarks  does  not  pre- 
vent registration  under  this  act. 
F.x  parte  Orcutt  &  Son,  8  Off.  Gaz. 
270 :  and  in  another  early  case  the 
ajiplicant's  label  was  admitted  to 
registry,  but  certain  "arbitrary 
words"  and  "fanciful  figures"  were 
first  refused  or  stricken  out  of  the 
label,  and  the  commissioner  sug- 
gested tliat  they  sliould  bo  regis- 
tered as  trademarks.  F.x  parte  W. 
Simj.son  &  Sons,  10  Off.  Gaz.  334. 
Hut  as  indicated  in  the  first  por- 
tion of  this  note,  the  prevailing 
doctrine  was  that  "the  presence  in 
a  laliel  of  matter  registrable  as  a 
trademark  excludes  the  whole 
from  registration."  Kx  parte  Thad- 
deus  Davids  A  Co.,  10  Off.  Gaz. 
!H.  It  has  been  held  by  the  Su- 
jinine  Court  of  the  District  of  Co- 
lumbia, however,  that  tho  Commis- 
hioner  of  Pat<'nts  has  no  discre- 
tion  to  determine    whether    a    par- 


LABEL    ACT    OK   .JINK    IH,    1874. 


515 


ticiilar  lalifl  pliould  lio  clnHHcd  ns 
a  tnulcmark  or  hh  only  u  lul>cl. 
That  liin  diiticH  uh  rt'HpcctH  tliiH 
act  arc  jiurdy  ministi-rial,  and 
mandaniiiH  will  lie  to  comiirl  liini 
to  ro^^isttT  any  lalud  |)ri)iirrly  prc- 
sonted  for  rt'(,MHtratioii.  United 
Stati'8  ex  rcl.  Wilcox  &  (Jilil)H  Sew- 
ing Macliint'  Co.  v.  Mari)l«',  1 
Mackey,  284;  22  OlF.  Ca/,.  VM\i\; 
United  States  ex  rel.  Schumacher 
V.  Marhle,  li  Mackey,  32.  And  it 
is  now  settled  that  a  j)riiit  will  not 
he  refused  n-fristratioii  "even 
thoufjh  it  may  contain  matter  ca- 
pahle  of  sequestration  as  a  trade- 
mark, not  in  fact  registered  as  a 
trademark."  Greeley,  Commis- 
sioner, in  Ex  parte  United  States 
Playing  Card  Co.,  82  OfT.  Caz.  1200, 
1210. 

In  regard  to  this  act,  the  Pat- 
ent Ollice  has  adopted  the  follow- 
ing rule:  "These  sections  of  stat- 
utes (referring  to  sections  3,  4  and 
5  of  the  Act  of  June  18,  1874)  are 
construed  as  authorizing  the  reg- 
istry of  'prints'  and  'labels.'  A 
label  is  a  device  or  representation 
not  borne  by  an  article  of  manu- 
facture or  vendible  commodity.  A 
print  is  a  device  or  representation 
not  borne  by  an  article  of  manu- 
facture or  vendible  commodity,  but 
in  some  fashion  pertaining  there- 
to— such,  for  instance,  as  a  pic- 
torial advertisement  thereof.  A 
label  can  not  be  registeri'd  if  it 
bear  a  device  capable  of  registra- 
tion as  a  trademark,  until  after 
such  device  is  registered  as  a 
trademark.  Both  labels  and  prints, 
in  order  to  be  entitled  to  registry, 
must  be  intellectual  productions  in 
the  degree  required  by  the  copy- 
right law." 

The  restriction  contained  in  this 
rule  as  to    the    registration   of    la- 


l)rls  containing  a  device  capable 
of  He<|ueHtration  as  a  trademark 
does  not  apply  to  a  print  contain- 
ing Hueh  a  device,  and  it  will  Im» 
Hilmilted  to  registration,  even 
though  it  may  contain  a  device  so 
<a|ialile  of  He((ueHtration  as  a  trade 
mark,  and  that  device  has  not  been 
registered.  Vvx  parte  United  States 
I  Maying  Card  Co.,  82  Off.  Caz.  1209. 
The  Patent  Office  has  furnished 
tin'  following  information  to  appli- 
cants for  the  registration  of  printu 
and  labels  under  this  act,  and 
forms  for  use  in  making  ai)piiea- 
tion  for  such  registration: 

"The  so-called  print  and  label 
section  of  the  copyright  statute, 
approved  .Iiine  18,  1874,  is  con- 
strued to  provide  for  the  registra- 
tion of  any  print  or  label  without 
examination   as   to   its  novelty. 

"An  adverse  decision  by  the  ex- 
aminer who  has  charge  of  the  reg- 
istration of  prints  and  labels,  upon 
an  applicant's  right  to  have  a 
print  or  label  registered,  will  be 
reviewed  l)y  the  commissioner  in 
person,   on    petition,    without   fee. 

"The  word  'print,'  as  used  in 
this  act,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  reg- 
istration in  the  Patent  Office,  is  de- 
fined as  an  artistic  representation 
or  intellectual  production  not 
borne  l)y  an  article  of  manufac- 
ture or  vendible  commodity,  but  in 
some  fashion  pertaining  thereto — 
such,  for  instance,  as  an  advertise- 
ment thereof. 

"The  word  'label,'  as  used  in  this 
act,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  registra- 
tion in  the  Patent  Office,  is  de- 
fined as  an  artistic  representation 
or  intellectual  production  im- 
pressed or  stamped  directly  upon 
the  articles  of  manufacture,  or  upon 
a  slip  or  piece  of  paper  or  other  ma- 
terial, to  be  attached  in  any  man- 


516 


ArPENDix  n. 


n«r  to  niniuifiu'tiirod  nrtioUs.  <>r 
to  lH>ttl«'«,  boxoH,  and  paokap-s 
t'onta^iin^'  tln-iii.  to  iiuiicatf  the 
coiitciitH  «>f  tin-  puckaj;i'.  tlu-  iiamr 
of  tlu"  nmnufarturiT.  or  tlif  plaoi- 
of  manufacture,  the  <juality  «>f 
j;oo«ls,  directions  for  us<',  etc. 

"By  tlie  words  'articles  of  man- 
ufacture' (to  which  such  print  or 
label  is  applicahle  by  this  act)  is 
meant  all  vendible  commodities 
l>r<Hluced  by  hand,  nnuhinrry.  or 
art. 

"No  print  or  label  can  be  rcfjis- 
terod  unless  it  properly  belonf^s  to 
an  article  of  commerce  and  is  as 
al>ove  defined. 

*'To  entitle  the  proprietor  of  any 
such  print  or  label  to  rej,Mster  the 
same  in  the  Patent  Ollice,  the  ap- 
plication for  the  refristration  tliere- 
of  must  be  made  to  the  Connnis- 
sioner  of  Patents,  and  said  appli- 
cation should  be  8i{,'ned  by  the 
j)roprietor  or  his  agent.  There 
must  also  be  filed  in  the  Patent 
Oflice  five  copies  of  the  print  or 
label  one  of  which,  wlien  the  print 
or  label  is  rejiistered,  shall  lie  cer- 
tified under  tlie  seal  of  tlie  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents  and  returned  to 
the  proprietor. 

"The  certificate  of  such  re},'istra- 
tion  will  continue  in  force  for 
twenty-ei}.dit  years. 

"The  certificate  may  b«'  contin- 
ued for  a  further  term  of  fourteen 
years  upon  filing  a  second  a|)pli- 
rati<m  within  six  months  before 
the  expiration  of  the  term  of  the 
original  certificite,  and  complying 
with  all  either  regulations  with  re- 
gard to  original  applications. 
Within  two  months  from  the  date 
of  said  renewal,  the  apjilicant 
must  cauHi-  a  copy  of  the  record 
ll'«reof  to  Im-  published  for  four 
v.f<-ks  in  one  or  more  newspapers 
printed  in  the  United  Statea. 


"The  fee  for  registration  of  a 
print  >>r  label  is  $(t.  to  be  paid  in 
the  siinii'  iiiaiiinT  iiH  fees  for  trade- 
marks. 

'file  attention  *»f  jutsoiis  con- 
templating the  n-gistry  of  a  print 
or  lal>el  in  tlie  Pat<'nt  Odice  is 
calh'd  to  the  decision  of  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  in  liiggins  v. 
KeulFel,  ."..")  ().  C.  li;{!t;  140  U.  S. 
428;  to  the  decision  of  the  United 
States  Circuit  Court  in  Marsh  ct  al. 
V.  Warren  rt  al.,  14  O.  G.  U78,  and 
to  the  decisions  of  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents  in  Ex  parte 
United  States  Playing  Card  Co.,  8'2 
O.  (J.  12(M>,  and  Kx  parte  Mahn,  82 
O.   0.    1210." 

The  simulation  of  currency  being 
forbidden  by  sec.  r)4;{0  R.  S.  U.  S.  a 
label  containing  simulations  of  cur- 
rency or  coins  will  not  be  registered. 
/•;.r  parte  Hall,  08  OlT.  Gaz.  23t)« ; 
and  so  of  labels  containing  the  flag 
of  the  United  States,  Ibid,  or  the 
shields  of  the  United  States  and 
and  Cuba.  Kx  parte  R.  Steinecke 
Co.,    122  OfT.    Ga/.   3011. 

If  not  an  artistic  production  the 
label  will  not  be  registered,  and  the 
fee  will  be  returned.  Ex  parte 
Sides,  12:}  OfT.  Gaz.  1CG.3.  A  fan- 
ciful design  to  be  placed  upon  cards 
and  letterheads  is  not  registrable 
as  a  print  under  this  act.  "The  ar- 
ticle of  manufacture  referred  to  in 
till-  statute  must  lie  sejiarate  and 
independent  of  the  print  itself." 
Greeley,  Act.  Com.,  in  Ex  parte 
Bariiliart  Hros.  &  Sjiindler,  87  Off. 
Gaz.  2118.  2110. 

To  be  registrable,  tlie  label  must 
identify  the  article  on  which  it  is 
used.  Ex  parte  Malm.  82  Off.  Gaz. 
1210;  Ex  parte  American  Weavers' 
Assn.,  !I4  Off.  Gaz.  .'.SO;  Ex  parte 
Hall,  08  Off.  Gaz.   2:J0G, 


LAbtL  ACT  OF  jyjtiL  lb,  lb74.  517 


RULES  COVERXTNO   THE   REOrSTRATTOX  OF   PRINTS 
AND  I.ABELS  I\  THE  PATENT  OFFICE. 


Ijnitkd  States  Patent  Office, 
Washington,  I).  ('.,  Au^ist  15,  1913. 

The  following  rules,  designed  to  be  in  striet  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  the  copyright  law,  for  the  registration  of  prints 
and  labels,  are  published  for  gratuitous  distribution. 

Applicants  for  registration  and  their  attorneys  are  advised  tliat 
their  business  will  be  facilitated  by  the  observance  of  the  forms 
on  pages  13  to  15. 

Thomas  Ev^ing, 

dammisaioner  of  Patents. 

CORRESPONDENCE. 

1.  All  business  with  the  office  should  be  transacted  in  writing. 
Unless  by  the  consent  of  all  parties,  the  action  of  the  office  will 
be  based  exclusively  on  the  written  record.  No  attention  will  be 
paid  to  any  alleged  oral  promise,  stipulation,  or  understanding 
in  relation  to  which  there  is  disagreement  or  doubt. 

2.  Applicants  and  attorneys  will  be  required  to  conduct  their 
business  with  the  office  -^vith  decorum  and  courtesy.  Papers  pre- 
sented in  violation  of  this  requirement  will  be  returned.  But 
all  such  papers  will  first  be  submitted  to  the  eommiissioner.  and 
only  returned  ))y  his  direct  order. 

3.  All  letters  should  be  addressed  to  "The  Commissioner  of 
Patents."  and  all  remittances  by  postal  order,  certified  cheek,  or 
draft  should  l)e  to  his  order. 

4.  A  separate  letter  should  in  every  case  be  written  in  relation 
to  each  distinct  suli.ject  of  inquiry  or  application.  Com-plaints 
against  the  examiner,  assignments  for  record,  fees,  and  orders 
for  copies  or  abstracts  must  be  sent  to  the  office  in  separate 
letters. 

o.  Letters  relatijig  to  pending  applications  should  refer  to  the 
name  of  the  applicant  and  date  of  filing.     Letters  relating  to 


.■)1S  APPKNItlX    H. 


rt'^'istero<l  prints  ami  labels  should  refer  to  tlio  nmne  of  regis- 
tr;mt  and  number  and  date  of  eertitieate. 

(1.  The  personal  attendanee  of  applieant.s  at  the  Patent  Office 
is  unneeess;ir\ .     Their  business  can  be  transa<'ted  by  correspond- 


eui-e. 


7.  \Vhen  an  attoniey  shall  have  filcil  his  power  of  attorney, 
iluly  executed,  the  corrcfipondence  will  he  held  with  him. 

S.  A  double  correspondence  with  an  applicant  nnd  his  attorney, 
or  with  two  attorneys,  van  not  jrenerally  be  allowed. 

J).  The  office  can  not  uiuU'rtake  to  respond  to  in(iuiries  pro- 
pounded with  a  view  to  as<'ertain  whether  certain  prints  and 
hibt'ls  have  Ihhmi  re.tristcred,  or.  if  so,  to  whom,  or  for  what  goods; 
nor  ean  it  give  advice  as  to  the  nature  jind  <'xtent  of  the  protec- 
tion atVorded  by  the  law,  or  act  as  its  expounder,  except  as  ques- 
tions may  arise  upon  applications  i-efrularly  tiled. 

10.  Express,  freight,  postage,  and  all  other  charges  on  matter 
sent  to  the  Patent  Office  nuist  be  prepaid  in  full  ;  otlierwise  it 
will  not  be  received. 

.ATTORNEYS. 

1 1.  All  applicant  may  prosecute  his  own  ca.sc,  but  he  is  adnsed, 
unless  familiar  with  such  matters,  to  employ'a  competent  attor- 
ney.   The  office  can  not  aid  in  the  selection  of  any  attorney. 

12.  Before  any  attorney,  original  or  associate,  will  be  allo\ved 
to  inspect  papers  or  take  action  of  any  kind,  his  power  of  attor- 
ney must  be  filed.  But  general  powers  given  by  a  principal  to 
an  associate  can  not  be  considered.  In  each  application  the 
written  authorization  must  be  filed.  A  power  of  attorney  pur- 
])orting  to  have  been  given  to  a  finii  or  co-partnership  will  not 
be  recognized,  either  in  favor  of  the  firm  or  any  of  its  members, 
unless  all  its  members  shall  be  named  in  sucli  i)ower  of  attorney. 

18.  Substitution  or  association  can  l)e  made  by  an  attorney 
upon  the  written  authorization  of  his  principal;  but  sucii  authori- 
zation will  not  empower  the  second  attorney  to  appoint  a  third. 

14.  Powers  of  attorney  may  be  revoked  at  any  stage  in  the 
pnK-eedings  of  a  «'!ise  upon  application  to  and  approval  by  the 
commissioner;  and  when  so  revoked  the  office  will  communicate 
directly  with  the  applicant,  or  such  otiier  attorney  as  he  may 
appoint.  An  attornev  will  be  promptly  notified  by  the  docket 
clerk  of  the  revocation  of  his  power  of  attorney. 


LABEL    ACT    OF    .IINH    18,    1874.  519 

15.  For  gross  nii.s<M)ii(lti('t  tlu;  commissioner  may  rei'use  to  recog 
nize  any  person  as  an  attorney,  either  generally  or  in  any  par- 
ticular case ;  hut  the  reasons  for  sueh  refusal  will  he  duly  recorded 
and  be  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

WHO   MAY    REGISTER  A   PRINT   OR   LABKL. 

16.  (a)  The  author  or  pcopi-jctor  of  any  print  or  la))el.  or  his 
oxecutoi-s,  administrators,  or  assigns,  who  is  a  citizen  of  the 
United  iSUites. 

(h)  An  alien  author  or  proprietor  of  any  print  or  label,  or  his 
executors,  administrators,  or  assigns,  only  as  provided  by  section 
8  of  the  copyright  act  approved  .March  4,  1909. 

Any  person  to  whom  an  author,  who  has  the  privilege  of  copy- 
right in  the  United  States,  has  transferred  his  copyright  can 
apply  for  and  obtain  a  copyright  entry  as  a  proprietor. 

THE  AI'PLICATIOX. 

17.  To  entitle  the  author  or  proprietor  of  any  such  print  or 
label  or  his  executors,  administrators,  or  assigns  to  register  the 
same  in  the  Patent  Office,  the  application  for  registration  thereof 
must  be  made  to  the  Commissioner  of  Patents,  and  the  said  appli- 
cation should  be  signed  by  the  author  or  proprietor,  or  by  his 
executors,  administrators,  or  assigns,  or  for  the  author  or  pro- 
prietor by  duly  authorized  agent. 

18.  A  complete  application  comprises — 

(a)  A  statement  addressed  to  tlie  Commissioner  of  Patents, 
disclosing  applicant's  name,  citizenship,  residence,  and  place  of 
doing  business;  whether  author,  proprietor,  or  executors,  admin- 
istrators, or  assigns  of  the  author  or  proprietor ;  and,  if  propri- 
etor, a  disclosure  of  the  citizenship  of  the  author,  the  title  of  the 
print  or  label,  and  the  name  of  the  article  of  manufacture  for 
which  the  print  or  label  is  to  be  used. 

(h)  Ten  copies  of  the  print  or  label,  one  of  which,  when  the 
print  or  label  is  registered,  shall  be  certified  under  the  seal  of 
the  Patent  Office  and  returned  to  the  author  or  proprietor 

(c)  A  fee  of  .$6. 

(d)  A  statement  of  the  date  when  the  print  or  label  was  first 
publishefl  with  notice  of  copyright  (See  sec.  9  of  Act  of  ^lar.  4, 
1909.) 


520  AijTNPix  n. 

10.  Th»^  title  of  tlif  print  i.r  hilt.-l  must  apponr  on  the  (^pies 
tileil. 

'20.  Pemling  applications  Jirc  presoneil  in  secrecy,  imd  no 
information  will  bo  jriveii  'without  authority  of  the  applicant 
ri'si)t'(tinK' the  lilinjx  of  an  application  for  the  re^Mstration  of  a 
i;rint  or  label  by  any  person,  or  the  subjeeMnatter  thereof,  unleas 
it  shall,  in  the  opinion  of  the  I'onunissioner.  be  neee.ssar>'  to  the 
proper  i-oiuluct  of  Inisincss  before  the  ofliee. 

KXAMINATION   OI'   AIM'LICATIOXS. 

•Jl.  The  so-calleil  print  and  label  section  of  the  eopyright  stat- 
ute, approved  June  18,  1874,  is  construed  to  provide  for  the  regis- 
tration of  any  print  or  label  witbout  examination  as  to  its  nov- 
elty. 

2'2.  All  applications  for  registration  are  considered  in  the  first 
instance  by  the  examiner.  "Whenever,  on  examination  of  an  appli- 
cation, registration  is  refused  for  any  reason  Avhatever,  the  appli- 
cant will  be  notified  thereof.  The  rejisons  for  such  rejection  will 
be  stated,  and  such  information  will  he  given  as  may  be  u.seful 
in  aiding  the  applicant  to  judge  of  the  propriety  of  further 
prosecuting  his  application. 

23.  The  examination  of  an  application  and  the  action  thereon 
will  be  directed  throughout  to  the  merits,  but  in  each  letter  the 
examiner  shall  .state  or  refer  to  all  his  objections. 

AMENDMENTS. 

2i.  The  application  may  be  amended  to  correct  iiifornnalities 
or  to  avoid  objections  made  'oy  the  office,  or  for  other  reasons 
arising  in  the  course  of  examination,  and  if  the  copies  of  the 
prints  or  labels  furnished  are  for  any  reason  not  registrable 
under  the  copyright  law,  the  applicant  may  substitute  copies 
which  conform  to  the  requirements  of  said  law. 

2').  In  every  amendment  the  exact  Avord  or  wonb  to  he  stricken 
out  or  inserted  mnst  be  specified,  and  the  precise  point  indicated 
where  the  erasure  or  insertion  is  to  bo  made.  All  such  amend- 
ments must  Ite  on  sheets  of  paper  separate  from  the  papers  pre- 
viously filed  and  written  on  but  one  side  of  the  paper. 

2fi.  After  allowance,  the  examiner  will  exercise  juris<liction 
over  an  application  only  by  special  authority  from  the  commis- 
sioner. 


I-AHKf.    ACT    OF    JINK    18,    1874.  521 

Amendments  may  be  made  after  tlie  allowance  of  an  applica- 
tion on  the  recom'mendation  of  tiie  examiner,  ai)i)rove(l  l)y  the 
conifinissioner,  without  withdrawing^  the  ciuse  from  issue. 

27.  After  the  completion  of  th(!  jipplication  the  office  will  not 
return  the  papers  for  any  purposi;  whatever,  if  the  applicant 
lias  not  preserved  copies  of  the  pa|)ers  which  he  wishes  to  amend, 
the  office  will  furnish  tlirni  on  the  usual  terms.     (!See  rule  38.) 

SUBJECT-MATTER  OP  APPLICATION. 

28.  The  word  "print,"  as  u.sed  in  section  3  of  the  copyright 
act,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  refristration  in  the  Patent  Office,  is 
defined  as  an  artistic  and  intellectual  i)roduction  designed  to  be 
used  for  an  article  of  manufacture  and  in  some  fashion  pertain- 
ing thereto,  but  not  borne  by  it;  such,  for  instance,  as  an  adver- 
tisement thereof. 

29.  The  word  "label,"  as  used  in  this  act,  so  far  as  it  relates 
to  registration  in  the  Patent  Office,  is  defined  as  an  artistic  and 
intellectual  production  impressed  or  stamped  directly  upon  the 
article  of  manufacture  or  upon  a  slip  or  piece  of  paper  or  other 
material  to  be  attached  in  any  manner  to  manufactured  articles 
or  to  bottles,  boxes,  and  packages  containing  thean  to  indicate 
the  article  of  manufa/Cture. 

30.  No  print  or  label  can  be  registered  unless  it  properly 
belongs  to  an  article  of  manufacture  and  is  descriptive  thereof 
and  is  as  above  defined. 

APPEALS. 

31.  An  adverse  decision  by  the  examiner  who  ha-s  charge  of  the 
regivstration  of  prints  and  labels,  upon  an  applicant's  right  to 
have  a  print  or  label  registered,  will  be  reviewed  by  the  commis- 
sioner in  person,  on  appeal,  without  fee. 

ISSUE,  DATE,  AND  DURATION  OF  CERTIFICATE. 

32.  When  the  requirements  of  the  law  and  of  the  rules  have 
been  complied  with  and  the  office  has  adjudged  a  print  or  label 
registrable,  a  certificate  will  be  issued,  signed  by  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents  under  the  seal  of  the  Patent  Office.  Attached 
to  the  certificate  will  be  a  copy  of  the  print  or  label. 

33.  A  certificate  of  registration  shall  remain  in  force  for 
twenty-eight  years  from  the  date  of  first  publication. 


O'SJ.  Al'I'KNI'IX     II. 

H4.  Thf  i-rriilii-atf  may  lu-  coiitimu'^l  for  a  furtluT  term  of 
twonty-eifxlit  years  upon  liliii^'  a  sccoikI  application  within  ono 
year  prior  to  the  expiration  of  the  ttini  of  the  original  certitieate 
ami  eonij)lyin}^'  v. ith  all  t)tlu'r  ri'^'ulations  with  regard  to  ori^'inal 
ai>plieations. 

ASSIGNMENTS. 

35.  Prints  and  labeis  are  a.ssipnable  in  law  by  an  instrument 
in  writing  sijrned  by  the  pr(>])rietor.  This  should  .state  tiie  names 
of  the  assijjrnee  and  assignor,  the  title  of  the  print  or  ial^el 
assigned,  the  date  of  filing  the  application,  or,  if  registered,  the 
date  and  number  of  the  cei-titicate.  auti  sliould  he  dated. 

COI'n;s  AM)  inilMCATIONS. 

36.  After  a  print  or  label  has  been  registered,  eoi)ies  thereof 
may  be  furnished,  wlien  authorized  by  the  coniniissioner,  upon 
the  payment  of  the  fee. 

37.  The  OfTieial  (lazette  of  the  Patent  Office  will  contain  a  list 
of  all  the  prints  and  labels  registered,  with  the  name  and  address 
of  the  registrant  in  each  case,  the  title  of  the  print  or  label,  and 
a  statement  of  the  particular  goods  to  which  it  is  to  be  applied, 
together  with  the  date  of  filing  the  aj^plication. 

FEES. 

.SS.    On  filinj:  an  aiiplicatioii  for  n-;,Mstrati(>ii  of  a  ])riiit  or  label..  ..    .$6.00 
For  manuscript  copies  of  records,  for  every   100  words  or  frac- 
tion   then'of     1*^ 

If  certified,  for  tlie  certificate,  additional '2."> 

For   reeordin;.'   every   asaijinment,   power   of   attorney,   or   otiier 

paper,  of  :{00  words  or  under 1   00 

Of  over   'MtO  and    under    1.000   words '2  00 

For  eacli  additional   1,000  wt)rds  or  fraction  thereof 1   00 

For  abstracts  of  title: 

For  the  search,  on<'  hour  tir  less,  and  certificate 1  00 

Eaeli   additional   hour  or  fraction  thereof SO 

For  each   lirief   from   the   di;.'<'st  of  assignments,  of  200   words 

or    less '-" 

Each    additional    100    words  or    fraction    thereof 10 

For  HCHrcliin^'  tiths  or   records,  one  lioiir  or   less ■'>•• 

■Eacli   additional    linnr   or    fraction    thereof rjO 

For  sint'le  printi-d  copy,  when  autliori/.<'d  by  the  commissioner  .0."» 

If  certified,  for  the  jrrant,  additional •'»0 

For  the  certificate    '-•' 


i.AnKi.  ACT  OK  .iiiNK  18,  1874.  rys.i 

39.  Tlio  fee  for  i-c^iislralioii  of  ,i  in'int  or  lalid  is  to  he  paid  to 
tlic  ('oniiiiissioiici-  of  I'atciils,  (,r  to  the  'rrcusiiccr  or  any  ot"  tlit; 
a-ssistant  treasurers  of  the  United  States,  or  to  any  of  the  depos- 
itaries, national  l)anks,  or  receivers  of  public  money  desi{^nated 
by  the  Secretary  of  the  'J'reasiiry  for  that  piirpf)se,  wlio  shall  t^ive 
the  dejxKsitoi*  a  recei{)t  or  certilieate  of  deposit  tlierefor,  which 
shall  be  transmitted  to  the  Patent  Office.  When  this  can  not  bo 
done  without  inconvenience  the  money  may  be  remitted  by  mail, 
and  in  every  such  case  the  letter  should  state  the  exact  amount 
inclosed.  All  money  orders  and  checks  should  be  made  payable 
to  the  "Commissioner  of  l*atents." 

40.  All  money  sent  by  mail,  either  to  or  from  the  Patent  Office, 
will  be  at  the  risk  of  the  sender.  All  payments  to  the  office  miLst 
be  made  in  specie,  Treasury  notes,  national  bank  notes,  certified 
checks,  or  money  orders. 

HEP.AYMENT  OF  MONEY. 

41.  Upon  refusal  of  the  commissioner  to  register  the  print  or 
label,  and  on  application  by  the  applicant,  or  his  duly  authorized 
agent,  the  fee  may  be  returned. 

NOTICE  OK   COPYRTGHT. 

42.  Tt  is  necessary,  in  order  to  maintain  an  action  for  infringe- 
ment of  a  copyright,  that  the  claim  of  copyright  be  printed  on 
each  copy  of  the  article  protected.  The  wording  of  the  notice 
is  determined  by  the  copyright  statute,  section  18. 

Approved  March  13,  1912. 
Samuel  Adams, 

Acting  Secretary. 


524  APPENDIX    U. 


FORMS 

FORM<;  von   APIM.ICATIOX   Koli    KKc  I ISTRATION  OF 

I'm. NTS. 

(  1  I     K()l{    A\     IM)1\  11)1   AL, 
To  the  Cuimninniunvr  of  Patents: 

Tlie  undiTsijjni'd,  ,  [insert  namr  of  appliratit  \   a  ,   \in.irrt 

slatimrnt    of   applicant's   citizenship,    or   of    trhat    ruler    he    is    a    subject] 

r»'nidinj,'  at  ,   [insert  applicant's  residence,  domicile  or  location]   and 

doinj;    Imsiness    at    ,    [insert    applicant's    place    of   doing    business] 

luTchy  applies  as  ,   [state  whether  as  author  or  proprietor ;  and  if 

as  proprietor,  state  also  the  citizenship  of  the  author  {or  of  ichat  ruler 
he  is  a  subject)  from  ichom  title  is  derived]  for  registration  of  tin-  print 
shown  in  the  accompanying  copies,  10  of  which  are  fumiwlied. 

The    print   was    first   puldished,   with    Notice    of    Copyright    theniui.   on 

:    [insert   date   of  publication]    its   title   is   ,    [insert    title  of 

print,  irhich  must  appear  on  the  copies  furnished]  and  it  is  used  for 
advertising  purposes  for  ]state  goods  irhich  print  is  used  to  ad- 
vertise]. 

(.Signature  of  applicant  I    , 

Author  (or  Proprietor). 

(2)    FOR  A   FIRM. 
To  the  Commissioner  of  Patmts: 

The  undersigned,  ,   ]insert  name  of  applicant]    a    plrin,  domiciled 

in   ,    [insert  applicant's  residence,  domicile,   or   location]    and   doing 

Itusiness   at   ,    [insert   applicant's   place   of   doing    business]    herei>y 

RpplieH    as    proprietor,    the   author  •  from    wiiom    title    is    derived    being    a 

citizen  of  (or  subject  of )  ,  [state  citizenship  of  the  author  (or  of  what 

ruler  he  is  a  subject)]  for  registration  of  llie  print  shown  in  llie  accom- 
panying copies,   10  of  which   are   furnished. 

The    print    was    first    i)ul>lislitil,   with    Notice   of   Copyright    thereon,    on 

;     [insert   date    of   publication]    its    title    is    .    [insert    title   of 

print,  which  must  appear  on  the  copies  furnished]  jiiul  it  is  used  for 
advertising  purposes  for  [state  goods  uhich  print  is  used  to  ad- 
vertise]. 

(Signature  of  ap|>Ii(iint)    , 

I'roprictor. 

ny . 

A  Member  of  the  Firtn» 


LAUKL   ACT    OK   .JUNE    IH,    1874.  525 

<:t|    FOR    A    CUUJ'(»ltA'll()\. 
To  the  CommisHionrr  of  I'dtiiils: 

Tlic  iiri(l<rsif,Mif<l,  ,  [iimcrt  name  of  npplirant]   a  corporation  duly 

or^'ani/.cd  under  llic  lawH  of  ,   [state  undrr  the  laiiH  of  uhnt   ntntc 

or    nation    or</(niiz((l\     located    in    ,    [insert    applicant's    residence, 

domieile,    or  location  I    and    doin;,'    husinuHH   at   ,    [insert    applicant's 

place  of  doing    business]    luTi-hy    applies   aa   proprietor,   the   author   from 

whom   title  is  derived   hein^'   a  citizen   of    (or  Bul)jcct   of)    ,    [slate 

citizenship  of  the  author  {or  of  irhat  ruler  he  is  a  subject)]  for  ref,'iH- 
tration  of  the  j)rint  shown  in  tin-  acconifiiuiyin^f  copies,  1(1  of  wliicli 
are  furnislied. 

The    print    was    first    [niMislied,   with    Notice   of    C'opyrifrht    tliereon,    on 

;    [insert   date   of  puhlication]    its   title  is  ,    [insert    title   of 

print,  uhich  fnust  appear  on  the  copies  furnished]  and  it  is  used  for 
advertising  puri)08e8  for  [state  goods  uhieh  print  is  used  to  ad- 
vertise]. (Applicant's  name)   , 

By  , 

President    (or  Other  Officer). 

(4)    FOR  EXECUTORS  OR  ADMINISTRATORS.^ 
To  the  Commiftsioner  of  Patents: 

The    uiidersi;,rned.    ,    [give    name   of   executors   or   administrators] 

residing  at  ,  [give  residence  of  executors  or  administrators]  , 

[state    uhether    executors    or    administrators[    of    the    estate    of    , 

\insert  name  of  deeeased  author   or  proprietor]    deceased,   late   a   , 

[insert  statement  of  deeeased  author's  or  proprietor's  eitizenship,  or  of 
what  ruler  he  uas  a  subject]  and  a  resident  of  ,  [insert  late  resi- 
dence of  deeeased  author  or  proprietor]  hereby  apply  as  proprietors  for 
the   registration   of  the   print   shown    in   the   accompanying   copies,    10   of 

which  are  furnislied,  and  of  which   said  ,   [insert  name  of  deeeased 

author  or  proprietor]    deceased,  was  the  [state   uhether  deceased 

■was  author  or  proprietor;  and,  if  proprietor,  state  also  the  citizenship  if 
the  auth  r  (or  of  what  ruler  he  was  a  subject)  from  whom  title  was 
derived ] . 

The   print   was    first    puMislicd.   witli    Notice   of   Copyright   thereon,   on 

;    [insert  date  of  publication]    its   title  is  ,    [insert   title  of 

print,  which  must  appear  on  the  copies  furnished]  and  it  is  used  for 
advertising  purposes  for  [state  goods  which  print  is  used  to  ad- 
vertise].                                   •  


Executors   (or  Administrators)    of  the  Estate  of  ,   [insert 

name    of    deceased    author    or    proprietor]     Deeeased. 


*  Wlicn  application  is  filed  hy  an  executor  or  administrator,  a  copy 
of  the  letters  testamentary  or  of  administration  certified  by  the  clerk 
of  the  court  granting  such  letters  must  accompany  the  application. 


526  API'ENUIX    n. 

I'oliMS   VOK    AIMM.KATION    FOK    K  i:(i  ISTH  A'I'loN   OP 

LABHLS. 

(1  ,    von   AN    IM)1\  IDl  Ah. 

To  thr  Commissionrr  <if  I'tilrnln: 

Till-    uiulerHiniH'd,  ,   \i»srrl    »i/i»i<    «/   nppliruul]   n    ,    [itiacrt 

alattmrnt    of   applicant's   citizcnhip,    or    of   ithat    ruler   he   ia   a   subject] 

n-siiliii;:    at    .    [insert    tippliiaiit'a    niiidcnci-.    domicile,    or    location] 

nrul  iUnna  Lusiiu-iw  at  ,   [inatrt  appliniufH  place  of  doing   buaincaa\ 

luTtliy   HppliiS  ax  .   [stale  trhcthcr  as  (lutlmr  or  proprietor:  and,  if 

aa  proprietor,  state  also  the  citizenship  of  the  author  {or  of  uhat  ruler 
he  ia  a  auliject)  from  irhom  title  is  derived]  for  n-^MHtration  of  tin-  lahvl 
nhown    in    tho  accompanyiii;;   ropirs.    Id   of  whieli    an-    furniHiu-d. 

The    label    was    first    pul)liHhed.    with    Notiee   of    Copyright    thereon,    on 

;    [insert   date  of   publication  [    its   title    is  ,    [insert    title  of 

label,    trhich    must    appear    on    the    copies   furnished]    and    it    is    used    on 

[state  goods  on    uhich   the   label   is   used]. 

(Sij,'nature  of  applieant)    , 

Author   (or  Proprietor). 

(2)    FOR   A    FIIIM. 

To  the  Commissioner  of  Patents: 

The   undersi;;ned,    ,    [insert    name   of  applicant  [    ii    firm    domiciled 

in   ,    [insert   applicant's  residence,  domicile,  or   location]    and   doing 

I.U8ine«8    at   .    [insert    applicant's   place    of    doing    business]    hereby 

applieH   as    proprietor,    the    author    from    wliom    title    is    derived    being   a 

citi/en  of    (or  Buliject  of)    .    [state  citizenship  of  the  author    (or  of 

irhat  ruler  he  is  a  subject]  for  re^^'istration  of  tlie  laliel  siiown  in  the 
Hecompanyinjr  eopies.   10  of  whicli   arc   furnished. 

Thf    lal.rl    was    first    publislied,    with    Notic-    of    Copyri-ht    tliereon,    on 

;    I  insert    date   of   publication]    its   title    is  .    1  insert    title   of 

label,    trhich    must    appear    on    the    eopies   furnished]    and    it    ia    used    on 

[state  goods  on    irhiih    the   label    is   used]. 

(Signature  of  applicant  t    , 

Proprietor. 

Hy   , 

.■1    .Uevibcr  of  the  Firm. 

(3)    FOR    A    CORPORATIOX. 

To  thr  Commissioner  of  Patents: 

The  undernigned.  .  [insert  name  of  applicant]  a  corporation  duly 

organiml   under  the  laws  of  ,   [state  under  the  laws  of   what   state 

or    nation     organized]     lo.nt-d     in ,     [ins.rt     applicnt's     residence, 

domicile,   or    location]    and    doing    business    at .    I  i««rrt    applicant's 

place   of   doing   buMineHs[    her.-by   applies   as    pn.prietor,    the    author    from 


LAina,  ACT  OF  JUNE  18,  1874.  527 

wliom    titli'    in    (liiiMcl    liciii;^    ii    citi/cii    of     (or    Hiil)jcct   of)    ,    [Hlfilr 

citizenship  of  the  author  (or  of  uhnt  rulrr  he  in  a  auhjcct)]  for  rcgin- 
tnitioii  of  tlic  lalu'l  Hhown  in  tht*  uccompunyiii^  copicH,  10  of  which  an: 
fiiriiishi-d. 

Tin-    hilicl    was    first    |iiil>lish)'(l,    witli    NOticr    of    Copyrif^lit    th<T<-oii,    mi 

;    [insirt   date   of   i}ubliration\    itw   titli-    in  ,    [inHtrt    title   of 

label,    irhich    must    appear    on    the    eopien   furnished]    and    it    irt    iiHod    on 

[state  goods  on    uhich   the   la  hi  I   ia  used]. 

(Applicant'n  nam*')   , 

By  , 

President    {or  Other  Officer). 

(4)    FOR  EXECUTORS  OR  ADMINISTRATORS.* 
To  the  Commissioner  of  Patents: 

Tli(>  undiTsi^'nod,  ,   \give  nnmrs  of  e.reeutors  or  administrators] 

residing  at  ,  [gii^e  residence  of  executors  or  administrators']  , 

] state    whether    executors    or    administrators]    of    tin-    cHtatc    of    , 

[insert  name  of  deceased  author  or  proprietor]    deceased,  late  of  , 

{insert  statement  of  deceased  author's  or  proprietor's  citizenship,  or  of 
what  ruli  r  lie  ira.'i  n  subject]  and  a  resident  of  ,  [insert  late  resi- 
dence of  dervased  author  or  proprietor]  herehy  apply  as  proprietors  for 
the    registration    of    tlic    label    shown    in    tiie    accompanying    copies,    10    of 

which  are   furnished,  and  of  wiiicii   said   [insert  name  of  deceased 

author  or  proprietor']    deceased,   was   the [state   ichether  deceased 

was  author  or  proprietor ;  and,  if  proprietor,  state  also  the  citizenship  of 
the  author  {or  of  what  ruler  he  )ras  a  subject)  from  whom  title  was 
derived] . 

The    label    was    first    pul)lished,    with    Notice   of    Copyright    thereon,    on 

;    [insert  date  of  publication]    its   title    is  ,    [insert    title   of 

label,    irhich    must    appear    on    the    copies   furtiished]    and    it    is    used    on 

[state  goods  on   which  the  label  is  used]. 


Executors   {or  Administrators)   of  the  Estate  of ,  [insert 

name    of    deceased    author    or    proprietor]     Deceased. 

*  \^^len  application  is  filed  hy  an  executor  or  administrator,  a  copy 
of  the  letters  testamentary  or  of  administration  certified  by  the  clerk 
of  the  court  granting  such  letters  must  accompany  the  application. 


APPENDIX  C. 


PENAL  ACT  OF  AUGUST  14,  1876. 

(  I'.t    SliitJit.'s   at    I.ar;.'.-,    141.) 

lie  it  omctcd  by  the  Smatc  mid  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America  i)i  Congress  assembled: 

Section  1.  That  ♦■very  person  who  shall,  with  iiiti'ut  to  de- 
fraud, deal  in  or  sell,  or  ktH'p  or  otTer  for  sale,  or  cause  or  pro- 
cure the  sale  of,  any  gomlw  of  sulustantially  the  same  tle.se riptive 
])roperties  as  tho.se  referred  to  in  the  registration  of  any  trade- 
nuirk  pursuant  to  the  statutes  of  the  United  States,  to  whieh,  or 
to  the  package  in  ■which  the  saane  are  put  up,  is  fraudulently 
aflRxetl  said  trademark,  or  any  colorable  imitation  thereof,  calcu- 
lated to  deceive  the  public,  knowing  the  .same  to  be  counterfeit, 
or  not  the  genuine  goods  referred  to  in  siiid  registration,  shall, 
on  conviction  thereof,  be  puni.shed  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  one 
thoiLsiind  dollars,  or  imprisonment  not  more  than  two  years,  or 
l)oth  such  fine  and  imi)risonment. 

Section  2.  That  every  person  ^vho  fraudulently  affixes,  or 
causes,  or  procures  to  be  fraudulently  affixed,  any  trademark 
regi.stered  pursuimt  to  the  statutes  of  tlie  United  States,  or  any 
colorable  imitation  thereof,  calculated  to  deceive  the  public,  to 
any  goods  of  substantially  the  same  descriptive  properties  as 
those  referred  to  in  s;iid  registration,  or  to  the  package  in  which 
they  are  put  np  knowing  the  .same  to  be  counterfeit,  or  not  the 
genuine  gcK)ds  referred  to  in  said  regi.st ration,  .sliaJl,  on  conviction 
thereof,  l>e  punished  as  prescribed  in  the  first  .s<H'tion  of  this  act. 

SiccTKiN  'A.  That  every  person  uho  fraudulently  fills,  or 
causes  or  {)rocures  to  be  fraudulently  filled,  any  package  to 
which  is  affixed  any  trademark,  registered  pursuant  to  the  .stat- 
utes f)f  the  United  St^ites,  or  any  colorable  imitation  thereof, 
calculateil  to  deceive  the  j»ublic,  with  any  good.s  of  substantially 

528 


I'KNAL    ACT    OK    Al  (JCST    14,    1876.  529 

the  saiiii'  (l('.s<Tipti\('  jtioixTtics  as  those  rd'crrfd  t(»  in  siiu\  reg- 
istration kiiowiii;^'  tlic  same  to  h<'  comitfrt'cit,  or  not  the  genuine 
goods  rclcrrcd  to  in  said  i"t'},'istration,  shall,  on  conviction  thereof, 
be  punished  as  pr-escril)ed  in  the  lii-st  section  oj'  tliis  act. 

SloCTioN  4.  That  any  pci-son  or  pci-sons  who  sliall,  with  intent 
to  (k'l'raud  any  person  or  persons,  knowin^'ly  and  wilfully  <;;Lst, 
engrave,  or  nianulacture,  oi-  have  in  his,  her,  or  their  possession, 
or  buy,  sell,  otVcr  lor  sah',  or  dcil  in.  any  die  or  dies,  plate  or 
plates,  brand  oi-  brands,  en^Mavinj^  or  engravings,  on  wood,  stone, 
metal,  or  other  substance,  moulds,  or  any  I'alse  representations, 
likeness,  copy,  or  colorable  imitation  of  any  die,  plate,  brand, 
engraving  or  mould  of  any  private  label,  brand,  stamp,  wrai)i)er, 
engraving  on  pa|)er  or  other  substance  or  trademark,  registered 
pursuant  to  the  statutes  of  the  United  States,  sliall,  upon  con- 
vietion  thereof,  be  i)unislied  as  prescribed  in  the  first  section 
of  this  act. 

Section  .").  That  any  jx'rson  or  persons  who  shall,  with  intent 
to  defraud  any  i)erson  or  persons,  knowingly  and  wilfully  make, 
forge  or  counterfeit,  or  have  in  his,  her  or  their  passession,  or 
buy,  sell,  offer  for  sale,  or  deal  in.  any  representation,  likeness, 
similitude,  copy,  or  colorable  imitation  of  any  private  label, 
brand,  stamj),  vrapper,  engraving,  mould  or  trademark,  regis- 
tered pursuant  to  the  statutes  of  the  United  States,  shall  upon 
conviction  thereof,  be  punished  as  prescribed  in  the  first  section 
of  this  act. 

Section  G.  That  any  person  wlio  shall,  with  intent  to  injure 
or  defraud  the  owner  of  any  trademark,  or  any  other  person 
lawfully  entitled  to  use  or  protect  the  same,  ])uy.  .sell,  offer  for 
sale,  deal  in,  or  have  in  his  possession  any  used  or  empty  box, 
envelope,  wrapper,  case,  bottle,  or  other  package,  to  which  is 
affixed,  so  that  the  same  may  be  obliterated  ■without  substantial 
injury  to  such  box  or  other  thing  aforesaid,  any  trademark,  reg- 
istered pursuant  to  the  statutes  of  the  United  States,  not  so 
defaced,  erased,  obliterated,  and  destroyed  as  to  prevent  its 
fraudulent  use.  shall,  on  con\ictiou  thereof,  be  punished  as  pre- 
scribed in  the  first  section  of  this  act. 

Section  7.  That  if  the  owner  of  any  trademark,  registered 
pursuant  to  the  statutes  of  the  United  States,  or  his  agent,  make 
oath,  in  writing,  that  he  has  reason  to  believe,  and  does  believe, 


530  APPENDIX    C. 

that  any  i-ounterfoit  ilii's,  platrs,  hraiids,  i'n{^raviiiy;s  on  wood, 
stoni'.  nietiil,  or  other  suhstanic.  »ir  moulds,  of  his  said  registered 
tradt'inark.  an*  in  the  possession  of  any  persctn  witli  intent  to 
use  the  same  for  the  purpose  of  iK'ieption  and  fraud,  or  nuike 
sueh  oaths  that  any  lounterfeits  or  eoh)rable  imitations  of  liis 
said  traih-mark,  lahel,  hr.ind,  stamj),  \vrapi)er,  enj^ravinj;  on  paper 
or  other  suhstajiee,  or  empty  ln).\,  enveh>|)e,  wrapper,  ease,  bottle, 
or  other  package,  to  which  is  af.ixed  sjiid  rejjistered  track'inark 
not  so  defaced,  erased.  ol)literated,  and  destroyed  as  to  prevent 
its  frautluhnt  use,  are  in  the  possession  of  any  pei-son  with  intent 
to  use  the  same  for  the  purjKjse  of  deception  and  fraud,  then 
the  si'veral  judges  of  the  circuit  and  district  courts  of  the  United 
States.  an«l  the  commissioners  of  tlie  circuit  courts  may,  within 
their  respective  juriMlietions,  proceed  under  the  hiw  relating  to 
search-warrants,  and  may  issue  a  search-warrant  authorizing 
and  directing  the  mai"slud  of  the  Tnited  States  for  the  proper 
district  to  search  for  and  seize  all  said  counterfeit  dies,  plates, 
brands,  engravings  on  wood,  stone,  metal,  or  other  substance, 
mouhls.  and  siiid  counterfeit  trademarks,  colorable  imitations 
thereof.  lal)els.  brands,  stamps,  wrappers,  engravings  on  ])aper, 
or  other  substance,  and  the  said  empty  boxes,  envelopes,  wrappers, 
cas»*s,  bottles  or  other  packages  that  can  be  found;  and  upon 
satisfactory  proof  being  made  that  siiid  counterfeit  dies,  plates, 
liranils,  engnivings  on  wood,  stone,  metal,  eoloiable  imitations 
thereof,  lal)els.  lirands,  stamps,  or  other  substance.  mouUls.  coun- 
terfeit trademarks.  wrai>j>ers.  engravings  on  ])a])er  or  otlier  sub- 
stance, emjity  boxes.  eiiV('li)|)es.  ui'appers,  cases,  lx)ttlcs.  or  other 
j)ackages,  are  to  be  used  by  the  holder  or  owner  for  the  i)urpase 
of  deception  and  fraud,  tiiat  any  of  said  judges  shall  have  full 
IM)\\er  to  ordir  ail  said  countfrfrit  dies,  pbUes.  Itrands.  engrav- 
ings on  wood,  stone,  metal,  nr  other  substaiK-e,  moulds,  <'oiniter- 
feit  tradenuirks.  colorable  imitations  tbei-cot',  labels,  brands, 
stamps,  wrappers,  engravings  on  {)aper  or  other  sulwitances,  empty 
Ikixcs,  envelopes,  wrapi)ers.  cases,  botfles,  or  othei*  jiaekages, 
to  be  publicly  destroyed. 

SFfmoN  H.  Tliat  any  person  who  shall,  with  intent  to  defraud 
any  person  or  persons,  knowingly  and  wilfully  aid  or  ain't  in 
the  violation  of  any  f)f  the  provisions  of  this  act.  shall  U|)on  con- 
viction thereof,  be  i)unishud  by  a  line  not  exoeediug  five  hundred 


PENAL   ACT   OK    AUGUST    14,    187G. 


531 


dollars,  or  imprisoiniicnt  not  more  than  one  year,  or  l)oth  such 
line  and  iniprLsijnnient.' 


I — This  act  Ih  importuiit  1><>- 
ttiuBc  of  its  coniu'ctioii  with  tin; 
Trademark  CaflcH,  100  U.  S.  82,  '2', 
\j.  K(l.  r).'>(l.  In  tliat  cam*  the  HupriiiH' 
<-«)iirt  (Icclar.'d  tin-  Act  of  1S7()  to  In- 
iiiii'onHtitvitioiial  liccauHc  tliiw  act  wart 
by  its  cxprcHH  tcrinH  con  lined  to 
fraudu,  coiintcrfeits,  and  unlawftil 
use  of  trademarks  whicli  were  reg- 
istered under  tlie  jiroviwions  of  the 
former  act.  Tlie  rej^MHtration  act 
iiein;;  invalid,  tlie  criminal  enact- 
ment intended  to  protect  the  rif^litn 
of  refiistrants  f^'\\  with  it.  Trade- 
mark Cases.  100  TT.  S.  82-!)!),  27)  L. 
Ed.  r.r)0. 

It    was   held    that    there    could    he 

no  couvictiuu  uudur  this  act  uulcua 


tiif  certilicate  of  rej.'iMtration  con- 
tairii'd  wordn  to  hImav  that  tlx'  al- 
h';ic(l  o«tnT  ac<|uire<i  an  exclusivo 
|ii<»|Mrty  in  thi'  nuirk  claimed, 
liiited  Stat<'H  V.  Uraun,  ."Ml  F<-d. 
I{4'|).  77"). 

Tliirt  statute  havin^^  been  judi- 
cially declared  void  could  not  be 
and  was  not  made  operative  by  the 
enactment  of  the  statute  of  1881. 
United  States  v.  Koch,  40  Fed. 
Rep.  250. 

Tlie  re(|uirementH  of  an  ajiplica- 
ti<m  for  a  search-warrant  under 
sec.  7  of  this  act  were  disciissed  by 
.Iiidj,'e  Treat  fn  rr  O'Donnell,  Fed. 
Case  No.   10434,  14  Off.  Gaz.  379. 


APPENDIX  D. 


TRADEMARK  ACT  OF  MARCH  3,  1881.' 

An    ait     U)    nuthori/.i'    thi-    ri'jriBtratiun    of    tratlcinarkH 
and   protect   tin-   sninr. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  in  Congress  asscnihlcd: 


Stx:Ti()N-  1.'     That  o^vners'^  of 
with  foreign  nations  or  with  the 

1 — This  act  has  hct'ii  usually 
treated  as  valid.  South  Carolina  v. 
Seymour,  Vi'3  U.  S.  35.J,  38  L.  Ed. 
742:  67  Off.  Gaz.  1191;  L.  II.  Harris 
Dnip  Co.  V.  Stucky,  46  Fed.  Rep  624; 
Henneesy  v.  Hraunschweiper,  89  Fed. 
Rep.  664.  Hut  in  a  late  case  Judge 
Jenkins  said:  "There  has  been  no 
rulinj.'  upon  the  constitutionality 
of  this  act,  and  it  need  only  be 
said  that  its  validity  is  fairly 
doubtful."  Illinois  Watch  Case 
Co.  V.  Elpin  National  Watch  Co., 
04  Fed.  Rep.  667-669;  87  Off.  Gu/.. 
2323;  3-|  C.  C.  A.  237. 

The  supreme  court,  in  afllrminp 
the  decrcH-  of  the  court  of  ajipi-als 
in  this  cast",  expressly  declined 
passing  upon  the  question  of  the 
constitutionality  of  the  act.  Elgin 
National  Watch  Co.  v.  Illinois 
Watch  Caw  Co.  (2).  170  U.  S.  66.-)- 
677,  45  L.  Ed.  36.''). 

Tliis  act  presiippowd  the  exist- 
«-ncc  of  a  valid  trademark  which 
might  W'  registered  on  compliance 
with  the  requirements  of  the  act, 
and  registration  under  the  act  did 
not    in    anv    manner    affect   the    na- 


traileniarks-*  u.sotl  in  commerce 
Indian  tribes,*''  proviiled  such 

ture  or  function  of  tlie  mark.  Ed- 
ison V.  Thomas  A.  Edison,  Jr., 
Chemical   Co.,    128    Fed.    Rep.    1013. 

2 — Sw  Notes,  Act  of  1870,  sec. 
77,  ante,  p.  501. 

3 — Ownership  is  a  prerequisite. 
A  carpet  cleaner  was  refus«'d  regis- 
tration for  the  mark  used  by  him 
on  liis  wagons  and  upon  cari)et8 
cleaned  l>y  him,  because  he  coiild 
not  comply  with  the  clause  of  the 
Act  of  1870  requiring  a  statement 
of  the  class  of  merchandise  and 
the  particular  description  of  goods 
to  whidi  lie  applied  the  mark.  In  rr 
Hankinson.  S  Off.  Oa/.  89.  An  offi- 
cial fish  inspector  has  no  trade- 
mark in  the  odicial  brand  used  by 
him,  because  he  has  no  private 
ownership  then-in.  Chase  v.  Mays, 
121  Mass.  343.  A  certificate  of  reg- 
istration of  traflemark  will  not  Im* 
issued  to  the  applicant  and  his  as- 
signee' jointly,  /.'j"  parte  Spinner, 
3;-)  AfSS.  D..  July,  1887.  A  trade- 
mark adopted  l>y  a  real  estate  deal- 
er for  use  in  the  course  of  his  busi- 
ness can  not  be  registered.  Ft 
piirlr  !!oy.  .'14  Off.  :^^^.  1267.  When 


PS2 


TKADK.MAKK    ACT    «)K    MAKfll    'A,    1881. 


r):i.T 


it  appears  tliat  x-vcral  parties 
Imvc  tln!  right  to  thi'  u«o  of  tlip 
nutrk,  iiKlcpcndciil  rcKistration 
will  nut  lir  ^'laiitiil  to  eitlu-r  of 
tliciii.  /,'.r  jtiutf  l.aii;,'i|on,  (H  OIF. 
(Jaz.  2S(t.  A  (•(•rtificatc  will  not  lu' 
JHsm'tl  to  tiic  asHigiH'i'  of  tin'  a|)- 
jilicaiit.  Et  ]t(iitc  l{oast('<l  Ccreiiis 
Co.,  ")7  MS.S.  I).  4.").").  Kvfii  wiicii 
the  as.signiiu'nt  has  hot'ii  rccordi-d. 
Kx  parte  l^assett.  ">.')  OflT.  Oaz.  907; 
Kx  iHtrtc  Spiiini'r,  WTt  MSS.  I).  1."). 
Thii.s  ri'<,'istrati(iri  \va>  nfu^fd 
when-  tlie  facts  .>>lio\ved  tliat  "ap- 
plicant ia  a  V(d>iiitary  association 
or  IcagUf  of  flour  mainifaiturcrfl, 
all  members  of  which  um-  tiie  mark 
upon  their  product  and  have  an  in- 
terest severally  and  in  common  in 
its  protection;  and  tlic  present  ap- 
plication for  rc;;istration  is  made 
hy  tiie  association  tlirou<,'h  its  sec- 
retary, an  ofliccr  duly  authorized 
to  that  end.  Tlie  ai)plicant  is  not 
a  corporation,  nor  is  it,  in  strict 
use  of  the  term,  a  partnership; 
but  it  is  a  voluntary  association 
or  lea<jue  or  union  of  the  kind  rec- 
ofjnized  1)V  tlie  laws  and  courts  of 
the  state  of  its  domicile,  and  by 
the  laws  and  courts  of  nearly  all 
the  states  of  the  Union,  as  lawful 
and  of  the  kind  to  which  they  ex- 
tend protective  and  other  relief  in 
proper  cases.  As  an  association 
it  docs  not  itself  make,  brand,  or 
sell  the  flour  to  which  its  mark  is 
applied;  but  its  members  ^bv  its 
authority  use  the  selected  mark  on 
wheat  flour  of  their  own  manufac- 
ture. The  leajTiH'  states  its  objects 
to  be:  'To  oppose  the  adulteration 
of  flour,  to  assist  in  enforcing  the 
law,  to  protect  its  honest  millers 
from  dishonest  competition,  to  ex- 
pose fraud,  to  maintain  tlie  integ- 
rity of  the  American  milling  trade, 


ami  to  afford  buyerH  a  guarantee 
that  they  can  obtain  from  mem- 
hers  of  this  league  al)Kolutely  (lure 
Hour.'  Ah  to  its  tiieinberHhip,  the 
rule  is:  '.\ny  miller  who  doen  not 
adulterate  Hour  can  join  this 
league  upon  tlie  payment  of  ten 
dollars  membership  fee,  imd  exp- 
(iiting  tlie  allldavit  and  contract 
which  are  conditions  of  the  mem- 
bership.' •  •  •  But  the  owner- 
ship of  the  mark  is.  by  agreement 
of  all  inten'sted  parties,  vested  in 
the  association,  and  the  right  to 
its  use  by  any  individual  arises 
only  from  jiermission  of  the  asso- 
ciation and  is  subject  to  forfeit- 
ure upon  failure  to  comply  with 
the  prescribed  terms."  The  com- 
missioner saying:  "I  can  find  no 
authority  in  the  trademark  act  per- 
mitting this  office  to  register  a 
trademark,  the  right  to  use  which 
is  farmed  out  and  which  is  not 
actually  used  by  the  would-bo  reg- 
istrant. While  the  verified  decla- 
ration accompanying  the  statement 
in  this  case  sets  forth  that  no 
other  person,  firm  or  corporation 
has  any  right  to  use  the  mark,  yet 
the  brief  of  counsel  shows  that  all 
of  the  members  of  the  association, 
which  is  stated  to  be  composed  of 
a  majority  of  the  principal  flour 
manufacturers  of  the  United 
States,  have  a  right,  under  certain 
conditions,  to  use  the  mark." 
Duell,  Commissioner,  in  Ex  parte 
The  Anti- Adulteration  League,  86 
OfT.  Gaz.  1803. 

A  word  to  be  used  as  the  name 
of  or  mark  for  a  patented  article 
will  not  be  admitted  to  registra- 
tion. In  so  ruling  the  commis- 
sioner has  said:  "In  view  of  the 
fact  that  under  the  Trademark  Act 
of   1881  a  certificate  of  registry  re- 


534 


Al'l'ENl'lX    U. 


niaint«  in  (orci-  f»r  tliirtv  yciiri* 
from  iU  datf.  I  tli>  nut  think  this 
ortic*'  hIu>uM  n'pint«T  tnid.mHrkrt 
which,  thouKli  lawful  tradimarks 
Mt  tho  datf  wlun  ronintry  i« 
hou>;ht.  will  Iktoiuo  public  prop- 
erly U'fon-  tlio  fxpirati»>n  «f  th«> 
thirty  yearn.  I»y  ho  doinj;  the  Pat- 
ent Ofllct-  would  Ih'  plaofd  in  the 
lifrht  of  utt.ni|itin;;  to  aid  in  pro- 
lon^in^  a  monopoly,  wliirli  niani- 
fostly,  undi-r  tin-  docixions  of  tlic 
oourtu,  i»  unwarrantr*!.  To  thus 
attempt  to  ^'ivi-  th<"  petitlontr  a 
monopoly  for  numy  years  lon^'ir 
than  i«  ^.'ivfii  hy  tin-  patent  would 
be  a  fraud  upon  the  publie."  Duell, 
Commissioner,  in  Hx  parte  Velvril 
Co..  S4  OIT.  Caz.  S(»7.  To  the  same 
effect  w»'  Hx  parte  K.  11.  (Jilsou 
Co.,  83  OJT.  Gaz.   101)2. 

4 — "Under  the  statute  of  Marcli 
3.  18S1.  'owners  of  trademarks,' 
under  certain  conditions  as  to  use 
and  up<m  compliance  with  certain 
rtHjuireraents  wliidi  need  not  now 
l»e  considered,  are  entitled  to  ol>- 
tain    repistration    tlurefor.  The 

phrasi*  'owners  of  trademarks' 
manifestly  limits  tlie  rij:ht  of  re},'- 
istration  to  sucli  pirson  or  por- 
Bons,  natural  or  artificial,  as  pos- 
sess the  lepal  title  to  that  for 
whicli  re;;islration  is  souplit.  and  it 
further  limits  the  ri<;ht  of  re<,'is- 
tration  to  that  which  is  a  trade- 
mark. It  is  then-fore  incumbent 
upon  the  various  triiiunals  of  the 
ofTice  having  in  char;.'e  the  re;ris- 
trati<m  of  trademarks,  when  an 
application  for  registration  is  filed. 
to  decide  at  the  outset  two  <pns- 
tions:  (1)  Is  applicant  the  ouner, 
and  (2»  is  that  which  he  seeks  to 
re(»ister  a  tradrmarkf  Manifestly 
the  tribuiuils  of  tliis  odice.  in  de- 
ciding   the    «iucBtiou    of    ownership. 


are    not      precluded      by     the     stntt*- 
ment   and  declaration   of  ownership, 
nunle    by    tlie    applicant    from    con- 
sidering   and    deciding    whether    he 
is  or  is  not  the  on  ««r  of  the  thing 
sought    to    be   registered.      It    is  not 
unusual    to    refuse    registration    Im>- 
cause  of   the   al)S4>nce  of   legal   title 
in      the      applicant — for       example, 
wlien    it    a|>pears   that   i)efore   appli- 
tant    adopted    ami    use<I    iiis    allege<l 
murk    the    identical    tiling   has    been 
iidoptet!      and      used      l>y      anoth«'r. 
I'.ipially  is  it  tlie  province  ami  duty 
of  the  tribunals  of  the  olliee  having 
jurisdiction    of    the    registration    of 
trademarks    to    decide    wlieth«'r    the 
thing    presented    for    registration    is 
a    trademark.   An   applicant    may  he 
the    owner   of    tin-    thing    alleged    to 
111'     liis     trad»mark,     and     yet     the 
tliin;:      presented      for      registration 
may  not  i)e  a  trademark.    Tlie  state- 
ment   and    declaration    of    applicant 
tliat    the   thing    |iresented    for  regis- 
tration  is  a  trademark  are  not  con- 
ilusive.    The    ipiestion    is    what    the 
thing  i.s'.  and   not  what    it  is  eallvd. 
That  the  statute  vests  in  this  oflice 
the    power    to   jiass   upon    these   two 
(piestions     I     believe,    and    to    pass 
upon    such    (pu-stions    has    been    the 
uniform    practice    of    my    predeces- 
sors   ever    since   the     enactment     of 
the  trademark  law  of   ISSl'   Duell, 
Commissioner,     in      F.x     parte     The 
Hronson  Co.,  87  OfT.  C.az.  1782;  and 
in    Fx   parte    lUiffalo    Pitts    Co..    89 
0(T.  Caz.  2000. 

.•S — Commerce  with  tlie  Indian 
tribes  nuiy  Im-  con<lucted  wholly 
within  the  liniits  of  a  single  state. 
•'Tin-  power  of  congress  is  not  de- 
termined by  tlie  locality  of  the 
tradic,  but  extends  wherever  inter- 
course witli  Indian  tril>es,  or  with 
anv   memlMT   of   an    liulian   tribe,   is 


TKADKM  AKK  ACT  OF  MAUCII  -i,    1881. 


535 


owners  shall  he  domiciled  in  tiie  United  States  or  located  in 
any  foreign  country  or  trilie,  which,  hy  treaty,  convention,  or 
law,"  affords  siniilar  privileges  to  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
may  obtain  i-etristration"  of  such  trademarks  hy  complying  with 
the  foUowiug  re(iuirements: 


fdiiiid,  altli<Mi;,'li  it  may  (iri^'iimtc 
uiul  fiiil  within  tin-  limits  of  a  nin- 
i;li'  statf."  I'rcntice  &  Kfjjaii.  (Oni- 
mtrn'  ClaiiM-  of  tlu'  Federal  Con- 
stitution, \i.  :54t>,  eitinj;  United 
Stat.8  V.  Holliday,  :?  Wall.  407,  18 
L.  Kd.  lf-2;  'iViiilory  v.  Cuyntt,  0 
Mont.  4(j. 

G — Tiie  faet  tliat  a  mark  is  law- 
ful* in  a  foreif,'n  country  is  no  test 
of  its  rc;,'istral)ility  here.  In  re  Meet 
&  fliandon,  18  MSS.  D.  250.  In 
that  case  registration  was  refused 
althoujih  the  mark  had  hcen  re^'- 
istered  in  France.  <hi  the  other 
hand,  the  words  'Tiermania"  and 
"Goliath"'  have  l-een  registered  in 
the  United  States  l)y  citizens  of 
Germany,  notwithstanding  tlie  fact 
that  tiie  words  could  not  he  re{j;is- 
tered  in  Germany  as  trademark, 
hecause  it  appeared  that  citizens 
of  the  United  States  had  heen  per- 
mitted to  rejiister  marks  in  Ger- 
many for  wliich  German  citizens 
would  not  l>e  allowed  rejxistration. 
/«  re  Manske  &  Co.,  (i4  OIT.  Gaz. 
8r)8;  In  re  Schmidt,  ').•}  MSS.  D.  7. 
Under  this  act  a  foreigner  is  enti- 
tled to  no  other  or  further  rights 
than  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 
Ex  partr  BufTalo  Pitts  Co.,  SO  OfT. 
Gaz.  20f)0. 

The  distinction  between  the 
terms  "treaty"  and  "convention" 
is  purely  artificial.  "A  treaty  is 
primarily  a  contract  between  two 
or  more  independent  nations."  Mr. 
Justice  Field,  in  \Miitney  v.  Rob- 
ertson, 124  U.  S.  100-104,  31  L.  Kd. 
388. 


The  International  Convention 
for  the  I'rotection  of  InduHtrial 
Property,  signed  at  Paris,  Marcii 
20,  1HH:{,  and  acceded  to  by  presi- 
(Untial  proclamation  on  behalf  of 
the  United  States,  March  29,  1887, 
can  not  become  operative  in  the  ab- 
sence of  federal  legislation.  Opin- 
ions of  the  Attorney-General,  1880, 
p.  2.")3;  47  Oir.  Gaz.  308;  A'x  parte 
Zwack  &  Co..  70  OfT.  Gaz.  18.-)5. 

For  treaties  and  conventions, 
177(i-1887,  see  "Treaties  and  Con- 
ventions Between  the  United 
Stati'S  and  Other  Powers:"  Gov- 
ernment   Printing   Ofllce,    1880. 

The  declaration  with  Great  Brit- 
ain is  drawn  so  as  to  confer  mu- 
tual trademark  rights  upon  the 
sul)ji'cts  and  citizens  of  each  of 
the  contracting  parties  throughout 
the  dominions  and  possessions  of 
the  other.  Citizens  or  residents 
of  British  colonies  are  therefore 
])ermitted  to  register  their  trade- 
niiirks  under  this  treaty  whenever 
it  is  satisfactorily  shown  that  in 
the  respective  colonies  similar  pro- 
tection is  afforded  to  citizens  of 
the  United  States. 

7 — "Registration  under  the  Act 
of  18S1  is  of  but  little,  if  any,  val- 
ue, except  for  the  purpose  of  creat- 
ing a  permanent  record  of  the  date 
of  adoption  and  use  of  the  trade- 
mark; or  in  cases  where  it  is  nec- 
essary to  give  jurisdiction  to  the 
United  States  courts."  Hawley.  .T  , 
in  Hennessy  v.  Braunschweiger,  80 
Fed.  Rep.  064.  To  the  same  efTect 
see  Waukesha  Ilygeia  Mineral 
Springs     Co.     v.     Hygeia     Distilled 


536 


AIM'KNIUX    1>. 


1st.  By  (.aiusing  to  bo  rti-ordcd  in  the  Patent  Ofllce  a  state- 
ment spiH-ifyinjr  mune,'*  ilomieilf."  location,'"  and  citizeiisliip'' 
of  tlu»  party  applyiiijr:  tlu*  rlass  of  iiicrcliaiKlisi'  and  tlie  paiiio- 


Wator  Co..  ;o  itiT.  Ciiz.  l.UJ).  fi:J 
K.hI.  Kt'p.  4:<S;  11  V.  ('.  A.  277; 
Surrazin  v.  \\  .  K.  Irliv  (."ijjar  &  To- 
l-acoo  Vo.,  113  Kill.  K»|>.  G24-(5'27 ; 
Hrowtr  v.  lUnilton.  .'>:$  Ffd.  Hop. 
38!i;  Adnnis  v.  llrisil.  .tl  F.d.  Hrji. 
275»-281. 

The  act  iliHs  tint  tlifiuc  trade 
markn. — "It  will  !>»'  olmt-rvfd  that 
the  stnt'.itc  (nffrrinj;  to  thi'  Act  of 
1S70)  (1(>«'9  not  dffiiif  till'  tvrm 
'tradrmark.'  or  say  of  what  it  shall 
consist.  The  term  is  used  as 
thoiijih  its  eif^mification  was  al- 
ready kntiwn  to  tin-  law.  It  speaks 
of  it  as  an  already  existing  thing, 
and  protects  it  as  such.  The  thing 
to  lie  protect«'d  must  he  an  exist- 
ing lawful  trademark,  or  some- 
thing that  may  then  for  tlie  first 
time  be  adopted  as  a  lawful  trade- 
mark indej)endent  of  the  statute. 
There  must  he  a  lawful  trade- 
mark adoptid  without  n-ference  to 
the  statute,  and  then,  by  taking 
the  pre8cril)ed  steps,  that  trade- 
mark, so  already  created  and  ex- 
isting, may  receive  certain  furtlier 
protection  under  the  statut*'." 
Moorman  v.  Hoge,  2  Sawy.  78.  The 
reasoning  of  this  opinion  is  equal- 
ly applicalde  to  the  Act  of  ISSl. 
L.  II.  Harris  Drug  Co.  v.  Stucky, 
4(i  Fed.  Hep.  (i24  ('•28;  Es  parte  M. 
Ulock  &.  Co.,  40  ()(T.  Caz.  44:i. 

8 — The  christian  name  of  tin- 
applicant  should  Im>  given  in  all 
caM*R,  insti-ad  of  tlie  initial  only, 
for  reaH<»nH  indicated  in  Mniiroe 
Cattle  Co.  V.  Becker,  147  I'.  S.  47. 
37  I..  Kd.  72:  l'nit<d  States  v.  I  j) 
ham,  43   Fed.   R.-p.  fi8. 

9 Domicile,     i.     «•.,    the      |)lnce      (if 

renidencr    of    the    applicant;     "that 


place  in  which  In-  has  fixed  his 
hahitation,  witliout  any  ]>resent  in- 
ti-ntioM  of  departing  therefrom." 
CJordon,  .1..  in  Carey's  ApjMal,  75 
Pa.  St.  2(11-20;'). 

lo — W  iiere  an  ajiplication  shows 
the  ap]dicant  to  he  a  citi/.en  of  one 
foreign  country  and  locat«'d  in  an- 
other, his  application  will  he  gov- 
erned hy  the  existing  treaty,  con- 
vention or  law  of  the  country  of 
his  location.  I)y  location  is  m(*ant 
tlie  situn  of  the  factory  or  other 
jilace  of  business  of  the  applicant. 
In   rr    Ilaggi-nmacher,    (iO    OlT.    Gaz.  I 

4:is. 

11 — What  the  applicant's  citizen- 1 
siiip  may  be  is  wholly  immaterial.) 
His  riglit  to  registration  is  gov-» 
erned  by  the  country  of  his  loca-- 
tion.  which  may  or  may  not  be  > 
identical  witli  tliat  of  his  citizen- 
ship. In  re  Haggenmacher,  supra. 

Citizenship  defined. — Citizenship 
means  "residence  with  intention  of 
remaining  permanently  at  that 
place.  A  man  may  reside  in  a  state 
for  an  indefinite  pi'riod  of  time 
witliout  becoming  a  citizen,  but 
the  moment  a  man  takes  up  his 
residence  in  a  state  di(Ter<'nt  from 
tiiat  where  he  formerly  was  domi- 
ciled or  was  a  citizen,  with  intent 
and  j)urpo8e  of  making  the  new 
j)lace  of  residence  his  futtire  homo, 
tliiit  moment  he  loses  his  ft)rmer 
doniieih',  and  Ix-conies  domiciled  in 
the  new  j)lace;  or  in  other  words, 
he  <'eas«'s  to  be  a  citizen  of  the 
former  jdace  of  residence  ond  be- 
comes a  citiztn  of  the  i«tate  of  his 
acloption."  Turner.  .?.,  in  Winn  v. 
Cilnier,   27    Fed.    l!ep.    817. 


TKADK.M  \l;K    ACT    ()!•'    MAKCIl    :{,    lK81, 


537 


ular  tlcscription  of  ^outls  coiiipriscd  in  sucli  clajis  to  which  the 
particular  trademark  has  I)oen  appropriated;  '^  a  description  of 
the  Iradeniark  itself'^  fac-dmiles  thereof,'^  and  a  statement  of 


12 — The  fact  tliat  tlic  Amoflkcnj,' 
Manufacturiii;;  Company  had  ap- 
j»li«'d  its  mark  to  fotton  ^'oodn  ex- 
cept prmts  did  not  f;ive  it  an  ex- 
ohisivo  rif»ht  to  its  use  on  all  cot- 
ton f^of)ds  iiirhidin/;  prints.  Amos- 
keag  Mfj,'.  Co.  v.  (iarner,  5')  Barli. 
IT)!.  The  t<rni  "Fancy  (Joods"  in- 
cludes too  many  Hub-clasHca  to  be 
allowed  in  one  registration.  In  re 
Lisner,  Comra.  Decis.  1H78,  p.  4(!. 
Ro{,n8tration  has  been  refnsed  for 
a  mark  to  cover  an  indurated 
blood  comi)ound  and  tlie  various 
articles,  sucli  as  door  knobs,  to  be 
made  from  it.  In  re  Dibble  Mfg.  Co., 
18  MSS.  D.  428.  Application  for 
registration  of  a  mark  to  l»e  used 
upon  druggists'  sundries  was  re- 
fused because  tlie  words  were  too 
indefinite.  In  re  Maw,  Son  &  Tliomp- 
Bon,  22  MSS.   D.  403. 

^Vhat  one  registration  may  eover. 
— A  single  trademark  may  l)e  n'g- 
istered  to  be  applied  to  all  goods 
made  of  hard  rubber.  In  re  India 
Kul>ber  Comb  Co.,  16  MSS.  D.  38. 
Bourbon,  wheat  and  rye  whiskies, 
wines,  l)randies  and  gins,  may  be 
included  in  one  registration.  In  re 
Boehm  tS:  Co.,  Comm.  Decis.  IS?."), 
p.  103 ;  as  may  "agricultural  im- 
plements, '  In  re  Manny  &.  Co.,  17 
MSS.  D.  155;  "canned  goods,"  In  re 
Fitzpatrick.  Davis  &  Co.,  18  MSS. 
D.  278 ;  and  "cutlery,"  In  re  Kampfe 
Bros.,  58  MSS.  D.  306;  as  well  as 
proprietary  medicinal  and  toilet 
compounds,  In  re  Knight,  38  MSS. 
D.  341.  One  registration  may, 
however,  cover  all  the  classes  of 
goods  upon  which  the  trademark 
has  been  used.  Ex  parte  Clark- 
Jewell-Wells  Co.,  83  Off.   Gaz.   915. 


Hut  a  jiicture  and  a  word  can  not 
lie  emiiodied  in  the  same  regihtra- 
tion  unless  they  are  true  alterna- 
tives. IJx  parte  J.  I).  Richards  & 
Sons,  54  MSS.  I).  425;  Kx  parte 
Adam  Roth  Oro.  Co.,  62  Off.  Gaz. 
315;  Ax  parte  Kinney,  72  Off.  Gaz. 
1340;  Kx  parte  Muir,  87  Off.  Gaz. 
357;  I!x  parte  Lazarus  Scliwarz  & 
Lipper,  64  OIF.  Gaz.   \AO(i. 

13 — The  description  must  dis- 
tinguish the  essential  from  the 
non-essential  features  of  the  mark, 
/n  re  Volta  Belt  Co.,  8  Off.  Gaz.  144. 
Tlie  essential  features  being  those 
.serving  to  distinguisli  the  goods  of 
the  applicant,  an  essential  feature 
can  not  be  anytiiing  that  is  not  a 
valid  trademark,  sucii  as  the  geo- 
grapiiical  word  "Lancaster."  In  re 
Farnum  &  Co.,  Comm.  Decis.  1880, 
)).  155;  18  Off.  Gaz.  412;  In  re  Adri- 
ance,  Piatt  &  Co.,  Comm.  Decis. 
1881,  p.  52;  20  Off.  Gaz.  1820;  In 
re  Pierce,  23  ^LSS.  D.  16.  The  de- 
scription and  facsimile  incorpor- 
ated in  the  certificate  of  registra- 
tion are  evidence  to  show  the  ex- 
tent of  the  owner's  claim  of  trade- 
mark, when  he  sues  for  its  protec- 
tion as  a  common-law  tradi-mark. 
Richter  v.  Reynolds,  5!)  Fed.  Rep. 
577 ;  Kohler  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Beeshore, 
53  Fed.  Rep.  262;  s.  c,  8  C.  C. 
A.  215.  The  essential  feature  of 
a  trademark  is  not  tliat  which  the 
registrant  elects  to  designate  as 
such,  but  that  which  would  strike 
the  public  mind  as  its  most  salient 
feature.  Ex  parte  Standard  Fash- 
ion Co.,  89  Off.  Gaz.  189. 

14 — This  section  does  not  con- 
t<'mplate  registration  of  form,  ma- 
terial,  or  color.   Materials   are    not 


53S 


APPENDIX    D. 


the  inoile  in  which  the  name  is  applietl  and  nflixed  to  goods,*' 


HulijiTt  to  n|iprnj)riati«>ii  at*  tradi'- 
mark ;  it  Iihh  Ihh-ii  wi  ln'Ul  in  re- 
gard to  till  UM'il  as  ta^tt  U|Hin  pluK 
tulMicfo,  L<»riUar«l  v.  Trid*'.  2S  hVd. 
Ufp.  434 ;  nor  is  a  mi-tliod  of  lironz- 
inj;  hori*»'»luM'  nails,  Putnam  Nail 
Co.  V.  lUnn.t,  43  F't'd.  Hep.  H(K»; 
:.9  Ft-d.  Kcp.  HOD;  8  C\  C.  A.  M'Z; 
nor  the  form  of  sticks  of  rlu-wing 
^oim,  Adams  v.  Iloist-l,  31  Ki-d.  Rop. 
27!>:  nor  tlu*  method  in  which 
ptKxls  arc  arran;.rrd  in  jiaoknues, 
Jhid.,  and  Davis  v.  Davis,  27  Fed. 
Rep.  4!>(l. 

For  furtlier  discussion  nf  form, 
color,  etc.,  see  ante,  pp.  280  rt  scq. 

A  fac-simile  need  not  eontain 
any  unessential  portion  of  tlie 
mark  sou;.'ht  to  he  registered.  In  re 
Watson,  Ifi  MSS.  D.  467;  In  re 
Armstrong  &  Co.,  2G  MSS.  D.  2r.n. 

One  fae-simile  only  is  suirKient 
to  illustrate  tlie  mode  of  using  the 
mark.  In  re  Kimball,  Comm.  Decis. 
1887,  p.  54. 

Fac-aimile  drflned. — "A  fuc-sim- 
jle  is  an  e.xuet  counterpart  of  an 
original,  and  a  facsimile  npre- 
8«'nted  hy  a  drawing  is  an  e.xact 
counteri»art  of  an  original,  so  far 
as  tlie  nature  of  a  drawing  per- 
mits. A  close  adherence  to  the 
language  of  the  statute  would  seem 
to  rtf|uire  that  in  each  case  the 
trademark  and  nothing  hut  the 
trademark  sliould  he  represented 
hy  the  drawing,  and  while,  perhaps, 
it  would  he  going  too  far  to  apply 
in  all  eases  a  rule  so  rigonnis,  it 
is  certainly  within  the  discretion 
of  the  olTjce  to  insist  upon  it  in 
eases  where  •  •  •  Icgitiinnte 
<IoulitH  ariw-  as  to  whether  jirotec- 
tion  sluMild  not  he  souirht  through 
the    law     relating    to    designs.       la 


my  judgmint  tin-  eases  arc  very 
rare  in  which  the  registration  of  a 
trademark  under  the  statute  re- 
quires or  should  permit  of  any 
other  matter  than  the  facsimile  of 
the  tradenuirk."  .Mitchell,  Com- 
missioner, in  A'j  purlf  Hudson,  55 
OJT.  llaz.  1401.  Applicants  are  re- 
stricted to  ."^ymhols  whidi  conform 
to  their  fac-similcs  as  well  as  to 
their  verhal  descriptions.  Duke  v. 
Green,  If.  OfT.  Gaz.  1004. 

15 — The  statement  of  the  mode 
of  application  must  he  given.  Ex 
partr  Hudson,  55  OlF.  (Jaz.  1401.  It 
must  appear  tliat  tlie  trademark  is 
inteiuh'd  to  he  used  upon  "goods  or 
manufactuH'd  articles,  the  general 
objects  of  commerce."  Kx  parte 
Roy  and  Xourse,  54  OfT.  Gaz.  1267. 
Tlie  use  of  a  trademark  upon  bill- 
heads, letter-heads,  cards  and  cir- 
culars used  in  a  business  does  not 
come  within  the  contemplation  of 
the  statute;  although  it  would  he 
properly  a  trademark  if  used 
tliereoii  as  articles  of  commiTce 
and  not  as  mere  vehicles  of  com- 
munication between  a  dealer  and 
other  persons.  Ilnd.  The  things 
to  which  a  trademark  may  be  af- 
fi.ved  so  as  to  be  entitled  to  regis- 
tration are  goods,  wares  and  mer- 
chandis(> — articles  that  may  be 
transported,  in  contradistinction  to 
those  fixed  species  of  property 
wliich  the  law  includes  uiiiler  the 
term  real  estate.  Ihid.  Hcgistra- 
tion  under  this  act  is  limited  to 
marks  used  upon  manufactures  or 
merchanilise.  /«  rr  Ilankinson,  8  OfT. 
Gaz.  80.  It  is  a  sulhcient  applica- 
tion if  the  mark  is  used  in  adver- 
tising, and  a  litliographed  repro- 
duction of   it   iuBcrtcd  in   each   box 


TRADEMARK    ACT    OF    M AltCH    '\,    1881. 


39 


and  the  length  of   timt-  diiriiif^   \vlii<;li   the  tradfiiiark  luus  been 
used."' 

L'd.  liy  paying  into  the  treasury  oX  tiie  United  Statcts  the 
s\nii  of  twenty-live  dollars,  '"  and  (;oin7)lying  with  .'nieh  reg'ula- 
tions  as  may  be  prescribed  l)y  the  Coniiinissioner  of  Patente. 


contain'mt,'  tlu'  mcrcliaiidisc  lluy 
&  Todd  Mfj,'  Co.  V.  Querns  Broth- 
ers, K(!  Oir.  Cnz.    l.'J-i.S. 

1(5— Till-  lan^Miaj,'!-  of  tlio  Act  of 
1870  was  "the  K'lijrtli  of  time,  if 
any,  durinf^  which  the  tra(hmark 
haa  heen  used."  This  was  con- 
strued to  admit  marks  to  registra- 
tion that  never  had  heen  used  in 
commerce.  In  re  Rothschild,  7  Off. 
(!a/..  •220.  It  must  now  he  sliown 
as  u  prereiiuisite  to  re^'istration 
that  there  has  l)een  actual  applica- 
tion of  tlie  mark  to  merchandise 
and  actual  user  in  commerce.  Uni- 
ted States  V.  Seymour,  66  Off.  Gaz. 
1167.  Repistration  under  this  stat- 
ute avails  nothing  if  tlie  name  or 
symhol  is  never  used.  Siegert  V. 
Ahhott,  72  Hun.  24:5. 

It  was  held  in  one  case  that  a 
citizen  of  France  who  had  not  de- 
posited his  mark  in  the  Patent  Of- 
fice under  tlie  provisions  of  the 
treaty  of  ISCtO  between  the  United 
States  and  France  could  not  main- 
tain an  action  for  infringement. 
Lacroix  v.  Escohal.  37  La.  Ann. 
533.  But  in  a  later  case  it  is  held 
that  a  registration  under  the  Act 
of  1881  hy  a  French  citizen  ren- 
ders the  deposit  of  the  mark  under 
the  terms  of  that  convention  un- 
necessary. Soci§t6  de  la  Benedic- 
tine V.  Micalovitch,  36  Alb.  L.  J. 
364.  The  dates  of  adoption  set 
forth  in  the  applications  of  two 
rival  registrants  are  not  conclu- 
sive.   Einstein    v.    Sawhill,    61    Off. 


Caz.  2S7.  Where  actual  user  ap- 
jtears  to  have  been  first  mad<-  after 
application  for  registry,  the  mark 
may  i)e  admitted  to  registration 
upon  the  filing  of  a  HUi)plcmfiital 
application.  Einstein  v.  Sawhill, 
(2),  64  Off.  Gaz.   ir,33. 

User  in  a  foreign  country  alone 
does  not  entitle  an  applicant  to  reg- 
istration under  this  section. 
Farmers  Mfg.  Co.  v.  W.  R.  Har- 
ri.son  &  Co.,  9(5  Off.  Gaz.  2062;  Le- 
prince  v.  Her  &  Morris,  !)2  Off. 
Gaz.  189.  "Limited  sales  in  this 
country  by  a  foreign  manufacturer 
upon  especial  orders  to  supply  par- 
ticular customers"  do  not  give  a 
common  law  right  to  the  mark 
"since  they  did  not  constitute  a 
use  of  the  mark  in  such  circum- 
stances as  to  publicity  and  length 
of  use  as  to  show  an  intention  to 
adopt  it  as  a  trademark."  Allen, 
Commissioner,  in  Farmers  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  W.  R.  Harrison  &  Co.,  06  Off. 
Gaz.  2062. 

17 — The  fee  cannot  be  refunded 
because  registration  is  refused.  In  re 
Thayer,  54  Off.  Gaz.  957.  Where 
the  domestic  branch  of  a  house 
having  offices  in  the  L'nited  States 
and  abroad,  filed  an  application  in 
ignorance  of  the  fact  that  an  iden- 
tical application  had  been  made 
by  one  of  the  foreign  offices,  the 
fee  paid  on  the  second  application 
was  refunded.  In  re  Finlayson, 
Bousfield  &  Co.,  01  Off.  Gaz.   152. 


540 


Arrisnix  i>. 


Section  2.'"  Tliai  tlic  application  pivsorilied  in  the  forepoing 
section  must,  in  (inKr  to  creute  any  rifjlit  whatever  in  favor  of 
the  party  lilinjr  it.  In-  acconipanicii  l)y  a  written  tlcclaration  veri- 
lif»l  by  the  person,  or  hy  a  nieniU'r  of  a  (inn,'"  or  by  an  officer 
of  a  coriJonition  apjilyin^r,  to  the  effei't  tliat  such  party  has  at 
the  time  a  ritrlit  to  the  u.se  of  the  tra(hMiiark  soii;;lit  to  he  reg- 
istenxl,  ami  th;it  no  othrr  person,  linn  or  coiporation  has  the 
ripht  to  such  use,  either  in  tlie  identical  I'onn  or  in  any  such 
near  resein])lan('e  thereto  as  niif;ht  be  cah'iilated  to  deceive,'-'" 
that  such  trademark  is  used  in  comnuTee  with  forei^Mi  nations  or 
Indian  tril)es,  as  above  indicated,-'  and  that  the  tiescription  and 
fac-siniiles  pres«'nted  for  registry  truly  represent  the  mark  sought 
to  be  it'gistered.-- 

Section  ;^.23  That  the  time  of  tlie  receipt  of  any  such  appli- 
cation shall  be  noted  and  recorde<l.  liut  no  alleged  trademark 
shall  be  registered  unless  the  same  appear  to  lie  lawfully  ^*  used 


IS— S»o  Act  of  1870,  sec.  77, 
ante,  p.  501. 

19 — An  application  of  a  partnor- 
Bhip  can  not  propi-rly  l>e  made  liy 
one  not  a  nn'mlirr  of  tlie  firm  but 
merely  a  so-called  "director."  Kx 
parte  Kirker,  Greer  &  Co.  (Ltd.), 
37  MS.S.  1).  .S1I2. 

20 — Registration  will  lie  refused 
wln-nover  in  the  opinion  of  the 
commiBHioner  the  mark  offered  is 
8o  gimilar  to  a  registered  mark  as 
to  l)e  likely  to  lead  to  mistake  or 
confusion.  Kx  parte  Coon,  '>R  Off. 
Ca/.  040.  In  case  of  doul)t  con- 
cerning such  similarity,  that  douht 
will  he  resolved  against  tlu'  appli- 
cant. In  re  How«',  ;'>()  M.SS.  1).  1«)8; 
In  re  Bogardiis,  r>0  M.S.S.   I).  2. 

21 — The  declaration  on  oath  that 
there  has  hi-en  a  user  of  the  mark 
in  the  claswB  of  commerce  speci- 
fied is  insist4'd  on  hy  the  Patent 
Office.  Et    parte    Strashurger    &. 

Co.,  20  Off.  Orz.  \r,r,. 

22 — A  word  and  a  figure  wliirh 
are    true    alternutives    constitute    n 


single  mark.  Morrison  v.  Case,  9 
IJlatchf.  ri48;  2  Off.  Gaz.  rA4.  Hence 
they  may  be  covered  by  one  regis- 
tration. In  re  Weaver,  10  Off.  Gaz. 
1 ;  Kx  parte  Kinney,  72  Off.  Gaz. 
1.140.  But  where  they  are  not  true 
alternatives,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
word  "Crescent"  and  the  figure  of 
the  crescent  moon,  and  the  word 
and  figure  might  convey  wholly 
different  meanings  to  the  observer, 
they  will  not  he  registered  upon  a 
single  application.  Kx  parte  Laz- 
arus Sehwarz  «!i:  Lipper,  04  Off. 
(III/,.  ]'MH>\  Kx  parte  Roth  Groeery 
Co.,  (12  Otr.  Gaz.  -M-i. 

2.3— See  Act  of  1S7().  sees.  79,  80, 
ante.  The  fact  that  this  act 
does  not  expressly  exclude  de- 
scriptive words  from  registra- 
tion do<>8  not  raise  a  presumption 
tliat  descriptive  words  should  be 
iiiimitted  to  registration.  L.  H. 
Harris  Drug  Co.  v.  Stucky,  4fl  Fed. 
Rep.   024027. 

24 — See  cases  cited  in  note  to 
■'.T     70    of    the    Act   of    1870,   ante. 


TRADEMARK    ACT    Ol'    MARCH    '.i,    1881. 


541 


A  mark  that  is  deci'ptivi-  in  itH 
iiutiire  will  not  receive  n-j^iatra- 
tion.  A'oj  parte  liluch  &  Co.,  40 
Off.  Ga/.  443;  In  re  Chichester 
Chemical  Co.,  r>2  Off.  Oaz.  l()(il; 
In  re  American  Sardine  Co.,  ('(imm. 
Decis.  187:{,  p.  H2;  In  re  Cn.ve,  07 
Off.  Gaz.  1447.  The  coat-of-arms  of 
the  United  States,  or  either  of  the 
states,  will  not  be  admitted  to  reg- 
istration. Kx  parte  Sclimaciitenherg 
Bros.,  .'■)1  MSS.  1).  204. 

Nor  will  a  descriptive  word:  as 
•'Alliaiiy  Beef,"  for  ciiniied  sturgeon, 
In  re  Ames,  23  Off.  Oaz.  344;  "Chili 
Colorow,"  for  tal)le  sauce,  In  re 
Railton,  2.'-)  MSS.  D.  321;  "Time- 
Keeper,"  for  watches.  Ex  parte 
Strasl.urger  &  Co.,  20  Off.  Gaz.  l.^f); 
"CristiiUiiie,"  for  artificial  jewels, 
A'x  parte  Kipling,  24  Off.   Gaz.  89!). 

Nor  a  picture  or  word  tliat  is 
descriptive  or  deceptive.  Kx  parte 
Martin,  8!)  Off.  Gaz.  2258 ;  Ex  parte 
Wolf,  80  Off.  Gaz.  1271;  Ex  parte 
Grove,  G7  Off.  Gaz.  1447. 

Nor  a  geographical  word;  as 
"Cromarty,"  for  dried  fish.  In  re 
Proctor.  .Jr..  .■)1  Off.  Gaz.  1785; 
"Trenton,"  for  saws,  hi  re  Amer- 
ican Saw  Co.,  58  Off.  Gaz.  521; 
"Cloverdale,"  In  re  Hendley,  72  Off. 
Gaz.  1654.  In  many  instances,  how- 
ever, where  the  commissioner  has 
<leemed  the  geographical  word  to  be 
used  in  a  purely  arbitrary  sense 
it  has  been  admitted  to  registra- 
tion. In  re  Cornwall  &  Bros.,  12 
Off.  Gaz.  312;  Ex  parte  Tietgens 
&  Robertson,  87  Off.  Gaz.  2117.  The 
following  extracts  from  leading  rul- 
ings of  the  Patent  Office  may  serve 
as  guides  for  applicants  seeking 
registration  for  geograpliical  words. 
Their  registrability  "is  to  l)e  deter- 
mined in  view  of  the  circumstances 
of  each  particular  case.  •  «  • 
One    geographical    name    might    be 


either  descriptive  or  deceptive;  an- 
other geograpliical  name  applied  to 
tlie  same  article  might  be  neither." 
'I'liUH,  it  was  held  that  it  having 
become  a  common  practicr-  to  apply 
the  words  "Irish,"  "Limerick,"  etc., 
to  Hoap,  there  was  no  olijection  to 
registering  the  word  "Dublin,"  as 
applied  to  soaj);  in  view  of  the 
state  of  the  trade  and  the  nature 
of  the  article,  "Dublin"  applied  to 
soap  manufactured  in  this  country, 
was  iieitlier  descriptive  nor  decep- 
tive. This  doctrine  was  anno\inced 
in  a  decision  of  Acting  Commis- 
sioner Doolittle,  refusing  registra- 
tion for  the  word  "P'rench"  as 
api)lied  to  American  made  paints 
on  the  ground  that  it  was  decep- 
tive. In  re  J.  Marsching  &  Co.,  15 
()ir.  (Jaz.  294.  In  a  later  decision, 
refusing  registration  to  the  word 
"Cloverdale"  as  a  trademark  for 
canned  fruits  and  vegetables,  Acting 
Commissioner  Fisher  announced  the 
following       classification:  "Geo- 

graphical names  may  for  conven- 
ience l)e  divided  into  three  classes; 
first,  tliose  that  are  well  known 
and  in  common  use — such,  for  ex- 
ample, as  'Unitid  States,'  'New 
York,'  'San  Francisco,'  etc.  The 
law  is  settled  that  words  coming 
under  this  class  ought  not  to  be 
registered.  The  second  class  in- 
cludes words  which  in  their  pri- 
mary significance  are  not  geograph- 
ical, even  tliough  they  may  appear 
in  the  Postal  Guide  or  similar  pub- 
lications. Such  words  as  'trilby,' 
'creole,'  'puritan'  and  'volunteer,* 
are  good  examples  of  this  class. 
These  words,  it  seems  to  me,  ought 
not  to  be  refused  registration  on 
the  ground  that  they  are  geographi- 
cal, since  it  can  not  fairly  be  said 
that  they  are  'words  in  common 
use  as  designating  locality  or   sec- 


542 


APPENDIX    O. 


OS  such  by  the  npplionnt  in  forei^ni  coininercc  or  tominorce  with 
luilian  tribes,  as  nbovi"  iiu'ntioiu'il.  or  is  uitbiii  tin*  iirovision  of  a 
trt'uty,  (•oMNcntion,  or  dtM-larjif ioi»  with  a  fortM^'ii  jiowor;  nor  which 
is  meri'ly  tlie  naiiR'  of  tlie  applicant,-^  nor  wliii-li  is  iilcntical 
with  a  ri'gistereil  or  known  trailemark  *"'  ovraetl  by  luiother  ami 


tion  of  a  lountry."  Tho  thinl 
datw  Wduld  lo;:ioally  ooi'upy  ii  (lohi- 
tJon  l>vtwc«'n  tin-  tw»)  rla»w9  men- 
tion«-<l  hIxivc,  and  it  conHiHt»  «f 
words  wliicli  j>riniarily  have  a 
pw)j.'raphiral  nuaninj; — for  oxam- 
pK',  t«Tnis  ciidiiij,'  or  compoundi'd 
with  hwcli  words  a»  'city,'  'town,' 
'shire,'  'mount,'  or  'mont.*  8uch 
words,  1  til  ink,  should  not  be  reg- 
isten-d,  for  the  reason  that  they 
are  clearly  j;eo;;raphical  in  their 
primary  si^mifieance,  even  if  it  can 
not  Ik-  said  tliat  they  are  widely 
enou;.'h  known  to  come  strictly  un- 
der the  first  class.  It  seems  to  me 
that  the  word  in  question,  'Clover- 
dale,'  clearly  comes  under  the  third 
class."  Hx  pnrtc  Hendley,  72  Off. 
Gaz.  l(i.')4.  A  <;eo;,'ra|)hical  word 
does  not  become  properly  rej^istra- 
ble  by  beinp  enclosed  in  a  geomet- 
rical fi^nire.  So  the  word  "Yuca- 
tan" was  refused  registration  as  a 
mark  for  leather,  even  thouf;ii  en- 
clowd  in  a  s<|uare  fi;:ure.  h!x  parte 
Weil,  8.1  Off.  Oaz.    1H(I2. 

2.') — Tliis  prohibition  is  strictly 
enforced.  Even  a  name  used  as  a 
mark  for  twenty  yi-ars,  and  admit- 
ted to  re^iistration  under  the  Act 
of  187(»  has  lieen  refused  registra- 
tion under  this  statute.  In  re  Fair- 
child,  21  Off.  Oaz.  789.  f'onfrress 
by  an  enactment  under  date  of 
Au^rust  T),  1882,  provided:  "That 
nothinj.'  contained  in  the  law  (of 
MarLh  3,  1881),  shall  prevent  the 
TCfi'iHiry  of  any  lawful  tradtmark 
riffhtfully  uwd  liy  the  applicant  in 
foreiffn      commercf?      or      commerce 


\\  \i\\  Indian  tril>es  at  the  time  of 
tlie  pac!-ajie  of  wiid  act."  22  Stats, 
at  l.arj,'e,  p.  2H8.  This  proviso  has 
admitted  to  r«'j;istration  names  of 
corporations,  as,  for  example,  the 
words  "Union  Metallic  Cartridge 
Co.,"  which  Were  in  use  as  mcr- 
tluindise  marks  prior  to  March  A, 
ISSl.  Hut  no  name  of  a  corpora- 
tion not  used  prior  to  that  time 
as  a  mark  can  now  be  admitted  to 
re^rist ration.  h'x  parte  Creedmore 
(  artri<l;;i'  Co.,  56  Off.  Caz.  i;{33. 
And  see  note  to  the  Act  of  Au^'Ust 
r>,  1882.  Uepistration  has  been  re- 
fused to  a  name  as  part  of  a  trade- 
mark which  also  included  a  device. 
A'j?  parte  Adriance,  Piatt  &  Co.,  20 
Off.  C.az.  1820.  But  a  name  used 
as  part  of  an  old  combination 
trademark  has  been  admitted  to 
re^'istry.  A'j  parte  Freibery  & 
Workum.  20  Off.  (Jaz.  1104.  A 
proper  name  joined  to  a  geographi- 
cal name  does  not  constitute  a 
valid  trademark,  therefore  "Buf- 
falo IMtts"  WHS  refusi'tl  re^'istra- 
tion  as  a  trademark  for  threshing 
machines.  Kx  parte  Buffalo  Pitts 
Co..  81)  Off.  Caz.  20(59. 

2rt — Registration  has  been  refus- 
ed where  the  applicant's  mark, 
"Triumphant"  fur  (lojir,  had  been 
registered  by  another  under  the 
Act  of  1870,  and  not  re- registered 
under  the  Act  of  1881.  f'x  parte 
l.yon.  Dupuy  *  Co.,  28  Off.  Oaz. 
191  ;  Dyrenforth.  .\cting  Commis- 
sioner, tersely  observing  that  "To 
decide  otherwise  would  be  to  open 
Pandora's  box  and  tiirn   loose   fraud 


TU'ADKMAICK    ACT    OF    ,M.\U<  H    'A,     1 SS  I 


543 


appropriati:d  to  the  same  class  of  nKTcliaiKlisc,  or  wliicli  so  nearly 
resembles  some  other  pereon's  hiwliil  trademark  us  to  lie  likely 
to  cause  conrusioii  or  iiiistiikc  in  the  iniiMJ  of  the  public,  or  to 
deceive  i)ur(has('rs.-"  In  an  application  for  rcj,Mstration  the 
Commissioner  of  Tatcnts  shall  dfcidc  the  pr<*sumptive  lawful- 
ness of  claim  to  the  allej^cd  trademark;  -''  and  in  any  disfnite  be- 
tween an  ap|)licant  and  a  i)revious  rcf^istrant,  or  between  appli- 
cants, he  shall  follow,  so  far  as  the  same  may  be  applicable,  the 
practice  of  courts  of  etpiity  of  the  United  State«  in  analogous 
eases.  -" 


upon  iiuli\  iilunls  ami  imposition 
upon  tlu*  pulilic."  Tlic  fact  that 
tlu'  applicants  used  tin-  mark  in 
forci^'H  commerce  wliilc  tlic  record 
did  not  show  tlie  re;;istrai)t  to 
have  done  so  was  held  immaterial. 
Ibid;  and  to  the  same  elFect,  Yale 
Mff,'.  Co.  V.  Yale,  30  OIT.  (la/..  IIH.}. 
A  trademark  consisting,'  of  a  de- 
sipn  will  not  be  admitted  to  re;,'i.s- 
tration,  when  the  same  design  haa 
been  embodied  in  a  d»-si<;n  patent 
•granted  to  anotlier.  Hx  parte  Let; 
&    Sliepard.   24    Oil".    (\iv/..    1271. 

27 — Tlie  commissioner  must  de- 
cide, "first,  if  tlie  applicant  lias 
actually  used  the  trademark  in 
lawful  commerce  witli  forei<i;n  na- 
tions or  with  the  Indian  tribes, 
and  then  if  he  has  the  rijiht  to  the 
use  of  it  at  all.  If  he  finds  that 
the  alleged  trademark  is  the  name 
of  the  applicant  or  any  other 
name  which  can  not  lawfully  be 
converted  into  a  trademark  at 
common  law,  or  that  it  is  identi- 
cal with  the  trademark  of  another, 
registered  or  unregistered,  or  is  a 
deceptive  imitation  of  another,  or 
that  it  is  not  the  property  of  the 
applicant,  he  can  not  admit  it  to 
registration,  though  he  may  be  sat- 
isfied that  tlie  applicant  has  used 
it  in  regular  commerce  with  for- 
eign  nations  or  the  Indian  tribes." 


Court  (if  Appeals,  District  of  Co- 
lumiiia,  by  Sliepjiard,  J.,  in  United 
States  v.  Scymore,  fiO  OfT.  Gaz. 
llt;7-l  !<;!».  Wiiere  a  part  of  the 
iipplicant's  mark  was  the  word 
"Itailway,"  wiiicli  word  had  been 
regist<'red  by  anotlier,  the  applica- 
tion was  refused.  Ex  parte  Stras- 
l.urger  &  Co.,  20  OIT.  Caz.  lof).  The 
•juestion  presented  to  the  commis- 
sioner upon  an  issue  of  anticipa- 
tion is  "whether  the  trademark 
sougiit  to  be  registered  is  so  simi- 
lar to  any  trademark  already  reg- 
istered for  use  upon  the  same 
class  of  articles  as  to  be  calculated 
to  deceive  purchasers  using  ordi- 
nary caution."  Frothingham,  As- 
sistant Commissioner,  in  Ex  parte 
George  B.  Hurd  &  Co.,  59  OfT.  Gaz. 
1703;  and  to  the  same  effect,  Ex 
parte   Coon,    .IS    Off.    Gaz.    94G. 

28 — Xo  court  can  grant  registra- 
tion nor  direct  the  action  of  the 
commissioner  by  mauflariiu.f.  His 
duties  are  not  ministerial,  but  re- 
quire the  exercise  of  judgment  and 
discretion.  His  performance  of 
those  duties  will  not  be  reviewed 
on  or  controlled  by  mandamus. 
United  States  v.  Se\Tnour,  0(1  Off. 
Gaz.  11()7-1172;  l.")3  U.  S.  3r)3 ;  38 
L.    Ki\.    742. 

29 — Under  this  provision  the 
commissioner  has   power  to  declare 


544 


APPENDIX    l>. 


Section  4.  That  certilifates  of  ropistry  of  trademarks  shall 
he  i»iueil  in  the  iianu'  of  tlic  I'liitt'tl  States  of  Aineru-a  uiider 
the  seal  of  the  Department  of  tlie  Interior,  and  shall  be  sitrned 
by  the  t'onnnissioner  of  Patents,  and  a  r.-cord  there(d".  to^rether 
with  printed  eopies  of  the  speeilieiitions,  shall  l»e  kept  in  books 
for  that  purpose.  Copit^  of  tradeiiuirks  antl  of  st^itements  luui 
tleelarations  til.-d  therewith,  and  eertitieates  of  re^nstry  so  sitrned 
and  sealed,  shall  1h'  evidenee  in  any  suit  in  whieh  sueh  trade- 
marks shall  be  brouj^ht  in  eontrover-sy.'"' 


an  iiit<rf«T«iu'»',  »'v»-n  lu-twiTii  a 
partiu-rsliij)  and  ono  of  its  nn'in 
Ihth.  If  tlif  a|>pliiant  sliows  )>ot- 
U'T  titlf  he  will  lit-  admitted  to 
registration  notwithstandinjj  a  pri- 
or rejiistry.  Yalo  Mf},'.  Co.  v.  Yale, 
:»0  on",  (iaz.  IISU.  In  such  a  case 
the  Imrdin  of  proof  to  estahlish 
priority  is  upon  the  applicant. 
Manitowoc  Mf},'.  Co.  v.  Dickerman, 
')7  OfT.  (>&■/..  1721.  In  cases  of  in- 
terference the  question  presented 
to  the  commissioner  is  substan- 
tially the  same  as  would  arise  in 
a  court  of  e<iuity  if  either  of  the 
parties  were  seekinj^  to  enjoin  tlir 
other  from  the  use  of  the  mark. 
J  hill.  In  interferences  the  issue  is 
as  hroad  as  the  broadest  claim.  S. 
Hernsheim  Bros.  &.  Co.  (Ltd.)  v. 
J.  H.  Har^rave  &  Son,  81  OIT.  Gaz. 
503;  Joseph  Bani;:an  Rubber  Co. 
V.  Bloomin;.'dale,  89  OfT.  Gaz.  1070. 
By  sec.  0  of  the  act  establish- 
ing the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the 
District  of  Cohimbia  that  court  is 
given  the  determination  of  ap- 
p<'alrt  from  tlie  decision  of  tin' 
Commissioner  of  Talents  "in  any 
interference  cas«'."  Tliat  j-ourt  has 
held  that  this  claiise  does  not  re- 
fer to  or  include  trademark  inter- 
fi>rences.  Einstein  v.  Sawhill,  OH 
OfT.  Ga/.  lOlH.  An  apjjlicant  pre- 
»«'nted  for  re<.'ihtration  a  mark  s\ili 
Btantially    the    uarac    us    ono    regis- 


tered by  another  under  the  Act  of 
ISTU.  wiiicli  had  not  been  reregis- 
t.nd  under  the  Act  of  1881.  Reg- 
istration was  refused  by  the  ex- 
aminer. I'll''  applicant  tlien 
sought  to  institute  an  interfer- 
«'nce;  this  was  refused  because 
the  former  registration  was  void. 
I'nder  all  the  facts  the  commis- 
sioner notified  tlie  registrant  un- 
der the  Act  of  1S7()  tliat  an  appli- 
cation for  registry  was  pending 
with  wliich  his  registry  would  in- 
terfere if  it  were  a  registry  under 
the  Act  of  ISSl,  and  that  si.xty 
(lays  would  be  allowed  wherein 
the  former  registrant  might  make 
an  application  under  the  Act  of 
18S1  with  a  view  to  inti-rference. 
/,'j  parte  American  Lead  Pencil  Co., 
(;i   OIL  Gaz.    ir>i. 

30 — The  decision  of  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents  upon  interfer- 
ence proceedings  was  held  under 
the  Act  of  1870  to  render  the 
issues  presented  to  him  r<  s  mljudi- 
cntn  and  they  can  not  be  reopened 
in  a  subse(|iient  proceeding  be- 
tween the  parties.  Hanford  v. 
Westcott,  F.'d.  Case  No.  0.022;  10 
OfT.  Gaz.  1181.  But  in  passing 
upon  the  same  question  under  the 
Act  of  1881  Judge  Adams  said,  of 
Ilnnford  v.  Westcott,  "if  tlie  rea- 
soning of  that  case  was  ever  per- 
suasive,   it    can    not    be    considered 


TRADEMAKK    ACT   OF    MAIICII    3,    1881. 


545 


SiiCTioN  5.  'i'liul  ii  (•(•r-tificatc  of  registry  slinll  remain  in  force 
for  thirty  years  fioni  its  date,  except  in  cases  where  the  trade- 
mark is  claimed  for  and  applied  to  articles  not  man u facta re<l 
in  this  country,  and  in  wliich  it  receives  protection  under  the 
laws  of  a  foreign  country  for  a  shorter  period,  in  which  case 
it  shall  cease  to  liave  any  force  in  this  cfjuntry  liy  virtue  of  this 
act  at  the  time  that  such  trademark  ceases  to  Im-  exclusive  prop- 
erty elsewhere.  At  any  time  during  the  six  months  prior  to  the 
expiration  of  thirty  years,  such  registration  may  l)e  renewed 
on  the  same  terms  and  for  a  like  period.-" 

Section  6.  That  applicants  for  regi.stration  under  this  act 
siiall  l)e  credited  for  any  fee  or  part  of  a  fee  heretofore  ])aid 
into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  with  intent  U)  procure 
protection  for  the  same  trademark.-''^ 

Section  7.  That  registration  of  a  trademark  sliall  be  prima 
facte  evidence  of  ownership.-'^  Any  person  who  shall  reproduce, 
counterfeit,  copy  or  colorably  imitate  any  tradeiiuirk  registered 


so  in  the  lipht  of  the  changes  in 
the  law  since  it  was  rendered." 
A.  Leachen  &  Sons  Rope  Co.  v. 
Brodorick  &  Bascom  Ropo  Co.,  123 
Fed.   Rep.   140,  irrZ. 

31— See   Act   of    1870,   §  78,   ante. 

32 — The  fee  for  registration  un- 
der the  Act  of  1881  was  required 
to  be  paid  upon  filing  tlie  appli- 
cation. 

The  sum  of  $10  paid  as  a  first 
fee  under  the  Act  of  1870  was 
credited  upon  this  payment  on  ap- 
j)lication  pending  in  the  Patent 
Office  wh(>n  the  Act  of  1881  went 
into  efTect. 

But  all  persons  to  whom  regis- 
tration was  granted  under  the  Act 
of  1870  were  entitled  to  register 
under  tliis  act  without  additional 
charge.  .Tacohy  &  Co.  v.  Lopez, 
23   OfT.  Gaz.   342. 

33 — As  to  the  cvidenciary  value 
of    the    certificate    of    registration, 


see  Elgin  National  Watch  Co.  v. 
Illinois  Watcii  Case  Co.,  179  U.  S. 
C)6r)-G72,  4-1  L.  Ed.  377;  Brower  v. 
Boulton,  7  C.  C.  A.  507;  fiS  Fed. 
Rep.  888;  United  States  v.  Duell,  17 
App.  D.  C.  478;  Glen  Cove  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Ludeling,  22  Fed.  Rep.  824;  Hen- 
nessy  v.  Braunsciiweiger,  89  Fed. 
Rep.  064;  Welsbach  Light  Co.  v. 
Adam,  107  Fed.  Rep.  463.  That 
this  section  has  no  bearing  upon 
the  jurisdiction  of  a  state  court  in 
a  proceeding  under  a  state  statute 
see  People  v.  Molins,  10  N.  Y.  Supp. 

i.m 

Thus  the  registration  of  a  mark 
by  another  throws  the  burden  of 
proving  priority  upon  one  who 
subsequ«'ntly  applies  for  registra- 
tion for  the  same  marl<.  Manito- 
woc Mfg.  Co.  v.  Dickerman.  57  Off. 
Gaz.  1720.  See  Act  of  1870,  §  78, 
79;   ante. 


54G 


APPENDIX   D. 


under  this  act,  niul  afTix  the  samo  to  merchaiulise  of  siihst^intially 
tlie  siinu'  (losrriptivo  proj^rrtics  jus  those  (U's<Til)eil  in  the  reg- 
istration.-" shall  be  liable  to  an  aetion  on  the  ease  for  daiiia^'es 
for  the  wrongful  use  of  s;ii<l  tratleiuark  at  the  suit  of  the  owner 
thereof;  and  the  party  j^rgrieved  shall  also  have  his  remedy 
according  to  the  course  of  etpiity  to  t-njoin  the  wrongful  \ise  of 
such  tratleniark  used  in  forci^ni  comiiuTC)'  or  cniiiiiien-e  with 
Indian  tribes,  as  aforesiiid.  and  to  recover  connx'nsation  there- 
for in  imy  court  having  jurisdiction  over  the  person  guilty  of 
such  wrongful  act;  and  courts  of  the  Initt'd  States  shall  have 
original  and  appellate  jurisdiction  in  sudi  cases  ^vith()ut  regard 
to  the  ajnount  in  contn)versy.-''' 

Skction  8.  That  no  action  or  suit  shall  \)v  maintained  uniler 
the  provisions  of  this  act  in  any  case  when  tiie  trademark  is 
used  in  any  unlawful  business,  or  upon  any  article  injurious  in 
itself,  or  which  mark  has  ])een  used  Avith  the  design  of  deceiv- 
ing the  public  in  the  purchase  of  merchandise,  or  under  any 
certificate  of  registry  fraudulently  obtained.^" 


Section  9.  That  any  jjcrson 
of  a  trademark,  or  of  himself  i 
an  entry  respecting  a  trademark 

.34 — Ah  to  what  is  "merchandise 
of  substantially  the  same  descrip- 
tive properties,"  see  Air-Bnish 
Alfp.  Co.  v.  Thayer,  84  Fed.  Kcp. 
640;  Mass,  RatclilT  &  Oretton 
(Ltd.),  V.  Feigenspan,  !>(!  Fed.  Uep. 
•306. 

Blanks  and  envelojjes  used  by  a 
tele{.'raph  company  are  not  "mer- 
chandise" within  the  meaning  of 
this  section.  Postal  Tel.  Cable  Co. 
V.  Netter,    102   Fed.    Rep.   (■>!>!. 

.1.') — Registration  of  a  mark  com- 
mon to  the  trade  does  not  confer  an 
exclusive  right  to  its  us<\  Stachelberg 
V.  Ponce,  128  U.  S.  686,  :i2  L.  VA. 
r>aO.  Registration  of  a  mark  is 
not  conchinive.  Its  uw  may  Ix-  re- 
htrained  at  the  suit  <»f  one  who 
has  a   prior  right  to   its  use.    Chii 


wlio  shall  procure  the  registry 
us  tlie  owner  of  a  tra<l<Mnark,  or 
,  in  the  offiee  of  the  Commissioner 

Cove  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Ludeling.  22  Fed. 
Rep.  824,  826;  Schumacher  v. 
Sdiwenke  (2),  36  Off.  Gaz.  4r)7 ; 
IbiiiHssy  V.  Braunschweiger,  80 
Fed.   Rep.   664. 

The  registrant  will  nut  Ite  pro- 
tected in  the  use  of  his  trademark 
if  it  is  found  to  contain  a  material 
false  representation.  Seabury  v. 
Crosvenor,   14  Blatchf.  262. 

Jurindirtioual  n  in  o  u  n  t. — The 
aminint  in  controveray  is  tlie  value 
of  the  tredeniark.  Synionds  v. 
Creene,  2S  Fed.  Rep.  8.'U ;  Hen- 
nessy  V.  Hirrmann,  S't  Fed.  Rep 
669. 

,16 — This  provision  is  merely  in 
declarati<m  of  the  c<mimon  law. 
Sre  Act  of    1870.   8  SI,  antr. 


'I'KADK-MAICK    ACT    OK    MAKCll    .'{,    1881. 


547 


of  Patonts,  ])y  a  false  or  fraudulent  representation  or  doelaration, 
orally  or  in  writin*^,  or  l>y  any  fraudulent  means,  shall  be  liable 
to  pay  any  damajre  snistained  in  eons4'(iuenee  thereof  to  the 
injured  party,  to  he  rtMiovered  in  an  action  on  the  ciuse.-''^ 

Section  10.  That  nothitif,'  in  this  act  shall  prevent,  lessen, 
impeach  or  avoid  any  reiueily  at  law  or  in  e(juity  which  any 
I)ai'ty  aggrrieved  hy  any  wrongfful  use  of  any  trademark  might 
have  had  if  the  provisions  of  this  act  had  not  heen  passed. ^^^ 

Section  U.  That  nothing  in  this  act  shall  he  con.strued  ai 
unfavoral)ly  atfecting  a  claim  to  a  trademark  after  the  term  of 
regi.stration  shall  have  expired;  nor  to  give  cognizance  to  any 
court  of  the  Uniteil  States  in  an  action  or  suit  between  citizens 
of  the  same  state,  unless  the  trademark  in  controversy  is  used 
on  goods  intended  to  be  transported  to  a  foreign  country,  or  in 
lawful  commercial  intercourse  with  an  Indian  tribe. ^" 

Section  12.  That  the  Comtmi.ssioner  of  Patents  is  authorized 
to  make  rules  and  regulations  and  prescribe  forms  for  the  trans- 
fer of  the  right  to  use  trademarks  and  for  recording  such  trans- 
fers in  his  office."**^ 


37_See  Act  of    1870,   §  82,  ante. 

38— See  Act  of  1870,  §  83,  ante. 
''The  present  act  does  not  abridge 
or  qualify  the  common  law  right, 
but  by  tlie  express  term  of  sec.  10 
preserves  it  intact."  Wallace,  J., 
in  LaCroix  v.  ]May,  IT)  Fed.  Kep. 
236. 

39— See   Act  of    1870,   §  78,   ante. 

Where  both  parties  are  citizens 
of  the  same  state  the  averments 
of  the  complaint  must  show  that 
both  the  parties  are  using  tlie  mark 
in  commerce  witli  foreign  nations  or 
with  tlic  Indian  tribes.  Ryder  v. 
Holt,  128  U.  S.  .52.1,  32  L.  Ed.  r)20 ; 
Luyties  v.  HoUender  (1),  21  Fed. 
Rep.  281  ;  Schumacher  v.  Scliwenke. 
26  Fed.  Rep.  818;  Luyties 
V.     Hollender     (2),    30     Fed.     Rep. 


632;  Gravely  v.  Gravely,  42  Fed. 
Rep.  265;  Prince's  Metallic  Paint 
Co.  V.  Prince  Mfg.  Co.,  53  Fed 
Rep.  493.  Such  an  averment  is 
necessary  only  where  the  proceed- 
ing is  between  citizens  of  the 
.same  state.  It  is  not  necessary 
wliere  the  complainant  is  an  alien. 
Henncssy  v.  Braunsciiweiger,  89 
Fed.   Rep.   664. 

40— See  Act  of  1870,  §  81.  This 
section  provides  for  transfers  only 
being  registered.  An  instrument 
affecting  the  use  of  a  trademark, 
but  not  amounting  to  a  transfer  or 
assignment  thereof,  can  not  legally 
be  registered  in  the  Patent  Office. 
Waukesha  Springs  Co.  v.  Hygeia 
Water   Co.,    63    Fed.    Rep.    438-442. 


548 


APPENDIX    I>. 


Section  l:{.  That  citizens  aii«l  residents  of  this  countrj'  ^vis}l- 
iiip  the  i>n)tection  of  tnuliMuarks  in  any  fomjni  countn',  the 
laws  of  whii'li  nH]uin'  rej^istration  here  jus  a  condition  ])riM'o(lcnt 
to  jrettin^r  snch  prottH'tion  there,  nuiy  rejiister  their  trademarks 
for  that  pnrpose  as  is  al)ove  allowed  to  foreif?^ners.  and  have 
eertificate  thereof  from  the  ]*atent  Office.^' 


41 — ■Oiii-  rciulin^  tlu"  wction 
would  infor  that  foroiKiiors  havo 
lH«<'n  allowinl  iindtT  tho  procedin^' 
Mftions  »onn'  privilcjj*';  Imt  a 
«nn'ful  roadinj;  of  tlu*  net  failH 
to  disclose  tliat  a  forri^rncr  is  en- 
titled    to     ttuy     other     or     further 


ri)ilits  than  those  piven  to  citi- 
zens of  the  l'nit«'d  States.  The 
phrase  'as  is  ahove  allowed  to  for- 
eigners' renders  the  section  mean- 
ingless." Duell,  C'omtaissioncr,  in 
i:x  pnrtr   BufTiilo    Pitts  Co.,  89   Off. 


APPENDIX  E. 


TRADITMARK  ACT  OF  FEBRUARY  20,  1905. 

(:5n  stilt.  I..,  7-is.; 

SkctionI.  (AsanioTulcvmay  *,  190G,  ch.  2081,  34  Stat.  L. 
108 :  February  IS,  1!)()!),  <h.  144,  85  Stat.  L.  627.)  That  tlio  owner 
of  a  trademark  used  in  eonuuerce  with  foreign  nations,  or 
anion<;  tlie  several  state.s,  or  witli  Indian  trilx-s,  |>rovided  sueh 
owner  shall  bedoinieiled  within  the  territory  of  the  United  States, 
or  resides  in  or  is  located  in  any  forei^ni  countrv  whieh,  ])y  treaty, 
eonvention,  or  law,  affords  similai-  |>rivile<res  to  tlie  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  may  obtain  registration  for  such  trademark  by 
complying  with  tbe  following  requirements:  F'irst,  l>y  filing  in 
the  Patent  Ofnce  an  application  therefor,  in  writing,  addressed 
to  the  Commi.ssioner  of  I'atents,  signed  Tiy  the  applicant,  specify- 
ing his  name,  domicile,  location,  and  citizenship;  the  class  of  mer- 
chandise and  the  particular  description  of  goods  comprised  in 
such  class  to  which  the  trad.?mark  is  appropriated;  a  statement  of 
the  mode  in  which  the  same  is  applied  and  affixed  to  goods,  and 
the  length  of  time  during  which  the  trademark  has  been  used;  a 
description  of  the  trademark  itself  sliall  be  included,  if  desired  by 
the  applicant  or  reqnired  bv  the  Commissioner,  pro\nded  .snch  de- 
scription is  of  a  character  to  meet  the  approval  of  the  Commis- 
sioner. With  this  statement  shall  be  filed  a  drawing  of  the  trade- 
mark, signed  by  the  applicant,  or  his  attorney,  and  such  number 
of  specimens  of  the  tradeanark  as  actually  used  as  may  he  re- 
quired hy  the  Commissioner  of  Patents.  Second,  hy  pa>nng  into 
the  Trea.snry  of  the  United  States  the  sum  of  ten  dollars,  and 
otherwise  complying  with  the  requirements  of  thi.s  act  and  such 
regulations  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Patents. 

The  enactment  of  a  law  whose  provisions  should  extend  to  the 
owners  of  trademarks  used  in  interstate  commerce  was  inspired 
by  the  omission  of  such  a  provision  in  the  Act  of  1881.  Concern- 
ing that  a.,t,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Fuller  has  said,  that  "Obviously 

549 


O.')0  APPENDIX    K. 

tho  ai't  was  passml  in  view  of  thi'  iK-i-isioii  that  tlu'  prior  act  was 
unconstitutional,  and  it  is,  therefore,  strictly  liniitcd  to  lawful 
conuncrce  with  foreign  nations  and  with  Indian  tribes.  It  is 
only  tlu*  tradcnuirk  used  in  such  coiniiu'rce  that  is  adniitttnl  to 
re^'istration.  and  it  can  only  he  inrriny;ed  when  used  in  that 
eonniiert'c,  without  ri^ht.  hy  another  than  its  owiu'r."  ' 

Sec.  1  of  the  Act  of  ISSl  was  suhstantially  identical  with 
the  ahove  section  in  other  respe<*ts,  except  that  the  ahove  sec- 
tion retpjires  specinien.s  of  the  tradcnuirk  as  actually  used  to 
he  IiKm],  and  reduces  the  frovernnuMit  fee  from  twenty-five  dol- 
lars to  ti'U  dollars. 

Sec.  1  should  he  read  in  connection  with  the  followin^T  sec- 
tions of  the  Act  of  .May  4,  \WG,  34  Stat.  L.  1<!!): 

Sec.  2.  (Classes  of  merchandise  to  he  estahlisluxl.  etc.)  That 
the  Connnissioner  of  Patents  shall  estnhlish  classes  of  merchan- 
dise for  the  purpose  of  traileniark  retrist ration,  and  shall  deter- 
mine tlie  particular  descrij)tions  of  {joods  comprised  in  each 
class.  On  a  sinj^le  application  for  registration  of  a  trailemark 
the  trademark  may  he  rcpiistered  at  the  option  of  the  applicant 
for  any  or  all  -^'oods  upon  which  1h(*  mark  has  actually  been  used 
comprised  in  a  sinjile  class  of  merchandise,  jtrovided  the  particu- 
lar descriptions  of  poods  he  stated. 

Sec.  3.  (Rijrhts  of  trademarks  used  on  products  of  American 
factories.)  That  any  owTier  of  a  trademark  who  shall  have  a 
manufacturing  eMahlishnient  Avithin  the  territory  of  the  United 
States  shall  he  accorded,  so  far  as  the  repristration  and  protec- 
tion of  trademarks  used  on  the  jiroducts  of  such  estahlishinent 
are  concerned,  the  same  ri<:hts  and  privilcires  that  are  accorded 
to  owners  of  trademarks  domiciled  within  the  territoiy  of  the 
I'nited  States  ])y  the  act  entitled:  "An  act  to  authorize  the  rc{?- 
istration  of  trademarks  used  in  commerce  Avith  foreiini  nations 
or  among  the  several  states  or  with  Indian  trihes,  and  to  protect 
the  same."  Approved,  P\^hruary  twentieth,  nineteen  hundred 
and  five. 

Sec.  4.  (KITect.)  That  tliis  act  shall  take  elTcct  duly  first, 
nineteen  liundrcd  and  six. 

Form  or  a])prnranrc.  of  tncrrhavdisc  not  rcgistrahlr. — The 
structural  form  of  an  article  is  not  registrable  under  this  act, 
l)ecause  "a  trademark  registration  ♦  *  ♦  would  give  *  *  •  a 
jierpetual  monopoly.  The  Trademark  Act  can  not  he  used  as  an 
avenue  to  escape  the  limitations  of  the  jjatent  law."  Van  Orsdel, 
J.,  in  Iferz  v.  Loirrnstrin,  40  App.  D.  ('.  277;  102  O.  0.  903. 
"That  the  ap|»licant  can  have  no  trademark  in  the  form  or 
npfiearancc  fif  the  mercliandise  is  well  settle(l."  Allen,  Com.,  in 
AV  parte  Doihjr  Mfrj.  Co.,  12S  O.  (\.  2531,  C.  I).  1!)()7,  173. 

"Afpxpd  to  qno(h.** — The  afTixinn  required  hy  this  s(*ction  has 
been  interjjreted  to  be  of  such  character  as  to  definitely  associate 

l—Warner  v.  Soaric  and  Hon-th  Co.,  191  U.  S.  195,  204,  48  L.  Ed  147. 


TUADK.M  AKK  ACT  OF  KKUIU :  AKY  20,  lOO;"),  551 

llio  mark  u"itli  tho  froods.  "The  usual  dofinition  of  a  trademark 
iiK'ludtts  the  Ihiiifatioii  that  it,  must  he  'ntVixed'  to  the  i^oods. 
The  limits  of  tlu'  eoiiditions  whieli  will  satisl'y  this  requireriuait 
ai'e  not  very  clearly  deliiu-d  in  the  adju(li<wit(!d  euises  whieh  I 
have  heeii  able  to  find.  A  mark  in  very  (•omiiuiniy  applied  or 
aflfixed  to  the  goods  themsolves,  as  by  i)riiitiiif,',  eiit,'raviM«,',  or 
eml)OSNiii<?.  In  many  cases  it  is  impossihle  or  inconvenient  to 
adfix  the  mark  to  the  cominercial  article  itself,  as  in  the  ease  of 
li<piids.  powder,  etc..  and  in  these  cases  it  has  been  held  sufficient 
ordinai-ily  to  affix  the  mark  to  the  packaf,'es  in  whieh  the  poods 
are  sold.  It  lias  also  !)eeii  held  in  a  decision  by  Mr.  (.'omnnNsioner 
l>uell,  in  the  ease  of  //(ti)  d-  Todd  Mfg.  Co.  v.  (Querns  Bros.  {{].  D. 
181)0,  25;  ^Q,  O.  (J.  V.^2.^^)  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  attach  physi- 
cally the  lal)el  containinp:  the  mUrk  to  the  packafre.s  of  poods,  but 
that  it  is  sufficient  to  place  the  label  bearing  the  mark  in  the 
liackage  containing-  the  goods.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been 
held  that  a  mere  advertisement  of  the  goods  associated  with  a 
mark  is  not  such  a  usf»  of  the  mark  as  will  create  a  trademark 
right  (-87.  Louis  Piano  Mfg.  Co.  v.  MerkrI,  1  Mo.  App.  305; 
Ilazclton  Boiler  Co.  v.  Tripod  Boiler  Co.,  142  111.  4f)4 ;  Hartshorn 

IV.  Philhricl-,  C.  D.  1002,  427;  101  0.  G.  2077),  nor  the  use  of  a 
mark  in  ordering  goods  or  selling  them  to  customers  {Thompson 

V.  Montgomery,  6  R.  P.  C.  4€4) .  In  the  case  at  bar  the  mark  was 
Tiot  printed  or  impressed  upon  the  goods  sent  out  for  use,  for  this 
^^x)uld  have  rendered  theni  unfit  for  the  object  intended,  nor 
^y&s  the  mark  placed  on  the  packages  or  on  a  lalx?l  placed  in  the 
packages;  but  the  m-ark  was  plainly  printed  on  samples  of  the 
press-board  identical  in  all  respects  with  that  furnished  to  cus- 
tomers except  as  to  size.  These  samples  co\ild  not  be  put  into 
presses  and  used  in  the  way  press-1)oards  are  ordinarily  used ;  but 
they  could  be  otherwise  tested  as  to  color.  tJiickiiess,  quality, 
etc.,  so  that  persons  who  received  them  could  determine  the 
advisability  of  ordering  press-boards  of  the  quality  exhibited, 
and  when  so  ordered  and  the  orders  were  fille<l  could  determine 
whether  the  goods  furnished  u-^re  of  the  quality  of  the  sample. 
Thus  purchasers  were  able  to  definitely  associate  the  particubir 
mark  -with  a  particular  clasis  and  qualit.v  of  goods,  and  this  is 
believed  to  be  the  valid  requisite  to  the  estal)lishment  of  a  prop- 
erty right  in  a  mark.  In  Powell 's  ease  (66  L.  J.  Ch.  303) ,  Bowen, 
L.  J., said: 

"'The  function  of  a  trademark  is  to  give  an  indication  to 
the  purchaser  or  possible  purchaser  as  to  the  manufacture 
or  quality  of  the  goods,  to  give  an  indication  to  his  eye  of 
tbe  trade  source  from  which  the  goods  come,  or  the  trade 
hands  through  which  they  pass  on  their  way  to  the  market.' 

"By  placing  in  the  hands  of  the  public  samples  of  goods  with 
the  trademark  printed  thereon  it  is  believed  that  ^Murphey  & 


552  AITENUIX    E. 

CoinimiiN  liav»'  so  associated  tlu-  iiuirk  w  itli  the  jjoods  as  to  tell  the 
puhlK"  fn)m  what  soun'o  tlu-y  coiiu'  aiul  tluit  they  have  for  this 
reason  exelusive  rijjlit  to  tlic  use  thereof."  .Moore.  Com.,  in  Case 
Bros.  V.  Murphey  il  Co.,  C.  1).  liK)8,  lUG ;  1;{G  O.  (J.  225. 

Applirani's  right  to  claim  trademark  matter  free  from  acccs- 
sorie.'i. — That  tlie  applieant  is  under  no  eonipulsion  to  claim  as  a 
traiiemark  all  the  matter  shown  on  his  HpecinieiLs  or  fac-siniiles 
wouUl  .seem  si'lf-i'vuh'nt.  •'Wht-nan  applicant  presents  his  al- 
leged mark  for  registry  undi-r  the  Ait  approved  February  20, 
VJOo,  who  is  to  deteniiine  of  what  the  mark  consists?  If,  as  in 
tlie  present  ea.se.  the  mark  is  imprrs.si'tl  upon  a  label,  and,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  matter  claimed  as  the  trademark  l)y  an  applicant,  cer- 
tain aex-essories  are  shown,  i.s  the  power  vested  in  the  Commission- 
er of  Patents  to  .say  to  applicant,  you  must  descril>e  or  show  your 
mark  not  oidy  as  consisting  of  what  you  .say  it  is,  but  you  mas-t 
include  such  portion  of  the  acccss-ories,  or  parts  of  tiie  lal)el  as  I 
think  are  a  material  portion  of  the  mark,  although  you  may  think 
otherwise.  The  power  is  an  autocratic  one  and  its  possession  by 
the  Commi.ssioner  of  Patents  can  not  l)e  presumed  but  nnist,  we 
think,  be  set  forth  in  the  statute  with  reasonable  clearness.  •  •  • 
Xowliere  in  the  act  do  we  find  any  power  vested  in  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents  to  decide  for  the  applicant  the  scope  of  the 
trademark.  *  *  *  AVe  repeat  that  we  do  not  think  that  Congress  in- 
tended to  confer  upon  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  authority  to 
say  to  an  applicant  how  nvuch  or  how  little  of  the  etnbellishments 
appearing  in  connection  with  what  may  be  called  the  essential 
feature  of  a  trademark,  fonn  an  actual  part  of  the  trademark. 
Rather  do  we  think  that  this  right  of  .selection  and  designation 
rests  with  the  applicant.  No  general  rule  can  possibly  be  applied, 
and  where  this  is  the  case  it  is  unwise  to  attempt  to  e.xercise  a 
power  iu»t  expressly  vested  in  an  executive  office.  The  proper 
forum  for  the  decision  of  such  questions  is  the  courts,  where  each 
case  can  l)e  passed  upon  as  it  arises."  hi  re  Sfan/lard  Under- 
ground Cable  Co.,  27  App.  D.  C.  320,  123  0.  G.  656;  followed  in 
Graves  v.  Gunder,  136  O.  C.  227. 

Sjirrimru.'i. — ?"'ollowing  tliis  sec,tion.  Rule  22.  po.<?f.  requires  the 
filing  of  five  specimens  or  fac-similes  of  th(>  trademark  as  actually 
used.  If  the  Examiner  believes  that  the  specimi'ns  filed  do  not 
disclose  an  actual  use  of  the  trademark  he  may  refu.se  registration 
on  that  ground,  and  his  action  may  be  reviewed  l)y  append,  but 
not  by  petition.  /sV  jxtrtr  liarclay  t(-  Barvhvi.  I'U  O.  fj.  15(52.  So 
on  an  applieation  to  register  the  words  "Library  Slips"  as  a 
trademark  for  trading  coupons  the  sp«M'imens  showed  the  words 
in  a  nundter  of  places  (»n  the  cou|>(>n  but  always  in.cojnie<*tion  with 
other  words.  They  were  not  so  used  as  to  suggest  they  were  arbi- 
trary words  used  to  indicate  ori^n  or  ovMiership  of  the  coupons 


THADK.MAICK  ACT  <»K  FKUKI '  AUV  20,  1905.  553 

and  registration  was  tlierefore  (Iniiid.  1-Jx  [mrte  Magazine  d;  Rook 
Co.,  135  0.  G.  6G1. 

Copii  of  application  for  use  in  Jitifjation. — A  copy  of  the  file 
of  a  pendinjj^  or  abandoned  application  for  re^Mstration  will  not  be 
furnished  to  a  stran^^er  to  the  record  (•xcei)t  when  a  jiid^e  before 
wlioni  a  suit  is  pcndiiii;  certilies  that  a  copy  of  the  application 
would  be  material  and  ivlevant  for  the  party  requesting  the  same. 
In  re  John  C  Doinl  d  Co.,  C.  I).  1!»()S,  134;  134  O.  ii.  Vl'.H. 

Application  not  prima  facie  (  ride  nee  of  on-nersliip. —  In  aJi  op- 
position proceedinj^',  the  ai)plicant"s  application  is  wot  prima 
facie  evidence  of  ownership  of  the  mark.  Green,  Tweed  d;  Co.  v. 
Manufacturer's  Belt  Hook  Co.,  137  O.  (J.  2221. 

lieguitration  of  matter  formerly  copurighted. — "The  appellant 
further  ur^^es  that  re;4istration  should  not  be  granted  P'orbev  be- 
caus<>  he  has  registered  under  the  copyright  laws  a  lalxd  embody- 
ing his  present  trademiU'k.  It  is  urge<l  that  to  register  the  trade- 
mark now  would  be  to  e.vtend  the  monopoly  secured  by  tlie  copy- 
right registration  ajid  that  such  extension  would  be  contrary  to 
the  intent  of  the  law.  The  appellant  seeuLs  to  suppase  that  the 
same  principle  is  involved  aa  that  underlying  the  decisions-  of 
the  courts,  to  tlie  elfect  that  the  name  given  to  a  patented  article 
is  public  property  after  the  expiration  of  the  patent.  I  can  not 
agree  that  the  principle  applies.  Copyrights  and  trademarks  are 
separate  and  distinct  rights,  and  the  trademark  is  not  the  m^re 
name  of  the  copyrighted  picture.  Tt  is  the  symbol  by  which  the 
goods  are  known.  Others  may  take  the  pititure  and  call  it  what 
they  please  after  the  expiration  of  the  copyright  and  nvay  adopt 
it  as  a  trademark  for  goods.  The  registrant  ha«  an  equal  right 
with  others  in  that  respect.  If.  as  here,  he  adopts  it  a<?  a  trade- 
mark for  particular  goods,  others  may  not  adopt  and  use  it  for 
the  same  goods  unless  they  were  fii'st  in  the  field."  Allen.  Com., 
in  Rosenzn-eig  v.  Forbes,  121  0.  G.  2667;  C.  D.  1906,  155. 

A.mgnnient  of  trademark — Re-registration  by  assignee. — The 
rights  under  a  registration  being  transferable,  it  is  not  necessary 
for  the  assignee  to  re-register  in  his  own  name,  as  was  formerly 
held  in  Ex' parte  Bnssett,  55  0.  G.  997;  C.  D.  1S91,  69.  which  is 
now  overruled.  Frank  d'  Gntmann  v.  McWilliam;  114  0.  G.  542; 
C.  D.  1905,  17. 

Appliration — Signature. — The  signature  to  the  drawing  and 
the  statement  must  correspond  exactly.  Ex  parte  Boston  Foun- 
tain Pen  Co.,  116  0.  G.  2531 ;  C.  D.  1905,  225. 

Application — Description. — As  sec.  1  requires  "a  description 
of  the  trademark  itself"  as  well  as  a  drawing,  a  reasonably  def- 
inite description  of  the  mark  i«  required.  Ex  parte  Carborundum 
Co.,  118  0.  G.  2250;  C.  D.  1905,  433. 


554  APPENDIX  i:. 

Applic'ation — "One  fradcmark  riijht"  rule. — One  application 
can  rn)t  oiiil)rai'e  itiMus  of  nu'ri'luiiulisc  jiot  of  tlio  same  dcsi-riptive 
properties.  Kx  parte  Harris,  117  O.  G.  \K)^;  C.  1).  IDOo.  'J.V).  A  re- 
ipiimiu'iit  of  division  inatle  on  this  ground  is  in  ctTiH-t  a  rejection 
for  the  reason  tliat  tlic  application  "covers  more  than  one  trade- 
mark rijiht ;"  the  ai-tioii  of  tlie  Ivxaminer  is  revie\val)le  hy  appeal, 
and  not  np(»n  pi-titioii.  A'.r  ]>art(  Kinfidii  I'tKhiiu/  Assn.,  lilt  ().  (i. 
2*J:{4;  ('.  I).  15105,  538.  See  sec.  2,  Act  of  May  4.  I'.tOC),  :U 
Stat.  L.  IGl),  supra. 

Application — Agreement  Ixtween  drauiug  an>l  (l< scriplion. — 
There  mnst  be  no  inconsistency  between  the  drawiiit;  and  the 
dest-ription,  even  tliou^di  tiie  variance  is  trillinp.  A  word  hyphen- 
ated in  the  drawing  mnst  be  so  written  in  the  description.  Kx 
parte  Athins  d-  Co.,  110  O.  G.  22:^6;  ('.  D.  1905.  544. 

Sectio.v  2.  (As  amended  February  IS,  1000.  ch.  144,  35  Stat. 
L.  r»27.)  That  the  application  prescribed  in  the  forefioinj;  section, 
in  order  to  create  any  riirhl  wliatever  in  favor  of  the  jiarty  filing 
it.  nnist  1)e  accompanied  by  a  written  declaration  verified  by  the 
ap])licant.  or  by  a  member  of  the  firm  or  an  officer  of  the  corpora- 
tion or  association  applyin<r.  to  the  elTect  that  the  applicant  be- 
lieves hiiiuself  or  the  firm.  (H)rporation,  or  assoi'iation  in  whasc  be- 
half he  makes  the  api>lication  to  be  the  owner  of  the  trademark 
soiieht  to  be  regristered.  and  tiiat  no  other  i^erson,  firm,  corpora- 
tion, or  association,  to  the  best  of  th(^  applicant's  knowled'jre  and 
belief,  has  the  ripbt  to  use  such  trademark  in  the  T"'nite(l  States, 
either  in  the  identical  form  or  in  ^uch  Ticar  resemblance  thereto 
as  miirlit  be  calculated  to  dec(-ive:  that  such  trademark  is  used  in 
commen-e  amoncr  the  several  states,  or  with  forcij:rn  nations,  or 
with  Imlian  tribes,  and  that  the  description  and  drawing  pre- 
sented tr\dy  represent  the  trademark  sou<:bt  to  he  repristered.  If 
the  applicant  resides  or  i.^:  located  in  a  foreign  country,  the  state- 
ment refpiire(i  shall,  in  addition  to  the  foregoing,  set  forth  that 
the  trademark  has  been  registered  by  the  applicant,  or  that  an  ap- 
plication for  the  registration  thereof  has  been  filed  by  him  in  tlie 
foreign  country  in  which  he  resides  or  is  located,  and  shall  give 
the  date  of  such  registration,  or  the  application  thereof,  as  the 
case  may  be,  except  that  in  the  application  in  such  cases  it  shall 
not  "be  neces.sars'  to  state  that  the  mark  has  been  used  in  coTiimerce 
with  the  TTnited  States  or  among  the  .states  thereof.  The  verifi- 
cation ref|uired  by  this  sectiotwnav  he  made  before  any  person 
within  the  United  States  authorized  by  law  to  admini.ster  oaths,  or. 


TKADKM  AKK     ACT    OK    KKMKI "  AKY    20,    lfJ05.  555 

wlicn  llic  ;ii»pli(iant  rcsidos  in  a  forei^  country,  before  any  minis- 
ter, chanjc  d'affaires,  counsel,  or  commercial  agent  holding  com- 
mission under  the  (Jovernment  of  the  United  States,  or  hefore  any 
notary  pui)li(',  judj^'e,  or  majristrate  havinj,'  an  oftieial  s<-^il  and  au- 
thorized to  administer  oaths  in  tlie  forei^Mi  country  in  \diich  the 
appli''ant  may  he  uhose  authority  shall  he  i)roved  l)y  a  c(;rtificate 
ui'  a  diplomatic  or  consular  oHiccr  of  the  United  States. 
/• 

This  sectioji  emhraeos  the  matter  included  in  see.  2  of  the 
Act  of  1S81,  with  adclitional  provision.s  comx-rning  the  require- 
ments of  the  .statements  to  he  made  hy  a  H'sident  of  a  foreign 
country. 

"Statement/'  refers  not  to  the  particular  doeuiiicnt  which  is 
ordinarily  termed  the  ".statement"  of  the  ai)[)lication,  l)ut  to  all 
the  facts  set  forth  by  the  applicant  in  the  declaration.  Ex  parti 
Konigliches  llofhrauam  cO  Munchen,  14G  0.  G.  720. 

Section  3.  That  every  applicant  for  registration  of  a  trade- 
mark, or  for  renewal  of  registration  of  a  trademark,  who  is  not 
domiciled  within  the  United  States,  shall,  before  the  issuance  of 
the  certificate  of  registration,  a.s  hereinafter  provided  for,  desig- 
nate, by  a  notice  in  writing,  filed  in  the  Patent  Office,  some  person 
residing  within  the  United  States  on  whom  process  or  notice  of 
proceedings  afTecting  the  right  of  ownership  of  the  trademark  of 
w'hich  .such  applicant  may  claim  to  be  the  owTier,  brought  under 
the  provisions  of  this  act  or  under  other  laws  of  the  United  States, 
may  be  served,  with  the  same  force  and  efTect  as  if  served  upon 
the  applicant  or  registrant  in  p(M'son.  For  the  purposes  of  this  act 
it  shall  be  deemed  sufficient  to  serve  such  notice  upon  such  appli- 
cant, registrant,  or  representative  by  leaving  a  copy  of  such  pro- 
cess or  notice  addressed  to  him  at  the  last  address  of  "which  the 
Com,missioner  of  Patents  has  been  notified. 

This  section  is  new  and  made  desirable  by  the  provisions  of  sec. 
2  jH'oviding  foi-  tlu^  registration  of  marks  by  persons  domi- 
ciled in  foreign  countries.  Tn  the  manner  indicated,  effective  .ser- 
vice can  be  had  in  case  suit  is  in.stituted  involving  the  mark  regis- 
tered. 

The  designation  of  a  resident  in  the  Uniteil  States  required  by 
this  section  must  be  made  by  the  foreign  applicant :  the  authority 
to  make  such  desitrnation  can  not  be  delegated  to  an  attorney. 
Ex  parte  E.  ^Vertheimcr  &  Cie.,  132  0.  G.  679. 


550  APPENDIX    K. 

Section  4.  Thnt-nn  nppHoalioii  for  rogistration  of  a  tradoniark 
filfd  in  thist'ouiitry  Ity  any  iutsdii  wlio  has  pn-viously  ivf^iilarly 
tilt'il  in  any  foivi^n  rountry  whirli.  l)y  treaty.  conviMition.  or  law, 
affords  similar  privili'nt's  to  oitizcns  of  tin-  liiittd  States.  ;in  ap- 
plication for  ri'jrist ration  of  tlu'.sanw  tradi-iiiark  sliall  lie  accorded 
the  same  force  and  elTect  as  uould  he  accordetl  to  the  same  appli- 
cation if  filed  in  this  country  on  the  date  on  which  a|>plication  for 
rejristration  of  tlu'  same  trademark  was  lirst  lilt;d  in  such  foreiirn 
country:  Provided,  That  such  application  is  Hied  in  this  country 
within  four  months  from  the-  date  on  whicK  the  application  wns 
first  filed  in  such  foreifju  country:  And  provided.  That  certifi- 
cate of  reiiistration  shall  not  ho  i.ssued  for  any  nuirk  for  ropi.stra- 
tion  of  wliich  appliitition  has  hoon  filed  hy  an  applicant  located  in 
a  foreipru  country  until  such  mark  has  heen  actually  reg:istered 
)>y  the  applicant  in  the' country  in  whicli  he  is  located. 

This  section  is  new  in  the  present  act.  and  is  intended  for  the 
protection  of  ap|)licants  who  have  previously  filed  an  application 
for  registration  in  a  forei^ni  country  wherein  recif)rocal  privilcfjes 
are  extended  to  citizens  of  the  I'nited  States.  Its  provisions  are 
in  furtherance  of  Article  4  of  the   International  Convention. 

"Art.  4.  Anyone  who  shall  have  regularly  deposited  an  appli- 
cation for  a  *  *  *  trade  or  counnercial  nuirk  in  one  of  the  con- 
tracting? states  shall  enjoy  for  the  purpose  of  makinf?  the  deposit 
in  the  other  states,  and  uiuler  reserve  of  the  ri;?hts  of  third  par- 
ties, a  rifrht  of  priority  durin<r  the  perio»ls  hereinafter  deter- 
mined. 

■'In  eon.secpu'iice,  the  deposit  sulisecpiently  made  in  one  of  the 
other  states  of  the  Union  hefore  the  expiration  of  these  periods 
can  not  he  invalidated  hy  acts  perfornu'd  in  the  interval,  especi- 
ally hy  another  deposit.  •  •  •  hy  the  employment  of  the  mark. 

"The  [Periods  of  priority  ahove  mentioned  shall  he  •  •  •  three 
months  for  trade  or  conuiiercial  mai-ks.  They  shall  he  augmented 
hy  one  Jiionth  for  countries  heyond  the  seas." 

Section  T).  (As  amended  "Manli  'J.  T.»07.  di.  'jr)7;?.  :U  Stat.  L. 
1251  :  Fehruary  IS.  1!)11,  :{(>  Stat.  L.  JUH;  .lanuary  S.  l!)l;i.  ch.  7, 
M  Stat.  L.  VA'.l)  That  no  mark  hy  which  the  ^'oods  of  the 
owner  of  the  mark  may  he  distin^ruished  from  other  proods  of  tlie 
same  class  shall  he  refused  registration  as  a  trademark  on 
account  of  the  nature  of  such  mark  uidess  such  mark — 

"  (a)  Consists  of  or  comprises  inwnoral  or  scandalous  matter. 


TRADKMAKK    ACT   OK    KKUIU'AUY    20,    1005.  557 

"  (h)   Consists  of  or  coinpriscs  tlio  flaj?  or  coat  of  arms  or  other 
insignia  of  tlie  United  States  or  any  simulation  tli(!rcof,  or  of  any 
state  or  municipality  or  of  any  foreign  nation,  or  of  any  design  or 
picture  that  has  been  or  may  hereafter  he  adopted  hy    any    fra- 
ternal society  a.s  its  emblem,  or  of  any  name,  distinguishing  mark, 
character,  emblem,  colors,  flag,  or  bainier  adopted  by  any  insti- 
tution, organization,  club,  or  society  which  was  incor{)orated    in 
any  state  in  the  United  States  prior  to  the  date  of  the  adoption 
and  use  by  the  applicant :  Provided,  That  said  name,  distinguish- 
ing iiKirk,  cliaracter,  emblem,  colors,  flag,  or  banner  was  adopted 
and  publicly  used   by    .said    in.stitution,   organization,    club,    or 
society  prior  to  the  date  of  adoption  and  use  by  the  applicant: 
Provided,  That  trademarks  which  are  identical  with  a  registered 
or  known  trademark  owned  and  in  use  by  another  and  appro- 
priated to  merchandise  of  the  same    descriptive    properties,    or 
which  so  nearly  resemble  a  registered  or  known  trademark  owned 
and  in  use  by  another  and  appropriated  to  merchandise  of  the 
same  descriptive  properties  as  to  be  likely  to  cause  confusion  or 
mistake  in  the  mind  of  the  public  or  to  deceive  purchasers  shall 
not  be  registered :  Provided,  That  no  mark  which  consists  merely 
in  the  name  of  an  individual,  firm,  corporation,  or  a.ssociation"  not 
written,  printed,  impressed,  or  woven  in  some  particular  or  dis- 
tinctive manner,  or  in  association  with  a  portrait  of  the  indi- 
vidual, or  merely  in  words  or  devices  which  are  descriptive  of  the 
goods  with  which  they  are  used,  or  of  the  character  or  quality  of 
such  goods,  or  merely  a  freogray)hical  name  or  term,  shall  be  regis- 
tered under  the  terms  nf  this  act :  Provided  further,  That  no  por- 
trait of  a  living  individual  may  he  registered  as  a  trademark 
except  by  the  consent  of  such  individual,  evidenced  hv  an  instru- 
ment in  writing:  Aitd  provided  further.    That    nothing    herein 
shall  prevent  the  registration  of  any  mark  used  hy  the  applicant 
or  his  predecessors,  or  hy  those  from  whom  title  to  the  mark  is 
derived,  in  commerce  with  foreign  nations  or  amnncr  the  several 
states  or  with  Indian  tribes  which  was  in    actual    and    exclusive 
use  as  a  trademark  of  the  applic^ant,  or  his  predeces«!ors  from 
whom  he  derived  title,  for  ten  years  next  preceding  Febmary 
twentieth,  nineteen  hundred  and  five:  Provided  further.  That 
nothing  herein    shall    prevent   the   reei^tration    nf  a   trademark 
otherwise  registrable  because  of  its  being  the  name  of  the  appli- 
cant or  a  portion  thereof." 


558  APPKNnix  R. 

Tho  Conmiitti'o  on  rnlcnls  of  the  House  of  Kopreseiitutivos, 
in  tlu'ir  report  recoinnu'iuling  the  passage  of  the  act,  said  in 
n'lemu'e  to  this  section: 

"In  the  past  there  has  heen  eonsiderahle  eoniphiiiit  in  repird 
to  what  eoiiM  l)e  registered  un(h'r  the  existing;  law  as  a  trade- 
mark. Muih  of  the  time  of  the  c-ommittee  in  tlie  hearing;  of  tlie 
hill  hi\s  heen  consnmt'd  in  a  disenssion  upon  this  partieidar  fea- 
ture of  the  lejiislation.  See.  f)  of  the  proposed  l)ill,  we  hulit^'ve, 
will  permit  the  registration  of  all  nu»rks  whieh  eould,  under  the 
tommon  law  as  expouniled  hy  the  eourt.s,  he  the  sul)jiH.'t  of  a 
trademark  and  heeome  the  exelusive  property  of  the  party  using 
the  same  as  hi.s  trademark. 

"The  lan^'ua^'e  of  see.  f)  is  taken  almost  verl)atim  from  see.  5 
of  the  hill  propcvscd  hy  .Mr.  Ai'thur  I*.  (Jrecley.  as  eontained  in 
the  report  of  the  Commissioners  appointed  to  revise  the 
statutes  relating  to  patents,  trade  and  other  marks,  and  trade 
and  commercial  names,  under  the  Act  of  Coni^rcss,  approved 
June  4,  1898.  Full  protection  is  given  by  the  court,  uniler  the 
doctrine  of  unfair  competition,  to  the  users  of  such  marks  as  do 
not.  under  the  common  law,  constitute  teeimieally  what  is  known 
as  a  trademark,  and  which  can  become  the  subject  of  exclusive 
own<'rship.  Hy  other  sections  of  the  bill,  to  Mhich  attention 
will  be  called  later,  provision  is  nuuie  for  an  appeal  from  the 
decision  of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  to  the  District  Court 
of  the  District  of  Colum])ia  from  a  decision  refusing  the  regis- 
tration of  a  trademark.  By  tliese  provisions  of  the  l)ill  it  would 
seem  that  there  could  not  he  a  conflict  of  decisions,  al)out  which 
so  much  complaint  has  been  made  in  the  past.  Through  the 
decisions  of  the  courts  a  uniform  system  and  uniform  rules  gov- 
erning and  controlling  the  registration  of  marks  will  in  time  be 
adopted. 

"A  provi.so  has  been  added  pernntting  all  marks  that  have  been 
in  actual  use  as  trademarks  for  a  period  of  ten  vears  to  be  regis- 
tered." 

See  the  Act  of  August  5,  1882 : 

"That  nothing  contained  in  the  law  entitled  'An  act  to 
authorize  the  recistration  of  trademarks  and  protect  the  same.' 
approved  March  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  eiehty-one,  shall 
prevent  the  registry  of  any  lawful  trademark  rightfully  nsed  by 
the  api)licant  in  foreign  commerce  or  commerce  with  Indian 
tribes  at  the  time  of  the  passflge  of  said  act." 

This  act  is  ba«e('  on  the  provisions  of  the  British  trademark 
law  in  reference  to  what  are  knowii  as  "old  marks";  that  is. 
marks  in  n.«5e  prior  to  the  date  of  the  pa-ssage  of  the  first  law 
which  provided  for  registration  of  trademarks  and  define<l 
what  should  be   registrable   as   trademarks.     This  provision    is 


TKADKM  AltK    ACT   OF    FEBIIUAKY    20,    1905.  559 

found  in  sec.  04  ul"  tlie  Patents,  etc.,  Acts,  1883-1888,  and  is  aa 
follows: 

"  (3)      I'rovided  as  follows: 
•  ••••••• 

"(ii)  Any  s{)ecial  and  distinctive  word  or  words,  letter, 
fiffurc,  or  ccniihinalion  of  letters  or  fif,'ure.s  or  of  letters  and 
figures,  used  as  a  trademark  before  the  tiiirteenth  day  of  Auf^ust, 
on(!  thousand  ei^'lit  hundred  and  seventy-five,  may  he  regis- 
tered as  a  trailemark  under  this  ])art  of  this  act." 

*'iS'o  nearly  resemble." — The  test  is  whether  "the  applicant's 
mark  so  nearly  rescnfhles  the  registered  trademarks  cited  as  to  he 
likely  to  cause  confusion  in  the  mind  of  the  pui)lic  and  to  deceive 
j)urehasers. "  ^Moore,  (^om.,  in  Kx  parte  iSatzinan  d*  Fur  man,  K54 
().  (i.  2:243.  '"J'he  j)uri)ose  of  the  act  was  to  protect  and  not  to 
deceive  the  puhlrc.  The  language  used  empowers  the  Commis- 
sioner to  exercise  his  di.screti'on  as  to  whether  a  proposed 
mark  should  he  registered,  if  in  his  opinion  its  registration  will 
'be  likely  to  cause  confusion  or  mistake  in  the  mind  of  the  pub- 
lic' or  'deceive  purchasers,'  he  is  bound  to  reject  it."  Kobb,  J., 
in  He  S.  ('.  Ilcrbst  Iwporting  Co.,  30  App.  D.  C.  297,  134  0.  C. 
1565.  "We  agree  witli  the  Commissioner  that  the  resemblance 
is  such  as  to  produce  the  confusion  in  trade  which  it  is  the  ob- 
ject of  the  Trademark  Act  to  prevent."  Shepard,  C.  J.,  in  Re 
Indian  Portland  Cement  Co.,  30  App.  D.  C.  463,  134  0.  G.  518. 

^  ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Under  this  section  the  following  marks  sought  to  be  registered 
have  been  refused  registration  because  of  the  prior  use  of  the 
marks  set  opposite  them. 

The  Mark.  The  Prior  Mark. 

"AA."  "AI."2 

"American  Lady."  "American  Girl."^ 

"Autola."  "Au-to-do."-» 

"Chewies."  "Chewso."^ 

' '  Chlologe-stin. "  " Clologen. ' '  « 

' '  Creo-Carbolin. "  " Carbolineum. ' '  ^ 

"Dyspepticide."  "Dyspepticure."  ^ 

' '  Edelweiss-Maltine. "  "  Maltine. ' '  » 

2 — Cravor's    Sons    v.    Conklin    &  fi — Breitonhaoh    &    Stronf^   Co.    v. 

Sons,   1(5.T  O.  O.  241.  Rosenborg.  107  O.  C.  7(5.3. 

3— Wolf  Bros.  &  Co.  v.  Hamilton-  7— In   re    Barrott    Mfg.    Co.,    1G7 

Brown  Shoe  Co.,  125  0.  G.  667.  O.   G.   rA3. 

A— Ex  parte  J.   Fred  Wilcox  Co.,  8 — Ex  parte  Foley   &   Co.,    87   0. 

\^Z  0.  G.  546.  G.  1957. 

5 — Ex   parte   Mclnnerney,    85   O.  9 — Peter  Schoenhofen  Brew.  Co.  v. 

G.  148.  Maltine  Co.,   1.34  0.  G.   1804. 


560 


Ari'ENDlX    K. 


The  Mark. 
"Floroilora." 
••Green  Ribbon.' 
"IjH    Voiia." 
" Maple  U'af." 
"  Navjivsctt. "" 
"OKI  Duteh." 
"Olivoint." 
"Oninaline." 
"Piano-Aiito." 
"Powellton." 
"Sunshine." 


Tin    I' nor  Mark. 
"Floriilena."  "* 
"(Jrecn  River."  «' 
"Laroiia."  '- 
"Silver  Leaf."  '^ 
"Na.ssae."  •* 
"Royal  Dutch."  '» 
"Oliveiiie."  •" 
"Omnia."  •' 
"  Autopiano."  '" 
"Powell's  Run."  '» 
"Sunl>raiii."=" 


Efjcct  of  ronihiniiig  iwti-rr(jistrnl)lc  nords.  To  eojubine  two 
or  more  words,  each  of  which  i.s  non-registrable,  does  not  make 
the  eombination  registrable. 

H.Lr.STR.VTIONS. 

"Lexington  Club,"  whiskey.  Kcniuckn  Distill  cries  t(-  Ware- 
house Co.  r.  Old  Lexington  Club  Distilleries  Co.,  'M  App.  D.  C. 
223.  135  O.  G.  220;  "Toledo  Premium,"  dry  goods.  Ex  parte 
Leiris  d  Co.,  66  MSS.  Dec.  21i>,  VM)S  Com.  Dec.  170;  "America's 
Strength,"  coffee,  Ex  parte  Mejier  Bros.  Coffee  «.(•  S.  Co.,  1.3;")  O.  G. 
893;  "Rust?  Never!"  hooks  and  eyes,  Ex  parte  De  Long  Hook 
d-  Eije  Co.,  128  0.  G.  885. 

''Mi^hravdiug''  {within  the  inea)ting  of  the  Foo<l  and  Drugs 
Act)  as  a  bar  to  registration. — The  Food  and  Drugs  Act  of  June 
30,  1906.  contains  the  following  provision:  "Sec.  S.  That  the 
term  'niisbranded'  as  used  herein  shall  apply  to  all  drugs,  or 
articles  of  food,  or  articles  which  enter  into  the  composition  of 
food,  the  package  or  label  of  which  shall  bear  any  st^itement, 
design,  or  device  regarding  such  article,  or  the  ingredients 
or  substances  contained  tliercin  which  shall  be  false  or  mis- 
leading   in  any    particular,  and   to   any   food   or   drug   product 


10 — A'j  partr  CniHsmith,  1(»0  <). 
G.   217.-.. 

11 — Lan^'  V.  (Jrc-i'n  River  Dist. 
Co.,    148   O.   G.   280. 

12 — Ft  pnrtr  N.umaii,  l.'.O  O.  G. 
n03. 

13 — /;«  p'trtr  \,>i!i\  ii  S(in.  !>!)  (). 
G.    2.T2I. 

14 — Fx  pnrtr  I5rn\vn  A  Co.,  U.J  <  t. 
('..  r,(i\. 

Ifi — Kx  pnrtr  Dayton  Spict-  Milln, 
la-l  O.  G.  893. 


IC— /vj-  parte  Cross.  C.  D.  1007, 
12.-.;     128   O.    G.    iry'^. 

17 — Kx  parte  Niclmlaiis,  1(>1  (">. 
G.    208. 

18 — Hx  parte  Auto  Grninl  Piano 
("o.,     IT)-)    O.    G.    307. 

in — t'x  parte  Mt.  Carlxin  Co., 
l.-.O   O.    G.    828. 

20 — /■'x  parte  Aunt  in,  Nicholrt  A: 
Co..    107   O.  G.  981. 


THADKMAICK    ACT    OK    IKUKLAUY    20,    lOOf).  HGl 

wliicli  is  falsely  hraiidod  as  to  the  state,  territory,  or  counlry 
ill  wliieli  it  is  iiiainiractured  or  produced."  it  has  been  held 
that,  "it  is  iiiiMiiiil)eiit  upon  the  Patent  ()fli<-e  in  eonsiijer- 
iiij,'  the  registrability  of  t  rade'iiiarks  to  eo-operate  with  the  other 
departments  of  the  (jioverninent  in  the  ohservaiiee  of  the  provi- 
sions of  this  aet,  and  to  that  end  it  is  tiie  duty  of  the  Examiner 
of  Trademarks  to  refuse  to  register  a  mark  when  in  his  oi)iriion 
statements  are  contaiiu'd  in  the  label  presente(i  which  fall  under 
the  cate^'ory  defined  as  'misbranded'  in  the  Food  and  Drugs  Act 
above  referred  to."  Moore,  Com.,  in  /vx  inute  liarrlan  d  Bnr- 
cloy,  ('.  U.  11)08,  lo4,  lAo  ().  (J.  217. 

False  reprcsextation  on  labels  a  bar  to  retjistration. — "It  was 
the  purpase  of  the  act  to  protect  honest  manufacturers  and  deal- 
ers because  in  so  doing  the  public  would  in  turn  be  protected. 
It  was  not  the  purpose  of  the  act  to  recognize  the  right  of  any 
person,  firm,  or  corporation,  to  deceive  the  public  by  the  use  of 
a  deceptive  mark.  In  other  words,  the  Oovernment  will  not 
•become  a  party  to  a  fraud."  Kobb,  J.,  in  Levy  lO  To.  v.  Uri, 
31  App.  D.  C.  441,  185  0.  G.  1363. 

('o)ifroUiug  and  (listingHishing  feature  Diust  he  registrable. — 
That  the  controlling  ami  distinguishing  feature  must  be  registra- 
ble, or  the  mark  as  a  whole  will  not  be  registered,  see  In  re 
Crescent  Tupeirriter  Supply  Co.,  30  App.  D.  C.  324,  133  0.  G. 
231;  In  re  Hopkins.  29  App.  D.  C.  118,  128  0.  G.  800;  Ex  parte 
Union  Carbide  Co..  135  0.  G.  160. 

"Descriptive  of  the  goods.''— ''The  Aet  of  IDO.l,  chapter  84, 
sec.  5,  only  declared  the  accepted  law  of  trademarks  when  it  pro- 
hibited tlie  registration  of  marks  which  consists— 'merely  in 
words  or  devices  which  are  descriptive  of  the  goods  with  which 
they  are  used,  or  of  the  character  of  such  goods.' 

"The  general  proposition  was  well  established  that  words 
merely  descriptive  of  the  character,  qualities  or  composition  of 
an  article  or  of  the  place  where  it  was  manufactured  or  produced, 
could  not  be  monoi)olized  as  a  trademark."  McComas,  J.,  in  Re 
National  Phonograph  Co.,  C.  D.  1907,  550,  128  0.  G.  1295. 

Examples  of  inarhs  held  non -registrable  because  descriptive. — 
"No-rip."  harness  sweat-pads.  Ex  parte  Crescent  Mfg.  Co.. 
C.  D.  1901.  160,  97  0.  G.  750:  "Felt-less."  harness  sweat-pads, 
Ex  parte  McClain,  C.  D.  1902.  185.  99  0.  G.  2101;  '-Rust? 
Never!"  hooks  and  eyes,  Ex  parte  DcLong  TJooh  cO  E]ie  Co.,  128 
0.  G.  885;  "Standard."  phonographs.  In  re  Xational  Phono- 
graph Co.,  C.  D.  1907,  550.  128  0.  G.  1295;  "Fits-U."  eye 
glasses  and  spectacle  frames  Cmere  mis-spelling  of  "fits  yon"). 
Ex  parte  American  Optical  Co.,  C.  D.  1908.  102.  133  O.  G.  1935; 
"Hold  On."  clutches  for  hat-pins.  Ex  parte  Goldsmith  iC  Co.. 
C.  D.  1908,  104,  133  0.  G.  1935.     "Asb€stos,"  shoes  made  of 


6J  APPENDIX    K. 

loatluT  an«l  asbestos.  ('.  1).  TJOS.  111.  liU  O.  (i.  li.jT  ;  'Mountjiin 
Dew."  whiskey,  C.  I).  11»U8.  117,  i;U  O.  0.  513;  *' Health 
Fo<mI.*'  I»rea(l  and  craekers.  Itattle  Creek  Sanitarium  Co.  v. 
Fuller.  :U)  App.  D.  C.  411,  VM  O.  (J.  l'J!»i»;  "Library  Slip," 
tratlinj:  coupons,  h'.r  parte  M<i4fa:ine  &  llouk  Co.,  C.  D.  l!KJ8, 
1G;<.  l:{r>  O.  (J.  litn  ;  "Nfxtolu'i'r."  non-intoxifatini,'  malt  tlriiik, 
Ej  parte  Cetitrnl  Consumers  Co..  C  D.  liKIS,  iStl.  l:};')  O.  O. 
1581;  "Silver  Dip,"  silver  cleanser,  Kx  ixirte  Cobb  Mf<j.  Co., 
C.  D.  i;»08,  G,  132  O.  G.  233;  "Circular  Loom,"  insulatiiiff  tube 
partly  woven  on  a  circular  loom,  //*  rr  American  Circular  Loom 
Co.,  l\  I).  11K)7,  481,  127  0.  G.  3!)3 ;  "Dull  Black."  hooks  and 
eyes.  Fs  parte  De  Loun  Ilooh  <(•  Eye  Co.,  C.  D.  11)07.  131).  128 
d.  G.  12!n  ;  "I'nion,"  bedplates.  Ex  parte  Sacks.  ('.  1).  l!)()7, 
inO.  128  O.  (].  2r.30;  "Kat  His-Kit."  rat  poison.  E.r  parte  Rat 
liiseuit  Co..  ('.  D.  1JI()7.  241,  1:{()  O.  (i.  3(M);  "Nutty  Corn." 
confection  made  of  luits  and  corn.  E.r  parte  Shenkberg  Co.,  132 
O.  G.  l(>7:i;  "Apple  k  Honey."  coufrh  remedy  containing 
cider  lirandy  anc!  honey.  E.r  fKirtc  JfeuJiIein  tC*  Co.,  87  O.  G.  179; 
"Self-Loadinp."  cartridges,  mnchester  liepcatimi  Arms  Co.  v. 
Peters  Cartridqe  Co..  C.  D.  1!)08.  401,  30  App.  1).  C.  505.  134 
O.  G.  2030;  "Hestok."  toilet  paper  (mis-spellin<;  of  "best  stock"), 
Ej  parte  Scott  Paper  Co..  137  O.  G.  14S2.  C.  D.  liK)8,  254; 
"Purity."  peanuts,  Ex  parte  Taylor  li-  Co..  114  O.  G.  !)72.  C.  D. 
1;H)5,  38;  "  Worthn'.ore,"  shoes,  Ex  parte  Block  Bros.  Clothing 
Co.,  124  0.  G.  1521.  G.  D.  1906,  357;  "Catarrhal  Jelly." 
medicine.  Ex  parte  Kcnyon,  124  0.  G.  2001,  C.  D.  1906,  411. 

Examples  of  marks  held  non-regisfrahle  because  geographi- 
cal.— The  registration  of  geographical  terms  is  .strictly  prohibited 
by  sec.  5.  In  re  Jloukins.  29  App.  I).  C.  118,  128  0.  G.  890,  C.  D. 
1907,  549. 

ILLUSTRATIONS. 

"Oriental,"  tvjx'writcr  ril>bon.  In  re  Crescent  Ti/pewriter 
Supply  Co..  30  App.  I).  C.  324,  133  O.  G.  231,  C.  D.  1908,  318; 
"O/ark,"  overalls,  Ex  parte  Kcct  d-  liountree  D.  G.  Co..  115  O.  G. 
1849,  C.  D.  1905,  134;  "Mat  la  wan."  shirts,  Ex  parte  Falken- 
berg,  115  O.  C.  1065,  C.  I).  1905,  109;  "Savoy."  beer.  Ex  parte 
United  States  Brewing  Co.,  125  0.  G.  352,  C.  D.  1906,  437. 

Uegi.it raidc  geographical  words. — The  registrnbility  of  words 
having  a  geogra[)hical  signification  is  dct(>rmined  liy  the  nature 
of  the  particular  word  and  the  particular  goods.  Thus  "Arab" 
has  been  registered  for  .sardines.  Ex  ))artc  Seacoast  Canning  Co., 
199  0.  G.  617;  "Hollander"  refused  resist  rat  ion  for  beer, 
Ex  parte  Conrad  Seipp  Brew.  Co.,  206  O.  G.  877;  "Orange 
Grove"  refused  registratiou  for  flour,  //.  Becker  d'  Co.  ?•.  Catn- 
brill  Mfg.  Co..  3S  A|)|..  D.  C.  585,  179  0.  G.  1111;  "(Joldcn 
State"  refused  registration  for  tea,  coffee,  etc.,  Ex  parte  Cold- 


T!jadi:makk  act  of  I'Kiuu'AKY  20,  1905.  563 

hcnj,  liotnn  tl"  Co.,  Ib2  O.  (J.  !I72  ;  "  Laki-sid.',"  granted  rcj^'is- 
tration  for  floor  and  wall  covcriiiixs,  AV  parte  I'mlrd  Hoofing 
d;  Mfg.  Co.,  187  O.  G.  VMS. 

.\(i)nc  of  coi>!/ii(ilitc(l  publication.-  -Tlwrv  can  he  no  valid 
registration  of  tlu'  name  by  wiiicli  a  eoi)yrij,dited  puhlication  lia.s 
been  known  and  sold,  after  the  eopyri-rlit  luus  expired.  Mtniain 
Co.  V.  Sundicate  t'lib.  Co.,  1237  V.  S.  liLS,  {>1-1,  5!i  L.  Ed.  1148. 

"  Written,  printed,  ///(/^rc.s.sr'/,  or  woven  in  some  particular  or 
di.stinctirc  manner,"  c/c— "it  is  helieve<l  that  the  controlling 
l)rineii)le  nnderlying  the  retiiiirenient  of  the  statute  that  a  mere 
name  unless  wrilh-n  or  printed  in  a  distinetive  manner  may  not  be 
registered  is  that  the  distinetive  manner  in  whieh  the  name  is 
displayed  must  be  of  a  character  as  to  give  such  a  distinctive 
impression  to  the  eye  of  the  ordinary  ob.server  as  to  outweigh  the 
significance  of  the  mere  name."  Ex  parte  Polar  Knitting  Mills, 
ir)4  O.  G.  251.  Approved  In  re  Artesian  Mfg.  Co.,  'M  App.  I).  C. 
113,  l(i6  O.  G.  i»88,  and  in  Oliver  Chilled  Plow  W(rrhs  v.  Oliver 
Mfg.  Co.,  40  App.  D.  C.  125,  ](»2  0.  G.  217.  Same  rule  in 
Ex  parte  C  II.  Alden  Co.,  131  0.  G.  2419. 

Doubt  as  to  registrability  resolved  in  favor  of  registrant. — 
Where  the  mark  whose  registration  is  .sought  contains  features 
closely  resembling  a  registered  maik  all  doubts  should  be  re.solved 
against  tJie  applicant.  Wayne  County  Preserving  Co.  v.  Oiney 
Canning  Co.,  32  App.  D.  C.  279,  140  0.  G.  1003;  In  re  Wright 
tC  Taylor,  33  App.  D.  C.  510, 148  0.  G.  834 ;  Ex  parte  St.  Anthony 
Milling  d'  Elevator  Co.,  161  0.  G.  1047. 

Effect  of  combining  non-registrable  words. — A  registrable 
trademark  can  not  be  nj,ade  by  combining  two  non-registrable 
words.  KentucJni  Distilleries  cO  Warehouse  Co.  v.  Old  Lexington 
Club  Distilling  Co.,  31  App.  D.  C.  223,  135  0.  G.  220;  In  re 
Meyer  Bros.  Coffee  tO  Spice  Co.,  32  App.  D.  C.  277,  140  0.  G. 
756;  Ex  parte  St.  Anthony  Milling  cf-  Elevator  Co.,  161  0.  G. 
1047. 

Effect  of  use  of  other  marks  with  that  sought  to  be  registered. — 
Where  the  specimen  filed  with  the  applic<ation  shows  other  marks 
used  in  conjunction  with  the  mark  sought  to  be  registered,  the 
Patent  Office  has  held  that  fact  to  be  immaterial.  Lester  H. 
Greene  Co.  v.  Scott  ((•  Bownr,  159  O.  G.  242,  following  the  nile  of 
Cape  well  Horse  XaU  Co.  v.  Mooney,  167  Fed.  Rep.  575,  and 
Enocli  Morgan  Sons  v.  Ward,  152  Fed.  Rep.  690. 

The  ten-year  clause. — The  validity  of  this  clause,  and  the  ef- 
fect of  registration  under  it,  were  determined  with  finality  in 
Davids  Co.  V.  Davids,  233  T^  8.  461,  58  L.  Ed.  1046.  The  sub- 
stance of  that  decision  is  that  the  clause  is  valid,  and  that  regis- 
tration under  it  has  the  effect  of  "perfecting  rights  which  might 


5G4  AIM'KNDIX    K. 

have  hiHMi  iinptTlVft  ulu-n  tlio  iiso  hrK'aii.  aiul  woulil  have  si»  con- 
tiniUHl  fxi't'pl  for  the  statute,"  in  thi-  hiiiKua^r*'  of  thulfje  Dfui- 
son  in  W.  A.  daincs  i{-  Co.  v.  hock  Sprimj  I>}stilliii<j  Co..  Ill 
C.  C.  A.  L*S7.  JJti  Fi'd.  K<'p.  oiU,  5:}.').  For  ihf  histon-  of  th«' 
Daviiis  I'asi'.  sec  Thtuidrus  I>iiri(h  Co,  r.  Davids.  Ki")  Fed.  ]{vp. 
7l>-J;  riiMhUus  Darids  Co.  r.  Daii'l.s,  102  ('.  ('.  A.  lM'J.  178  Fe.!. 
Rep.  801;  Thaddcu.'i  Davids  Co.  v.  Darids,  l!U)  h\'i\.  Hop.  285. 

7 /if  Davids  casf  ini(  rpvctcd. — "We  do  not  rcfrard  the  (hn-ision 
in  tlu'  Davids  i-ase  as  holdiiii;  tliat  the  statute  direi-tly  operates  to 
grant  a  monopoly  to  one  who  rifjfht fully  m'^ri.stens  under  the  ten- 
year  clause  a  ch'seriptive  or  geojfraphieal  word.  We  take  it  as 
hoKlin^'  that  the  si;itute  was  not  intended  to  iH'nnit.  under  this 
clause,  an  inelTt^'tive  and  useless  reiristration,  and  .so,  in  efTect. 
holdin<r  that  tlu-  statute  removed  fnMii  descriptive  words  wliich 
liad  been  exclusively  used  as  a  mark  in  interstate  commerce  for 
ten  years  the  bar  or  disal)ility  caus^'d  by  their  descriptive  charac- 
ter, and  made  them,  after  that  probation,  subject  to  exclusive 
appropriation  with  the  same  efTect.  in  the  main,  as  if  the  di.s- 
alMlity  had  never  exi.ste<l.  Since  the  statute  relates  primarily  to 
registration,  it  may  well  be  that  the  disat)ility  continues  \nitil 
refristration.  .somewhat  retroactively,  removes  it ;  that  is  not  now 
important.  Neither  is  it  important  at  present  to  know  the  exact 
distinctions  between  the  mainifacturer's  riiihts  formerly  existing 
under  the  secondary  meaninir  theor\'  and  thase  now  exist infr 
under  the  statute.  •  •  *  Whether  any  exclusive  rights  which,  in 
an  essential  part,  depend  on  this  statute  ean  extend  to  the  regu- 
lation of  strictly  intrastate  commerce,  or  whether  the  efTect  imist 
be  limited  to  the  field  where  congress  had  power  to  act,  is  an  in- 
teresting fpiestion,  which  is  oidy  suggested,  but  not  presented, 
bv  this  record."  Denison.  J.,  in  yashviUr  St/riip  Co.  v.  Coca- 
Cola  Co..  21.")  Fed.  Kep.  527,  520,  1:^2  C.  C.  A. '39,  41. 

Other  decisions  touching  upon  the  validity  of  the  ten-vear 
clau.se  are  In  re  Calm,  Belt  cf-  Co.,  27  App.  D.  C.  173,  122  0.  0. 
.3.54;  Coca-Cola  Co.  v.  Deacon  Bvovn  Bottlinq  Co..  2W  Fed.  Rep. 
105;  Coca-Cola  Co.  i.  Sashvillr  Si/nm  Co.,  200  Fed.  Rep.  153; 
IfiKflus  V.  Alfred  If.  Smith  Co.,  205  Fed.  Rep.  302;  liosstnatni  v. 
Garuier,  128  C.  C.  A.  73,  211  VinX.  Rej).  401. 

Ten-year  clavse  wakes  geoQrn})hi(id  aitd  ollirnvise  descriptive 
marks  reqistrahle  by  removing  their  di.'^dulities.  In  re  Calm.  licit 
d-  Co.,  27  Apj).  I).  ('.  173.  122  O.  (I.  .354  :  Hat  fie  Creek  Sanitarintn 
Co.  V.  Fuller,  .30  AF)p.  0.  C.  411.  134  O.  (1.  121)0:  Tiw  d-  Co.  v. 
Cluctt,  I'eahodi/  d-  Co..  42  App.  D.  C.  212,  203  O.  (\.  30(5. 

" Exrhi.sive  use,"  as  that  t<rm  is  used  in  the  ten-year  clau.se, 
does  not  mean  sole  us4\  but  tlie  right  to  exclude  otiiers  from  using. 
Whittemore  Bros,  d-  Co.  r.  Ilauthauaxj,  132  O.  G.  233. 


TKAOK.M  AK'K    ACT    OF    1  KHKCAICV    20,    IDO").  .105 

Effect  (jlrri)  to  i<  ijistnition  tnj  state  courts. —  It  has  Immmi  lifld 
tliat  the  word  "Oiicida."  Ix-causc  of  its  n"f,'i.strati<)ii  uiitlcr  tlii-* 
act  was  I'lilillcd  to  i)rot<'C'tion  in  a  state  court.  Onivhi  Com 
munitij  V.  Oncido  (uintc  Trai>  Co.,  \'A  N.  V.  S.  :{!)1,  aniniiiiiK  !.')() 
N.  V.  S.  1)18.  But  such  rcffistratioM  is  not  coiiclusivf  upon  a 
state  court  cither  as  to  the  validity  of  the  mark,  or  the  ritrht  of 
the  applicant  to  register.  Buijcilo  linhhcr  Mf(j.  Co.  v.  liatavia 
liuljlnr  Co.,  15:}  N.  V.  S.  77*),  !M)  Misc.  Kep.  -IIS. 

Si:CTio.\  (i.  (As  amended  .Marcli  2,  l!tU7,  eh.  'iru.i,  'Ai  Stat.  L. 
1252.)  That  on  the  filinf;:  of  an  appliwition  for  registration  of  a 
trademark  which  complies  with  the  rerpiiromcnt.s  of  this  act,  and 
the  payment  of  the  fees  herein  provided  for,  tlie  Connnissioner 
of  Patents  shall  cause  an  examination  thereof  to  l>e  made;  and  if 
on  .sucli  exaiiiination  it  shall  appear  that  the  applicant  is  en- 
titled to  have  his  trademark  registered  under  the  provi.sions  of 
this  act,  the  Commissioner  shall  cause  the  mark  to  he  published  at 
least  once  in  the  Official  Gazette  of  the  Patent  Office.  Any  per- 
son who  Relieves  he  would  be  danuisred  by  the  registration  of  a 
mark  may  oppose  the  same  by  filingr  notice  of  opposition,  stating 
the  grounds  therefor,  in  the  Patent  Office,  within  thirty  days 
after  the  publication  of  tlie  mark  .sought  to  be  registered,  which 
said  notice  of  opposition  sliall  be  verified  by  the  person  filing  the 
same  before  one  of  the  officers  mentioned  in  .section  two  of  this 
act.  An  opposition  may  be  filed  by  a  duly  authorized  attorney, 
but  said  opposition  shall  be  null  and  void  unless  verified  by  the 
opposer  within  a  reasonable  time  after  such  filing.  If  no  notice 
of  opposition  is  filed  within  said  time,  the  Commissioner  shall 
i.ssue  a  certificate  of  registration  therefor,  as  hereinafter  pro- 
vided for.  If.  on  examination  an  application  is  refu.sed,  the 
Commissioner  shall  notify  the  applicant,  giving  him  his  reasons 
therefor. 

The  amendment  of  ^larch  2,  1007.  inserted  the  proviso  that 
"An  opposition  may  be  filed  by  a  duly  authorized  attorney,  but 
such  opposition  shall  be  null  and  void  unless  verified  by  the 
opposer  within  a  reasonable  time  after  such  filing."  As  the  sec- 
tion read  ])efore  the  amendment  it  was  hehl  that  the  oath  had  to 
be  made  bv  the  opposing  partv,  and  could  not  be  made  bv  an  attor- 
iiev  or  asr^nt.  W.  H.  Bakcr'v.  Bnkcr,  C.  D.  1900,  337.  124  0.  G. 
909;  Martin  r.  Martin  cO  Bownr  Co.,  27  App.  D.  C.  59,  122  0.  G. 
734,  C.  1).  19(m,  G42.  After  the  amendment  it  was  held  that 
in  the  absence  of  a  statutory  requirement  for  a  verification  by 


.jLiti  .VI'l'KNt)I.\    K. 

tlu'  attt>riu'y,  a  notii'o  of  opposition  filed  by  an  attorney  need  not 
l»e  verilioil ;  that  inasnnich  as  tlu*  anu'ndiiu'iit  ri-ciuirt'tl  tlu'  veri- 
tication  to  be  made  by  tlie  opposer  within  a  reasoiuible  time  after 
its  tiling,  " verilication  by  lioth  the  attorney  and  his  priiuipal 
would  appear  to  be  n>ele.s8  •  ^  **  unless  the  opposition  is  verilied 
by  the  j>arty  damaged  it  is  held  null  and  voiil  aiui  ean  not  form 
the  liiLsis  for  any  proeeedin^j,  whether  or  not  it  is  verilied  by  the 
attorney  ""  Billings,  Asst.  Com.,  in  \V<IUufnc  r.  liaum.,  \'.\')  C).  (j. 
8U4. 

The  C'onniiittee  on  I'atents  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
in  their  report  reeonun«'ndin<^  the  pass;ii,'e  of  the  act,  said  in 
reference  to  the  al)ove  seetion  : 

"The  procedure  provided  by  the  bill  for  the  registration  of 
trademarks  is  similar  if.  many  respects  to  the  procedure  in 
patent  cases.  When  the  application  for  rc^'istration  is  liled  sec.  G 
proviiie.s  for  an  examination  of  the  mark  otfereil  for  rcfjistra- 
tion.  If  upon  such  examination  the  application  is  refused,  notice 
Ls  piven  to  tlie  ai>plicant,  in  order  that  he  may  appeal,  if  he  so 
(K'sires,  from  the  decision.  The  procedure  for  api)eals  is  regu- 
lated by  other  sections  of  the  bill.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  ex- 
amination discloses  that  the  mark  is  entitled  to  re<,'istrati()n,  then 
the  act  jirovides  tiiat  the  Connnissioner  shall  cause  the  mark  to 
be  published  at  least  once  in  the  Official  (Jazette  of  the  Patent 
Odice.  The  purpose  of  this  publication  is  apparent.  Owners  of 
trademarks  ought  not  to  liave  tln'ir  rights  to  the  use  of  a  trade- 
mark jeojjardized  by  the  registration  of  similar  trademarks  by 
other  parties  not  entitled  to  the  us(!  of  the  same.  Some  notice 
should  be  given  whei'eby  the  true  owners  of  marks  may  hav(>  an 
opi>ortunity  to  be  heard  by  the  Commissioner  of  PatcMits  before 
any  mark  is  registered  and  given,  by  reason  of  such  registration. 
the  evidence  of  ownership  provided  for  by  the  terms  of  the  bill." 

Opposition — Who  inay  maintdin. — A  corporation  (The  As- 
bestone  (>>. )  may  oppase  the  registration  as  a  tradenuirk  of  a 
word  (Asliestone)  which  is  a  vital  part  of  its  cor{)orate  nam<^,  iti 
view  of  the  {jrovisions  of  sec.  5  of  this  act,  without  jiroof  of 
actual  damage.  Ashvstonc  Co.  v.  Philip  Cairif  Mf(f.  Co.,  41  App. 
D.  C.  507,  200  0.  CSf)?. 

Opposition  is  the  f)roper  remedy  "where  the  two  (articles)  are 
so  nearly  alike  in  their  fuiulamental  ciiara<'teristics  and  the  uses 
to  which  they  are  ai»[)licd  are  so  closely  related  tliat  their  sale 
under  the  same  trademark  would  be  likely  to  cause  the  pul)lic 
to  believe  that  they  were  the  out[)ut  of  the  same  manufacturer." 
Robb.  J.,  in  Woven  Strcl  Co.  v.  Kcn.shci/  il  Maflison  Co.,  41 
Apiu  I).  C.  247,  IDH  O.  (1.  40.-). 

Opposition  under  the  tcn-jfrnr  r}aii.<r.  An  opposition  may 
lie  against  tlie  attempte«l  registration  of  a  mark  under  the  ten- 
y«ir  proviso  that  would  not  lie  under  an  application  for  reg^is- 


TK  VDKMAKK    ACT   OF    FKItlJi: AUY    20,    I'M).').  507 

tralioii  of  ii  Icc'hiiicul   lra«lfiiiarl<.     Jlanluij  v.  Cdittr  Mi<l.  Co., 
41  Api).  I).  ('.  LMO.  IDS  ().  (J.  2;i8. 

ruhlicalioii  not  a  bur  to  rejection. — Publication  tlocs  not  pre- 
cliult'  a  siil)s('(jui'nt  rejection,  citlier  because  a  statutory  bar  is. 
found  (AV  parte  Chictt,  I'ealwdn  t(-  Co.,  TJO  O.  (;.  'J()2),  or  on 
the  i^M'ound  that  the  mark  involves  inishrandint,'  within  tlie  in(!an- 
JnfT  oi"  sec.  8  of  the  Food  and  Drug's  Act  of  Junt-  ;5(l,  ll»()(j.  I'Jx 
parte  liareluij  cO  liarclaij,  Dif)  O.  (J.  217. 

lie-puhliration  after  amendmevt. — Where  aftor  pn))lic.ation  in 
the  (ia/.ctte  the  apiiiication  is  amended  (so  as  to  alter  the  partic- 
ular descrii)tion  of  the  goods  on  which  the  mark  is  used;  it  is 
within  the  discretion  of  the  Examiner  to  say  whether  the  mark 
shall  be  re-pul)lished,  and  Ids  exercise  of  that  discretion  will  not 
be  reviewed  on  petition.  Ex  parte  American  Wringer  Co.,  134 
0.  CJ.  180:?. 

Notice  of  opposition— Rcrjui.sitcs  of.—U  will  not  suffice  to  say 
that  the  opposer  believes  be  would  be  damaged  hy  the  propased 
registration.  Battle  Creek  Sanitarium  Co.  r.  Fuller,  SO  App.  D. 
C.  411,  V.U  O.  G.  129*).  Nor  can  an  opposition  be  maintained 
merely  in  the  i)ublic  interest.  Underwood  Tijpewriter  Co.  v.  A. 
B.  Dilk  Co.,  30  Ai)p.  1).  C.  175,  l(i3  0.  G.  730. 

Opposition  may  be  maintained  by  one  who  has  actually  made 
conunercial  use  of  the  descriptive  term  sought  to  be  registered 
under  the  ten-year  clause  of  sec.  5,  during  the  ten-year  period. 
Natural  Food  Co.  v.  Williams,  30  App.  D.  C.  348,  133  0.  G.  232; 
//.  W.  Johns-Manville  Co.  v.  American  S.  P.  Co.,  33  App.  D.  C. 
224,  145  O.  G.  257;  Tim  tt  Co.  v.  Clujptt,  Pcahodij  cO  Co.,  42  App. 
b.  C.  212,  203  0.  G.  306. 

The  opposer 's  use  must  be  in  the  same  general  cla.ss  of  goods, 
Johnson  Educator  Food  Co.  v.  Sijli'anus  Smith  c(-  Co..  174  0.  G. 
1027.  Thus  coffee  and  cocoa  are  so  nearly  akin  as  to  sust.ain  an 
opposition,  Walter  Baker  c(-  Co.  v.  Ilarri.^on,  32  App.  D.  C.  272, 
138  0.  G.  770;  fish  products  and  bakery  products  are  not, 
Johnaon  Educator  Food  Co.  v.  Sjjlranus  Smith  t(-  Co.,  174  0.  G. 
1027;  nor  are  i)eroxid  of  hydrogen  and  lieverages,  Con.'iumers  Co. 
V.  Ihjdro.r  Chcm.  Co..  182  O.  G.  721  ;  nor  calcimine  and  white 
\eA(\^  Muralo  Co.  v.  National  Lead  Co.,  36  App.  D.  C.  541,  165 
0.  G.  475. 

Opposition  to  the  attempted  recjistration  of  a  surname  will  be 
sustained  l)y  proof  of  the  applicant's  assigiunent  to  the  opposer 
of  the  right  to  use  that  surname  as  a  trademark  for  goods  of  the 
.same  descriptive  properties.  Andrcjr  Jrrgens  Co.  v.  Woodbunj. 
133  0.  G.  513. 

Dcci.sions  of  the  Examiner  of  Interferences  overruling  a  de- 
murrer to  a  notice  of  opposition  {Drevct  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Liquozonc 


'iGS  APPENDIX    E. 

Co.,  122  0.  G.  .'U)14).  or  ilonying  a  motion  to  dismiss  a  notice  of 
opposition  (Oakley  ((•  Co.  v.  liabcock,  133  O.  U.  7G1),  an-  not  ap- 
pcalaMc  save  under  eireumstanees  ot  extreme  or  unusual  ehar- 
acter. 

Cros.^-htl'  uill  not  lie  in  a/>/n>.M'jV);i  proceeding. — Althoupli  the 
opposer  recites  his  registered  mark  ius  a  basis  for  his  op|)()sition, 
a  eross-hill  pniyin^  the  wuu-elhition  of  that  rep:i>»t ration  will  not 
Ih>  permitted  to  l>e  Hied.  JUirton  .Meil.  ('<\  r.  Cniteii  Drmj  Co., 
171>  t).  U.  2SS. 

Modifiration  of  mark  after  adver.'ie  decision  in  opposition. — 
The  defeated  applicant  may  modify  his  application  l)y  (»ancelling 
the  part  of  the  mark  involved  in  the  opposition  only  if  his  mark 
is  not  thereby  nnitilated.  and  on  makinj,'  nilidavit  that  the  mark 
a.s  modifietl  was  actually  used.  FLr  parte  \'i-Sti.r  Prodiicts  Co., 
175  ().  (J.  840. 

Opposition  notice. — Amendment  after  expiration  of  the  statu- 
tory thirty-day  limit  is  not  permissible,  where  the  orij^inai  notice 
is  not  of  itself  le<;ally  suflieient  to  sustain  the  opposition.  Xational 
Water  Co.  v.  A.  Kron  Brewing  Co.,  197  0.  G.  990. 

Oppo.^ition — F.fjcrt  of  answer  under  oath. — As  the  equity 
rules  of  the  supreme  court  do  not  provide  for  an  answer  umler 
oath,  sueh  an  answer  is  not  evidence  in  favor  of  the  party  filing 
it.  I'niver.'-al  Motor  Truck  Co.  v.  lhiiver.'<al  Moto^r  Co.,  197  0.  G. 
533. 

Oppo.tition  not  .sustainable  h\i  proof  of  unfair  competition. — 
*' There  is  a  ^reat  mass  of  testimony  in  this  ease  whicth  is  entirely 
irrelevant  to  the  (picstions  whieh  this  tribunal  is  ealled  upon  to 
<leeide.  The  reeord  is  full  of  matters  which  relatt*  soK'ly  to  the 
question  of  unfair  eompetition  in  trade  whieh  nuitters  it  has  been 
repeatedly  held  can  not  be  considered  in  a  trademark  opi)osition. 
The  only  cpiestion  for  consideration  here  is  whether  or  not  appli- 
cant is  entitled  to  register  his  mark,  and  such  matters  jls  the 
[)ainting  of  the  plows,  the  quality  and  reputation  of  the  goods 
of  the  parties,  the  prices  at  which  the  plows  are  sold  and  similar 
matters  are  irrelevant  to  this  controversy."  Oliver  Chilled  Plow 
Works  r.  Olirer  Mfg.  Co..  40  App.  I)."  ('.  279.  192  O.  (I.  217; 
Johnson  v.  lirandau,  \'.i-i  ().  (J.  257. 

ffppositiiin — Ixight  of  applicant  to  icithdnnr  application. — 
After  op{)osition  i>roceedings  have  Iteen  instituted,  the  appli- 
«-ant  will  not  be  permitted  to  withdraw  or  abandon  liis  applica- 
tion unless  he  fonnally  abandons  his  claim  to  the  trademark. 
"Any  other  COU1-S4'  would  permit  any  applicant  in  an  oi)position 
proceeding  to  escape  .judgment  in  due  course  and  at  the  same 
time  reserve  the  (h'terininatiou  of  the  (|uestions  involved  for 
whatsoever  time  he  may  feel  inelinetl  to  rai.se  the  .sjime."  Moore, 


TRADEMARK    ACT    OK    KlJJKl   AUY    20,    '['M)^).  569 

A.cting  Cwiii.,  ill  I'vifirt  Safctif  I'aprr  Co.  r.  dronjr  1m  Montr  tf- 
Son,  Vl'l  O.  (j.  80!).  (It  is  hciicvcd  that  this  ruliiiK  k'ocs  hcyond 
the  jurisdiftioiial  power  of  tlir  rateiit  Ollicf,  and  tliat  the  ri^ht 
of  the  applicant  to  al)aiulon  the  application  without  abandoning 
liis  trademark  sliould  never  have  been  (luestioned.) 

Opposition — Opposcr  must  have  applied  mark  to  merchandise. 
— An  opposition  based  on  use  of  the  nuirk  in  advertising  only,  and 
not  api)lied  to  nierehandisf  will  be  dismissed.  "If  he  has  not 
used  the  mark  as  a  tnidemark  upon  floods  of  a  like  description  he 
can  sutTcr  no  dama«;o  from  its  re},'ist ration  by  another."  Sh»'[)ard, 
C  J  ,  in  lUittle  Creek  Sanitarium  Co.  v.  Fuller,  30  Ap{).  D.  C. 
411,  l;U  ().  (J.  129!),  C.  D.  1908,  370. 

Opposition— Burden  of  proof. — Where  there  is  no  apparent 
conflict  lictwccn  the  mark  sought  to  be  registered  and  the  mark 
of  the  opposcr,  the  Ijurden  is  on  the  opposcr  to  show  that  as  a 
matter  of  fact  the  registration  of  the  applicant's  mark  "will 
likely  cause  confusion  and  deceive  ordinary  purchasers."  An- 
drew McLean  Co.  v.  Adams  Mfg.  Co.,  31  App.  D.  C.  509,  136 
0.  G.  440,  C.  D.  1908,  487. 

Opposition — Application  not  prima  facie  evidence  of  owner- 
ship.—  In  an  opposition  proceeding,  the  applicant's  application 
is  not  prima  facie  evidence  of  ownership  of  the  mark.  Green, 
Tweed  c(-  Co.  v.  Manufacturer's  Belt  Hook  Co.,  137  0.  G.  2221. 

Opposition — Immaterial  whether  opposer  entitled  to  register. — 
"It  is  not  necessary,  in  order  that  an  opposition  .should  be  sus- 
tained,- that  the  opposer  himself  shall  be  entitled  to  regi.ster  his 
mark  for,  if  the  opposer  has  used  his  mark  prior  to  the  time  of 
its  use  by  the  applicant,  the  applicant  is  not  entitled  to  the 
exclusive  n.^e  of  it,  even  though  he  may  be  entitled  to  use  it  in 
common  -with  the  rest  of  the  pnblic."  ^loore,  Com.,  in  Oreen, 
Ticeed  cl  Co.  v.  Manufacturer's  Belt  Hook  Co.,  137  0.  G.  2221. 

Opposition — Time  for  filing. — The  thirty  days  allowe<l  hy  sec. 
6  includes  Sundavs  and  holidavs.  Keasheii  Co.  v.  Portland 
Cementfabrik,  133  0.  G.  1936. 

Demurrer  to  notice  of  opposition  will  lie  where  the  only  mat- 
ter in  common  use  by  both  parties  is  not  subject  to  appropriation 
by  either  (Johnson  v.  Brandnu,  134  O.  G.  257)  :  but  this  rule  has 
no  application  where  the  applicant  seeks  to  rcGrister  under  the 
ten-vear  clause  of  sec.  5.  Kutroff  v.  Ca.<isella  Color  Co.,  129  O.  G. 
3159. 

Notice  of  opposition  ranst  contain  the  jurisdictional  averment 
that  the  opposcr  "believes  he  Avonld  be  damar^ed  bv  the  recnstra- 
tion  of  the  mark."  Hansen  v.  Inland  Tifpe  Foundry.  134  0.  G. 
775.    But  that  averment  mav  be  added  by  amendment  after  the 


570  APrENDIX    K. 

thirty-day  period  fixed  by  ser.  (>.     liattle  Crcrl,  Sdnitdtiinn  Co.  v 
Fuller,  30  App.  D.  C.  411.  1:54  O.  (i.  \'2\)\l 

h'iyht  to  oppo<c  not  l.iiscil  on  riyht  to  icyistcr. — "It  is  \v»'ll  set- 
tled timt  it  is  no*  iieeessary  in  order  to  sustain  an  op{)osition 
that  it  should  appear  that  the  opposer  is  entitled  to  ri'^^istcr  the 
mark."  Moore.  Com.,  in  Irish  Industrial  Assn.  v.  Barrett, 
ISG  O.  (J.  7J>7  ;  follow  inir  .\atural  Food  Co.  r.  )VillUtms,  30  App. 
I).  C\  34S,  133  O.  G.  'S.V2;  Lany  v.  Crccn  liivcr  Dist.  Co.,  33  App. 
D.  (.'.  506.  148  0.  G.  l'SO;  Johns-Manvillc  Co.  v.  American  S.  P. 
Co.,  33  App.  1).  ('.  224.  145  O.  (J.  257. 

Opposition — /I'c.v  Ad  judicata. — A  judgment  or  deeree  in  a  prior 
case  is  eonehisive  in  a  later  ease  as  to  <|ues(ions  aetually  in  issue 
and  deeided.  and  not  as  to  those  whieh  mi^'ht  have  been  decided. 
Ilorinc  v.  Wrndr,  2!»  App.  1).  ('.  415.  12!)  O.  C.  2S5S.  Conse- 
(pientiy  tile  i'aet  that  an  opposition  has  hccii  ilecided  ajrainst  the 
applicant  is  no  bar  to  the  rr-ristration  of  the  mark  under  a  later 
application  based  on  the  ten-year  «elau.se.  Carter  Med.  Co.  v. 
Jiarclaii,  3*)  App.  D.  C.  123,  lf)2  0.  G.  785.  So  an  adjudication  by 
a  federal  court  in  an  infringement  suit  that  a  former  re^ristration 
of  the  plaintiff  there  was  invalid  is  not  conclusive  \ipon  the 
Patent  Office  in  an  opposition  between  the  same  parties  involving 
an  application  to  retrister  the  fortner  plaintiff's  mark  of  more 
limited  scope  than  the  former  reari.stration.  A.  Lrsclien  d-  S'ons 
Rope  Co.  V.  Broderich  d-  Ba.^rom  liopi"  Co.,  30  App.  D.  C.  451, 
164  0.  G.  977. 

Opposition  to  part  of  the  mark  fionyht  to  he  reyistered. — Op- 
position lies  to  the  attemjited  retristratiwi  of  a  mark  which  in- 
cludes a  tradename  in  use  by  the  opposer.  Johnsvn  v.  Brandau, 
32  App.  I).  ('.  348,  139  O.  G.  732. 

Opposition  to  marl:  used  on  article  made  under  crpired 
patent. — Opposition  is  the  proper  remedy  as  airain.st  an  applica- 
tion to  recrister  a  mark  which  has  become  public  property  throu}rh 
the  expiration  of  the  patent  upon  the  article  to  which  the  mark 
was  applied  during  the  life  of  the  patent.  J.  A.  Srn'vcn  Co.  v. 
Toulrs  Mfq.  Co.,  32  Ann.  D.  C.  321.  140  O.  G  510-  CdrlLPrr. 
dork  Mfy.  Co.  V.  VdeU  ^Yorl<s,  32  App.  D.  C.  282,  140  O.  0.  1002. 

Section'  7.  That  in  all  cases  ^vhcre  notice  of  oftpositiou  has 
been  filed  the  rommissioner  of  Patents  .shall  notify  the  applicant 
thereof  and  the  prounds  therefor. 

Wlienever  application  is  mnde  for  the  recristration  of  a  trade- 
mark -which  is  substantially  identi'^nl  with  a  trademark  appro- 
priated to  p"oods  of  the  same  descriptive  properties,  for  which  a 
certifi(»ate  of  repistration  has  been  pre^^ou.sly  is.sued  to  another, 


Tl:.\I)i;.M  AKK     ACT    <»K    KKIMCI   AlcY    '_*(),    1005.  571 

or  for  registration  of  wliicli  another  has  previously  ina<lo  applica- 
tion, or  which  s(j  nearly  resembles  such  trademark,  or  a  known 
trademark  owned  and  lused  by  another,  as-,  in  the  oi)inion  of  the 
Connnissioner,  to  be  likely  to  be  mistaken  therefor  by  the  [)iiblie, 
he  m<iy  dci'lare  that  an  interferenee  exists  as  to  sueh  trademark, 
and  in  cvny  case  of  iriterrcrctice  oi-  opposition  to  registration  he 
shall  direct  the  Kxaminer  in  eharj^e  of  Interferences  to  determine 
the  (piestion  of  the  ri^ht  of  rejfistration  to  such  tr.idomark.  and 
of  the  sufHeiency  of  objections  to  rej?istration,  in  such  manner 
and  upon  such  notice  to  thosf  interested  as  the  f.'ommissioner 
may  by  rules  prescribe. 

The  Commissioner  may  refuse  to  rc^ster  the  mark  af^ainst 
the  resristration  of  which  objection  is  filed,  or  may  refuse  to 
refjister  both  of  two  interferini;  marks,  or  may  rej^ister  the  mark, 
as  a  trademark,  for  the  person  first  to  adopt  and  use  the  mark, 
if  otherwise  entitled  to  register  the  sajiie  unless  an  appeal  is 
taken,  as  hereinafter  provided  for,  from  his  decision,  by  a  party 
interested  in  tlic  pnoceedintr.  witliin  such  time  (not  le.ss  than 
tw«nty  days)  a,s  the  Co*nmis^ioner  may  prescribe. 

As  to  oppositions,  this  section  is  supplemental  to  sec.  6.  This 
section  further  provides  for  the  creation  of  interference  pro- 
ceedings, which  have  formed  a  large  part  of  the  proceedings  in 
the  Patent  Ofilice  under  the  Trademark  Act  of  1881,  and  the 
patent  statutes.  Tt  further  provides  for  an  appeal  from  the 
decision  of  the  Commissioner  in  cases  of  opposition  and  interfer- 
ence. 

Interference  in  fact. — It  exists  between  words  which  look  alike 
and  sound  alike;  as  '"l^oraxine"  and  "Horaxaid,"  Larhin  Co.  v. 
Pacific  Coast  liorar  Co.,  1:32  0.  G.  679. 

Interference — Dissolution  where  both  applications  owned  by 
sams  party. — Upon  a  showing  that  the  same  party  is  the  actual 
(jwner  of  both  applications  in  interference,  the  interference  will 
be  dissolved.  Taussig  v.  Taussig,  118  0.  G.  2251,  C.  D.  1905, 
434. 

Interferences  not  dissolved  by  consent. — An  agreement  of  the 
parties  that  the  interference  may  be  dissolved  and  all  the  marks 
involved  registered  will  not  be  carried  out  by  the  Patent  Office. 
Wright  d-  Taylor  v.  lUuih,  nthal  a-  Birlert,  110  0.  G.  2234,  C.  D. 
1905,  540. 

Interferences — Evidence  of  use  ^>y  stranger  to  the  record. — 
As  sec.  7  provides  that  the  Commissioner  "may  refuse  to  register 


0<2  Ari'lINDIX    E. 

lK)th  of  two  intorfcrinp  marks,"  evitlenco  of  use  by  others,  not 
jtartirs.  is  rompt'tont  as  triidiii^;  to  show  that  lu'ither  party  Ijuh 
th«>  right  to  r»'iristt'r.  (lohUit  d  Co.  i.  llritz  d-  Co.,  \2'>  ().  (i. 
l»89,  C.  D.  i;)OtJ,  45;}. 

hitnfercncc — Efjcd  of  lorhrs. — That  one  party  to  an  iiitorfer- 
•'iu'(>  has  p»'nnitt«'<l  the  otlirr  to  use  and  advertise  the  mark  for 
many  years  is  not  a  ground  for  refnsin«;  ref^istration  to  him. 
John  i.  Ltuis  Co.  r.  Phoinix  I'aiiit  Co.,  \M  O.  (J.  I(l4'.t. 

Interference — Dussolution. — WhtM'i-  hoth  marks  havt'  been  oon- 
eiirrently  nsed  for  a  h)n^  time  and  tlicre  is  no  aUe^'ation  of  any 
re-s-ultin^'  confusion  in  the  tra(U\  the  interference  shouhl  Ik*  dis- 
solved.   Stier  V.  .Marburg  /irov..  ('.  1).  WHS,  234;  196  O.  G.  803. 

Intirfrrcnt  c — Revolving  doubt  against  registrant. — "Wliere 
a  refiistrant,  in  interference  with  an  applicant,  moves  to  dissolve, 
his  motion  evidences  his  consent  that  the  ai)plicant's  mark  may 
he  re«ristered,  and  all  n^asonahie  douI»ts  should  he  re.solved  in 
favor  of  the  ajiplicant  S'ticr  v.  Marburg  Bros.,  C.  D.  IDI;?. 
•J34:  1!M)  0.  CJ.  SO:?;  ./.  a-  7/.  Carr  r.  SrhoU'liorn  Co.,  C.  D.  IDl'J, 
•JJl>;  181  0.  G.  2G5. 

Intrrfircncc — Kvi'hncT  of  a})an<lonmcnt  bg  rrgistrant. — In  an 
interference  In^tween  an  applicant  and  a  rejiistrant  the  ajiplicant 
tiled  an  affidavit  that  the  re^'istrant  had  abandoned  the  mark. 
This  was  held  to  put  the  burden  upon  the  refristrant  to  show  by 
an  answer  to  the  affidavit,  under  oath,  that  he  had  not  aban- 
doned. 0:o  h'emc(ffi  Co.  v.  Camrick  c(-  Co.,  Ltd.,  C.  D.  lOOf),  lfi2. 
143  O.  G.  959. 

Interference — Appeal  from  order  refusing  to  reopen  to  take 
testimony. — The  refusal  of  the  Examiner  of  Interferences  to  re- 
open tile  case  to  extend  time  to  take  testimony  is  not  an  appeal- 
able (piestion.  Good  fellow  r.  Jolhf,  C.  I).  190;'),  lOf),  11.5  O.  G. 
I(i(i4:  Chri.^ten.'<rn  r.  McKcnzie,  C.  D.  1905.  23S.  117  O.  G.  277; 
Wickers  V.  ^yeinu^um^,  C.  D.  1907.  219.  129  O.  G.  2501;  Cali- 
fornia Fruit  Canncrs  Assn.  v.  liatcliff-Sandrrs  (irocrr  Co.,  C.  D. 
1909,  160;  14(i  ().  (;.  958. 

Inferferrnrc — Appeal — Parties. — A  party  elaiminj;  to  be  a  suc- 
ee.s.»<)r  to  the  trademark  ri{;hts  of  a  rejji.strant  who  wa.s  a  party, 
sought  to  intervene  and  be  made  a  party  by  filinjr  a  new  ai)plica- 
tion.  The  Ivxaminer  of  Interferences  ruled  that  the  new  appli- 
cation did  not  pre.sent  interferin^r  sul).iect-inatter,  and  ren- 
dered judfrment  of  priority  ajrainst  the  registrant.  Upon  appeal 
by  the  alle^red  successor  it  wjus  lield  he  was  not  a  party  and  his 
appeal  musi  fail.  Yonkrrs  Breurrg  v.  Her  ((•  Burgu-atrr,  1 13  O. 
(].  25H.  ('.  I).  l!l()9,  93. 

Intrrfrrrnrr  —  .Motion  to  disnolre,  aftpral.—C)n  apjieal  from 
the  deci.sion  of  the  Examiner  refusing  to  dissolve  the  interference 


TILVDEMAKK    ACT   OK    KKURI '  AUY    20,    1905.  573 

110  question  caii  he  ui't^cd  which  was  not  raised  in  tin-  iimjUoii  and 
passed  on  hy  the  Examiner;  in  tlii.s  regard  Huh'  4(5,  jjo.st,  eom- 
])els  tile  praetiee  to  follow  that  in  patent  interferenees.  Lnrkin 
Co.  V.  I'acij'ic  Coast  Borax  Co..  132  O.  (i.  G7!»,  C.  D.  I'JOH,  20. 

Interference — Fee  on  appeal  from  decision  denying  motion  to 
dissolve. — Where  a  motion  to  dissolve,  hiused  upon  ahsenee  of  in- 
terference in  fact,  is  denied,  the  decision  denying  it  is  a{)i)eal- 
ahle,  hut  only  on  payment  of  the  appeal  fee  of  $15.00.  Seamless 
Ruhber  Co.  v.  Star  Rubber  Co.,  (J.  J).  I'lK),  44,  152  O.  C.  957. 

Interference — GeograpMcul  term — Motion  to  dissolve. — 
Where  the  marks  ("Arkoma"  and  "Aniiona")  are  similar  in 
appearance  and  .sound,  a  motion  to  dissolve  will  he  denied  not- 
withstanding it  also  raises  the  point  that  "Aroma"  is  non-regis- 
trable  hecause  geographical,  rcgisti'ation  for  tiiat  word  heing 
sought  under  the  ten-year  clause  of  sec.  5.  California  Fruit 
('anners  Assn.  v.  Foster,  Cnldarera  d-  Co.,  C.  D.  I'JU,  11,  162 
O.  G.  539. 

Interference — Actual  user. — Where  one  party  used  the  mark 
only  as  a  mark  of  grade,  style  or  quality,  judgment  awarding 
priority  to  the  opposing  party  was  affirmed.  United  States  I'laij- 
ing  Card  Co.  v.  Clark  Fab.  Co.,  126  0.  G.  2190,  C.  D.  1907,  44. 
So,  also,  where  a  party  has  not  actually  applied  the  mark  to  mer- 
chandise, the  award  of  priority  can  not  run  in  his  favor.  Bighie 
Bros.  tC-  Co.  V.  Bluthenthal  cl-  Bickart,  126  0.  G.  1063,  C.  D  1907 
22. 

Interference  in  fact. — Where  any  douht  exists  as  to  the  actual 
interference  of  the  marks,  the  determination  of  that  question 
.should  he  postponed  until  final  hearing  in  order  to  have  the  hene- 
fit  of  any  testimony  taken  on  the  suhject.  Anheuser-Busch  Brew- 
ing Assn.  V.  Yuengling  cf-  Son,  129  0.  G.  3501. 

Interference — Evidence  of  abandonment. — "Mere  non-use  of 
a  trademark  does  not  estahlish  ahandonment  thereof,  hut  one  who 
contends  that  the  mark  has  been  aV>andoned  must  establish  that 
the  original  owner  *  *  *  not  only  discontinued  its  use  but  in- 
tended to  abandon  the  same."  ]\loore,  Com.,  in  Madame  Irene  v 
Sclnreinbnrg.  C.  D.  1912,  114.  177  0.  G.  1043. 

Section  S.  That  every  applicant  for  the  registration  of  a  trade- 
mark, or  for  the  renewal  of  the  registration  of  a  trademark,  which 
application  is  refused,  or  a  party  to  an  interference  against  whom 
a  decision  ha.s  been  rendered,  or  a  party  who  has  filed  a  notice  of 
opj^osition  as  to  a  trademark,  may  appeal  from  the  decision  of 
the  Examiner  in  charge  of  Trademarks,  or  the  Examiner  in  charge 
of  Interferences,  as  the  case  may  he.  to  the  Commi.ssioner  in  per- 
son, having  once  paid  the  fee  for  such  appeal. 


571  APPENDIX    E. 

This  section  relates  to  tlie  rijrlit  of  appeal  to  tlie  (^onnnissioiier 
from  the  Kxamiiier  of  the  'rradeniark  division  of  the  Patent 
OlVu'e,  or  the  lOxaniiner  in  char^'c  of  IntfrftTfnces.  It  is  nioti/letl 
on  see.  4!Mi!i,  K.  S.  l'.  S.,  rehitinjr  to  a|t|tfals  in  ajiplieations  for 
letters-patent. 

That  a  reiinirenu-nt  of  division  on  the  ground  that  the  applica- 
tion einhraees  items  of  merchandise  not  of  the  same  descriptive 
I)rt.>perties  is  in  efTect  a  rejection  of  the  applitvition,  and  is  re- 
vi('\\al)le  hy  appeal  anil  not  on  petition,  ncc  tJ.c  parte  Kingan 
Puckimj  Afsn..  lll»  C).  (J.  22;J4,  C.  D.  lilO"),  5:}8. 

Motion  to  aupprrxa  evidence. —  That  a  rnlinpr  upon  such  amo- 
tion is  not  reviewable  upon  appeal  {>rior  to  final  hearinp  save  in 
a  clear  case  of  almse  of  discretion,  see  (irrrnr.  Twcol  i(-  Co.  v. 
Manufacturers'  licit  Hook  Co.   ]:V2  O.  C.  (JSO. 

Skction  I>.  That  if  an  applicant  for  rejiistration  of  a  trade- 
mark, or  a  i)arty  to  an  interference  as  to  a  trademark,  or  a  party 
who  has  filed  opposition  to  the  registration  of  a  trademark,  or 
party  to  an  application  for  the  cancellation  of  the  registration  of 
a  trademark,  is  dissatisfied  with  the  decision  of  the  Commissioner 
of  Patents,  he  may  appeal  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District 
of  Columbia,  on  complyinpr  with  the  conditioTis  required  in  case 
of  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Commissioner  by  an  appli- 
cant for  patent,  or  a  party  to  an  interference^  as  to  an  invention, 
and  the  same  rules  of  practice  and  procedure  shall  govern  in 
every  stape  of  such  proceedings,  as  far  as  the  same  may  Ije  appli- 
cable. 

This  section,  for  the  first  time,  creates  the  right  of  ai)peal  to  the 
Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia  from  the  decision 
of  the  Commissioner  in  trademark  applications,  interferences 
and  oppositions. 

The  decision  of  the  court  of  appeals  in  appeals  taken  under 
this  section  is  not  '"final"  within  the  m.-aning  of  sees.  8  and  9; 
Act  February  9,  18f):i,  27  Stat,  a*  D.  4:U,  4:?fi,  ch.  74.  and  hence 
is  not  appealable  to  the  United  States  Supreme  Court.  A  thins- 
V.  Moore,  142  O.  (}.  571,  212  U.  S.  285,  291,  5:?  I..  Kd.  515.  517. 

That  this  se<'tion.  read  with  sec.  4915,  H.  S.  \\  S.,  authorizes 
an  a<-tion  in  a  District  Court  to  compel  the  registration,  see 
Old  Lfsin<)t(ni  Chilt  Pis.  Co.  v.  Kcntucln/  Distilhrics  d-  Ware- 
house Co..  -2:^  Fc<i.  K.p.  4«i4. 

Section  10.  That  every  regisiered  trademark,  and  every 
mark,  for  th<'  registration  of  which  application  has  heen 
mr<le,    together    with    the    application    for    registration    of    the 


THADI MAKK    ACT   OF   FEBRCAUY    LM),    1!)05.  575 

samo,  shall  be  a.ssij^'nalil.-  in  connection  with  the  Koo<lwill  of 
tli(>  l)iisin('.ss  ill  whicli  tlic  mark  is  used.  Such  assi^ninient  must 
he  hy  an  iiistrtiiiieiit  in  writing  ami  duly  acknowled^'ed  accord- 
ing to  the  hiws  of  the  country  or  state  in  vvhieli  the  siiine  is  exe- 
cuted; any  such  a-saignment  shall  lie  void  as  against  any  subse- 
(juent  pureliascr  for  a  valuable  consideration,  without  notice, 
unless  it  is  recorded  in  the  Patent  OfTice  within  three  months  from 
(late  thereof.  Thr  Commissioner  shall  keep  a  record  of  such 
assignments. 

The  fii-st  sentence  of  this  section  is  merely  a  declaration  of  the 
law  concerning  the  assignability  of  trademarks  as  it  luis  been  set- 
tled hy  the  courts.  The  remainder  of  the  section  relat(*4  to  the 
formalities  attending  upon  the  execution  and  recording  of  the 
assignment  of  registered  marks. 

"Xo  a.ssignee  of  a  trademark  registered  under  the  Act  of  1905 
acquires  any  right  to  enforce  it  unless  the  goodwill  of  the 
business  in  which  the  mark  is  used  is  transferrtMl  with  the 
mark."  Lacomhe,  J.,  in  Eisewan  v.  Schiffer,  157  Fe(l.  Kvp.  47:}, 
476. 

Reconhihic  assignments. — Only  assignments  made  in  connection 
with  goodwill  will  be  admitted  to  record.  A  paper  i)urporting  to 
convey  a  territorial  right  to  the  use  of  a  trademark  is  not 
recordable.     In  re  Xational  Chemical  Co.,  l^U  0.  G.  1298. 

Section  U.  That  certificates  of  registration  of  trademarks 
shall  be  issued  in  the  name  of  the  United  States  of  America,  un- 
der the  seal  of  the  Fatent  Office,  and  shall  be  signed  by  the  Com- 
mi.s-sioner  of  Patents,  and  a  record  thereof,  together  with  printed 
copies  of  the  drawing  and  st-atement  of  the  applicant,  shall  be 
kept  in  books  for  that  purpose.  The  certificate  fihall  .state  the 
date  on  which  the  application  for  registration  was  received  in 
the  Patent  Office.  Certificates  of  regi.stration  of  trademarks 
may  be  issued  to  the  assignee  of  the  applicant,  but  the  assign- 
ment must  first  be  entered  of  record  in  the  Patent  Office. 

"Written  or  printed  copies  of  any  records,  books,  papers,  or 
drawings  relating  to  trademarks  belonging  to  the  Patent  Office, 
and  of  certificates  of  registration,  authenticated  by  the  .seal  of 
the  Patent  Office  and  certified  by  the  Commissioner  thereof, 
shall  be  evidence  in  all  cases  wherein  the  originals  could  be  evi- 
dence; and  any  person  making  application  therefor  and  paying 
the  fee  required  by  law  shall  have  certified  copies  thereof. 


576  .VPPENDIX    K. 

This  siH'tion  is  Imsed  on  stv.  4.  A«t  of  l!^?^!,  onf<\  Tln«  seal  of 
tlu'  I'ati'Ut  Oflicf  takos  the  place  of  the  seal  of  tlu*  Department 
of  the  Interior.     'I'lje  tinal  para^rraph  follows  sec.  892,  K.  S.  U.  S. 

Sk(*TI(»n  1-.  Tliat  ii  iiTlili.'iiti-  i^f  rc^^ist  nit  ion  shall  rriiiaiii  in 
fon-e  for  twenty  vt-ars.  cxerpt  tiiat  in  the  ease  of  trademarks  i)re- 
viously  rt-jfistered  in  a  foreign  country  such  ccitilicates  shall 
cease  to  he  in  force  on  the  day  on  which  the  trademark  ceases  to 
he  pnitected  in  such  forci<.Mi  country,  and  shall  in  no  case  renuiin 
in  force  more  than  twenty  years,  uidess  renewed.  Ceiiilicates  of 
registration  may  h«'.  from  time  to  time,  renewed  for  like  periotls 
on  payment  of  the  renewal  fees  re(|uired  hy  this  act.  upon 
re(pu»st  of  the  realist  rant,  his  lepral  re|u-esentatives.  or  transferees 
of  rei'ord  in  the  Patent  Office,  and  such  rcipiest  may  he  ma<le  at 
any  time  not  more  than  six  months  prior  to  the  expiration  of 
the  periixl  for  which  the  certificates  of  repristration  were  issued 
or  n-newed.  Certificates  of  regristration  in  force  at  tlie  date  at 
which  this  act  takes  effect  shall  renuiin  in  force  for  the  period 
for  which  they  were  i.ssued,  hut  shall  he  renewahle  on  the  siime 
conditions  and  for  the  sa-me  period  as  certificates  issued  under 
the  provisions  of  this  act.  and  when  so  renewed  shall  have  the 
.same  force  and  effect  as  certificates  issued  under  this  act. 

I'nder  sec.  ">  of  the  Act  of  1S81.  a  certificate  of  repistration  re- 
mains in  force  for  thirty  years  from  its  date.  That  period  is 
♦■urtailed  hy  the  ahove  .section  to  twenty  years. 

A  re(pn'st  for  reiu-wal  is  not  suhjcct  to  examination  as  is  an 
oripinal  application;  it  is  pnnia  facie  evi(h'nce  that  the  mark 
has  not  heen  ahandoned  ;  and  the  renewal  may  he  decreed  under 
hill  in  e(|uity  ajiainst  the  ("onvmissioncr  unth^r  sec.  401.'),  R.  S.  U. 
S.  Kitififi  r.  Stamhtrd  Oil  Co..  42  App.  D.  ('.  'V2\,  203  O.  G.  1556. 
•' Renewal  in  no  .sense  confers  new  rif;hts.  It  is  a  correction  of 
the  record  to  the  date  of  renewal  hy  the  re^'istrant  or  owner 
of  the  mark  a.ssertin^'  his  continued  use  of  it  and.  therefore,  title 
in  it."     Van  Orsdel.  J.,  in  Eirinfi  r.  S(,in<l(ii<l  Oil  Co.,  42  App. 

I),  c.  32 1.  2(13  n.  (;.  ir^fi. 

Sectio.v  13  That  whenever  any  person  sliali  deem  himself 
injured  liy  the  rcK-istration  of  a  tra<lemark  in  the  Patent  Office 
he  nmy  at  any  time  apply  to  the  Conuiiissioner  of  Patents  to  can- 
cel the  retrislration  thereof.  The  ('(Mirmissioner  shall  refer  .such 
application  to  the  Examiner  in  chartre  of  Interferences,  who  is 
enii)0wcred  to  hear  and  determine  this  (pu-sfion  and  who  shall 
jriv.'  noti"-'.  tl,.r.<.r  in  the  reu'-istrant.     If  it  appear  after  a  hear- 


TICAUK.MAICK    ACT   OF    rKHKlAlcV    L'O,    1005.  577 

iiij,'  hrforc  llic  lOxaiiiiiicr  that  tlic  n  ^,'i.straiit  was  not  entitled  to 
the  ii.sti  of  tlie  Jiuirk  at  the  date  of  liis  ajjplieation  for  ref^istra- 
tion  thereof,  or  that  the  mark  is  not  used  by  tiie  rej^istrant,  or 
has  l)een  al)andoned,  and  the  lOxarniner  shall  so  decide,  the  Coni- 
niissioncr  shall  cancel  the  refifistratioii.  Ajjpcal  may  he  taken  to 
the  Commissioner  in  person  from  the  decision  of  the  Examiner  of 
Interferences. 

The  Committee  on  Patents  of  the  House  of  Kej)res<'ntat ives  in 
their  report  recomnnendinp:  the  passage  of  the  act  said  as  ff)llow8 
in  reference  to  this  section: 

"By  sec.  13  provision  is  made  for  the  cancellation  of  registra- 
tion of  marks  which  may  not  have  been  entitled  to  registration. 
The  only  notice  which  is  re(|uire(l,  according  to  the  [)rovisions  of 
the  hill,  of  the  application  foi-  the  registration  of  a  trademark 
is  the  pul)lication  of  the  ap|)lication  once  in  the  Ofificial  CJa/.ette. 
The  purpose  of  this  provision  is  to  give  to  the  owner  of  a  mark 
an  opportunity  to  have  a  prior  registration  of  his  mark,  if  grant- 
ed, canceled  upon  a  proper  showing." 

CnnceUaiion  on  request. — That  the  defendaiit  party  (a  regis- 
trant) in  an  interference  may  have  his  registration  canceled 
on  request,  see  Ex  parte  Bloomington  Canning  Co.,  119  0.  G. 
2235. 

r/n'.s"  section  applies  onlij  to  marks  registered  under  the  Act 
of  1905,  as  wa.s  held  in  Funke  v.  Baldwin,  127  0.  G.  392. 

Fse  onhj  on  goods  not  tJiose  named  in  the  eertifiente  is  ground 
for  cancellation.  Pioneer  Suspender  Co.  v.  Louis  Oppenheimer's 
Sons,  128  0.  G.  1203. 

Caneellation  iviJl  result  if  the  registrant  had  no  right  to  regis- 
ter, or  if  he  tost  that  right  suJ)sequent  to  registration. — Magic 
Curler  Co.  v.  Porter,  128  0.  G.  2088;  Illinois  Hgdraulic  Cement 
Mfg-.  Co.  V.  Vtica  Hydraulic  Cement  Co.,  129  0.  G.  2502. 

Registration  under  ten-year  ela}(se. — The  issue  of  exclusive 
user  during  the  ten-year  period  is  triable  in  cancellation  pro- 
ceedings; if  the  registrant  did  not  have  sole  use  during  that  per- 
iod the  registration  will  be  canceled.  Familton  v.  Bliss  Medical 
Co.,  135  O.  G.  1359.  Compare,  Whittcmore  Bros,  d-  Co.  v.  Uauth- 
away,  132  0.  G.  233. 

The  petition  for  rancellation  inust  show  that  the  petitioner 
"has  sustained  an  injurv  of  a  le^al  character."  Mcllhenny  v. 
New  Iheria  Co.,  30  App!  D.  C.  337.  133  0.  G.  995. 

Cancellation — Cse   on   goods   of  different   descriptive  proper- 
■  ties. — One  moving  the  cancellation  of  a  registered  mark  for  tooth 


578  .U'l'KNDIX   E. 

powder  cim  not  luaiiitaiii  tlu-  proceetling  by  .showing  that  lie  has 
used  the  mark  on  clyspei)sia  eurc.  dravcs  v.  (hinder,  I'M)  O.  (J. 
227. 

Caiirdlation — JiigJit  of  fix  (ippHituit  for  (•(Dirclhition  to  dis- 
miss u-ifliout  prcjiidirr. — I'nder  liidc  ;'>."),  post,  the  ri^dit  to  dis- 
miss without  prejudice  to  the  ri^dit  to  lih'  a  new  jipi)lieation  for 
eaneelhition  has  been  denied,  after  issue  joined  and  proofs 
taken  ;  said  rulinj^  \w\ng  upon  the  authority  of  Detroit  r.  De- 
troit Ciiii  h'lj.  Co.,  55  Fed.  Kep.  569,  and  (leorgia  Co.  v.  HU finger, 
12!>  1\h\.  Kep.  i:n.    Ouicaidt  r.  Sew  York  If  (raid  Co.,  VMi  O.  G. 

4:{7. 

Cancellation  on  request  of  registrant. — By  virtue  of  the 
jurisdietion  conferred  by  see.  I'.i,  the  Patent  Office  will  cancel 
a  registration  upon  surrender  of  the  certificate  and  upon  the 
re(piest  of  the  registrant  owner.  E.r  parte  liJooniington  Canning 
Co.,  119  0.  G.  22:35.  C.  I).  1IH)5,  54:5. 

Section  U.  That  the  following  shall  be  the  rates  for  trade- 
mark fees : 

On  filing  each  original  application  for  registration  of  a 
trademark,  ten  dollars:  Provided,  That  an  application  for  regis- 
tration of  a  trademark  pending  at  the  date  of  the  passage  of  this 
act,  and  on  which  certificate  of  registration  shall  not  have  i.ssued 
at  such  date,  may,  at  the  option  of  the  applicant,  l)e  proceeded 
with  and  registered  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  withaut  the 
payment  of  further  fee. 

On  filing  each  application  for  renewal  of  the  registration  of  a 
tradeiiiark,  ten  dollars. 

On  filing  notice  of  opposition  to  the  registration  of  a  trade- 
mark, ten  dollars. 

On  an  appeal  from  the  Examiner  in  charge  of  Trademarks  to 
the  Commissioner  of  Patents,  fifteen  dollars. 

On  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  1-iXaminer  in  ^charge  of 
Interferences,  awarding  ownership  of  a  trademark  or  cancelling 
the  registration  of  a  trademark,  to  the  Commissioner  of  Patents, 
fifteen  dollars. 

For  certified  and  uncertifit'd  copies  of  certificates  of  registra- 
tion and  other  papers,  and  for  recording  transfers  and  other 
papers,  the  .same  fees  as  required  by  law  for  such  copies  of  pat- 
ents and  for  recording  assignments  and  other  papers  relating  to 
patents. 


TUADK.MAKK    ACT   OK    KKBKUAUY    1^0,    1905.  579 

The  I'oregoiiifj;  jji-ovisioiis  as  to  feos  do  not  provide  for  the  fee 
to  be  paid  upon  an  applieation  to  cancel  registration,  althou^'h 
a  fee  is  fixed  for  the  appeal  from  tlic  dcoisiori  of  the  Examiner 
of  Interferences  in  such  cases. 

Section  15.  That  sections  foity-nine  hundred  and  thirty-five 
and  forty-nine  hundred  and  thirty-six  of  the  Revised  Statutes, 
relating  to  the  payment  of  patent  fees  and  to  the  repayment  of 
fees  paid  by  'iiistake,  are  herdby  made  applicable  to  trademark 
fees. 

The  sections  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States,  re- 
ferred to  in  the  above  section,  are  as  follows : 

Section   4935. 

"Patent  fees  may  be  paid  to  the  Commissioner  of  Patents,  or 
to  the  Treasurer  or  any  of  the  Assistant  Treasurers  of  the  United 
States,  or  to  any  of  the  designated  depositaries,  national  })anks, 
or  receivers  of  public  money,  designated  l)y  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  for  that  purj)ose;  and  such  oflfic'er  shall  give  the  de- 
positor a  receipt  or  certificate  of  deposit  therefor.  All  money 
received  at  the  Patent  Office,  for  any  purpose,  or  from  any 
source  whatever,  shall  be  paid  into  the  treasury  as  receivecl, 
without  any  deduction  whatever. ' ' 

Section   4936. 

"The  Treasurer  of  the  United  States  is  authorized  to  pay 
back  any  sum  or  sums  of  money  to  any  person  who  has  through 
mistake  paid  the  same  into  the  treasury,  or  to  any  receiver  or 
depositary,  to  the  credit  of  the  treasurs',  as  for  fees  accruing  at 
the  Patent  Office,  upon  a  certificate  thereof  being  made  to  the 
Treasurer  bj'  the  Commissioner  of  Patents." 

Section  16.  That  the  registration  of  a  trademark  under  the 
provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  prima  facie  evidence  of  ownership. 
Any  person  who  shall,  without  the  consent  of  the  owner  thereof, 
reproduce,  counterfeit,  copy,  or  eolora'bly  imitate  any  such 
trademark  and  affix  the  same  to  merchandise  of  substantially 
the  same  descriptive  properties  as  those  set  forth  in  the  registra- 
tion, or  to  labels,  signs,  prints,  packages,  wrappers,  or  recepta- 
cles intended  to  be  used  upon  or  in  connection  with  the  sale  of 
merchandise  of  substantially  the  same  descriptive  propei'ties  as 
those  set  forth  in  such  registration,  and  shall  use,  or  shall  ha"^e 
used,  such  reproduction,  counterfeit,  copy,  or  colorable  imitation 
in  commerce  among  the  several  states,  or  with  a  foreign  nation, 


580  APPENDIX    E. 

or  with  the  Indian  tribes,  shall  l>o  liaMt-  to  an  action  for  damages 
tlu'rt'tor  at  tlio  suit  of  the  truner  thereof;  and  wlienever  in 
any  such  aetion  a  verilii-t  is  n-ndered  for  tlu'  plaint itT,  the  eourt 
may  enter  jiitl^inent  therein  for  any  sum  ahove  the  amount  found 
hy  the  verdict  as  the  actual  damages  afcordin^;  to  the  eircunu 
stances  of  the  case,  not  exceeding?  three  times  the  amount  of  such 
verdict,  tojrether  "vvith  the  costs. 

This  section  substantially  embodies  the  provisions  of  sec.  7  of 
the  Act  of  1S81,  besides  providinjj:  for  increasiiifj:  the  actual 
damatres  found,  to  a  sum  not  exciM-dinjU'  three  times  the  amount  of 
the  verdict. 

The  first  .sentence  of  tiiis  section  can  not  receive  from  the  court 
a  more  liberal  interpretation  than  was  «jiven  to  the  same  sentence 
in  the  Act  of  1881 ;  and  as  to  that  provision  in  the  former  act,  it 
wa.s  expressly  held  that  registration  could  not  serve  as  the  foun- 
dation for  preliminary  injunction.  -' 

Obviously,  a  certilicate  of  rejristration  may  be  introduced  in 
evidence  as  prinw  fa'ic  proof  of  ownership.  This  would  follow  if 
the  provision  were  not  expressed  in  the  act,  as  otherwise  any 
registration  act  would  1k'  idle. 

The  Committee  on  Patents  of  the  TIou.se  of  Represent<atives,  in 
their  report  recomniendinpr  the  pa.ssage  of  the  act,  said,  in  refer- 
ence to  this  .section,  as  follows: 

"A  remedy  at  law  is  given  to  tlie  owners  of  trademarks  by 
sec.  16.  The  provision  contained  in  this  section  to  give  the  court 
power  to  enter  a  judgment  on  a  verdict  for  three  times  the 
amount  of  the  verdict,  in  such  cases  as  the  court  may  deem  it 
advisable,  is  new  in  the  law  of  trademarks.  Similar  provisions 
exist  in  tlie  copyright  and  patent  laws  and  in  other  statutes.  The 
difficulty  of  proving  exact  damages  in  cases  of  this  character  is 
well  understood.  It  has  seemed  to  your  committee  proper  that 
the  Covernmenf.  which  has  made  provision  for  the  registration 
of  trademarks,  should  accord  to  tht>  owners  thereof,  who  have 
complied  with  the  terms  of  the  statute,  full  and  complete  re- 
dress for  violation  of  their  rights.  Ry  another  section  of  the 
bill  provision  is  made  for  designating  registered  trademarks  by 
printing  under  the  trademark  the  fact  that  it  is  registered,  as 
is  done  in  cases  of  patents,  so  that  any  person  who  iiintatcs  or 
counterfeits  a  trademark  will  do  .so  with  notice,  and  should 
therefore  be  held  to  a  strict  accountability  for  tlie  fraud  I'om- 
mitted." 

21 — A.    Lcsclicii    Sons  Rope  Co.   v.   Broderick  &    Hascom    Uopo   Company, 
I'i.l   Fed.    H.p.    IJ'.t,  152. 


TIJ ADK.M  \KK    ACT    OK    I'KHKI   AU V    20,    1905.  581 

Tliut  rcj^istration  is  l»y  sec.  ](>  iriadi-  prima  facie  evidence  of 
ownership,  see  In  re  (Jorham  Mf<j.  Co.,  41  Apj).  \).  C.  263,  198  O. 
IJ.  703. 

Section  17.  Tliat  the  circuit  and  territorial  courts  of  the 
United  States  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  District  of 
Colunihia  shall  have  original  jurisdiction,  and  the  ('irciiit  Courts 
of  Appeal  of  the  United  States  and  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the 
District  of  Coluinhia  shall  have  appellate  jurisdiction  of  all  suits 
at  law  or  in  e(iuity  respectinfj  trademarks  registered  in  accor- 
dance witii  the  provisions  of  this  act,  arising  under  the  present 
act,  without  regard  to  the  amount  in  controversy. 

This  section  designates  the  courts  having  original  and  appel- 
late jurisdiction  in  cases  involving  registered  trademarks.  As  to 
the  appellate  jurisdiction  in  trademark  cases  generally,  see  ante, 
sec.  201,  title  "Appeals." 

See  also  see.  24.  The  Judicial  Code  (Hopkins'  Judicial  Code, 
p.  31). 

Federal  jurisdiction. — "The  act  of  violation  complained  of, 
actual  or  threatened,  must  be  an  interstate  act,  and  it  is  only 
"when  the  defendant  so  uses  the  trademark  that  the  Act  of  Con- 
gri'ss  confers  the  jurisdiction." 

Dickinson,  J.,  in  Louis  Bergdoll  Brew.  Co.  v.  Bergdoll  Brew. 
Co.,  218  Fed.  Rep.  131,  133.  Following  Bernstein  v.  Danwitz, 
190  Fed.  Rep.  604. 

Section  18.  That  writs  of  certiorari  may  be  granted  l)y  the 
Supreme  Court  of  tlie  United  States  for  the  review  of  cases  ari.s- 
ing  under  this  act  in  the  same  manner  as  provided  for  patent 
cases  by  the  act  creating  the  circuit  court  of  appeals. 

This  section  is  substantially  identical  with  the  corresponding 
section  of  the  Judiciary  Act  of  1891,  see.  6.  As  to  the  issuance 
of  the  writ  of  certiorari  by  tiie  supreme  court,  see  ante,  sec.  202, 
title  "Certiorari." 

This  section  precludes  appeals  to  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court  in  eases  arising  under  this  act.  Hutchinson,  Pierce  d*  Co. 
V.  Loewij.  217  U.  S.  457.  54  L.  Ed.  838;  iitreet  &•  Smith  v.  Atlas 
Mfg.  Co.,  231  U.  S.  348.  58  L.  Ed.  262.  See  notes,  see.  9  ante. 
this  appendix. 

Section  10.  That  the  several  courts  vested  with  jurisdiction 
of  cases  arising  under  the  present  act  shall  have  power  to 
jrrant  injunctions,  according  to  the  course  and  principles  of 
equity,  to  prevent  the  violation  of  any  right  of  the  owner  of  a 


582  APPENDIX    K. 

tratleinark  ropistiTctl  uiuh  r  this  act.  on  such  tcnns  as  the  court 
may  iUhmh  n'asonaliU* ;  ami  upon  a  drcn'o  liciiij;  rciKU'rcil  in  any 
such  cast'  for  wron^'ful  ust'  of  a  trademarU  thi-  eoniplainant  shall 
hi»  ontith'd  to  i-cc()Vcr.  in  addition  to  the  profits  to  1h'  accounted 
for  l»y  tlic  dcfcnchmt.  the  (hiniajrcs  the  coniphiinant  luis  sus- 
taiiu'il  thcrchy.  aiul  the  court  shall  assess  the  sjinic  or  cause  the 
same  to  he  assessed  under  its  direction.  The  court  shall  have 
the  same  power  to  increase  such  damafies.  in  its  discretion,  as  is 
piven  hy  section  sixteen  of  this  act  for  increasing  damages  found 
hy  verdict  in  actions  of  law;  and  in  assessinu:  profits  the  plain- 
tiff shall  he  recpiired  to  prove  defendant's  sales  only;  defendant 
nnist  prove  all  elements  of  cost  which  are  claimed. 

This  section  is  suhstantially  identical  in  its  provisions  with 
see.  4lt*Jl.  H.  S.  U.  S.,  relatiii};  to  patent  cases,  with  the  addition 
of  providing  for  the  manner  of  assessing  profits.  See  ante,  see. 
1I>S,  title  "  Increa.se  of  I)ama<;es  in  K(piity." 

The  Committee  on  Patents  of  the  House  of  Re|)re.sentatives, 
in  their  rejxirt  recommendiiii:  the  pa.ssaj^e  of  the  act.  said  in 
refercnc<'  to  this  section: 

'"By  sec.  !!•  provision  is  made  for  proceedinjis  in  ecpiity  aprainst 
the  infringer  of  a  registered  trademark.  Tiiis  section  corre- 
sponds in  terms  with  see.  4(121  of  the  Revised  Statutes  relating 
to  patent  eases,  except  that  it  specially  provides  the  manner  in 
which  profits  shall  he  ascertained.  Under  existing  rules  it  is 
necessary  for  the  complainant  to  prove  sales  and  costs  with  entire 
and  ahsolute  accuracy.  The  only  persons  having  knowledge  of 
the  co.st  of  making  the  sales  are  the  defendant  or  some  one  in 
his  emi)loy.  It  lias  seemed,  therefoi-e,  only  fair  anil  just  that  if 
the  complainant  i)roves  the  sales,  the  defendant  should  he  re- 
(|uired  to  produce  evidence  of  the  expen.ses  he  was  [)ut  to  in 
making  such  sales  as  an  ofTset  against  the  sales  proven  hy  the 
c()mplainant." 

Section  20.  That  in  any  case  involving  the  right  to  a  trade- 
mark registered  in  ac<'or(lanc(>  with  the  provisions  of  this  act,  in 
which  the  verdict  has  heen  ff)und  for  the  plaintifT.  or  an  injunc- 
tion issued,  the  court  may  order  tliat  all  lal)els.  signs.  ])rints,  pack- 
ages, \vra[)pers.  or  receptacles  in  the  {)os.session  of  th(»  defendant, 
bearing  the  trademark  of  the  plaintifT  or  comi)hrmant.  or  any 
reproduction,  coutiterfeit,  copy,  or  colorahle  imifalion  thereof, 
shall  he  delivered  up  and  destroyed.  Any  injunction  that  may 
be  granted  ujion  hearing,  after  notice  to  the  defendant,  to  pre- 


THADK.MAKK  ACT  OF  rKURUAKY  20,  1905.  583 

vent  the  violation  of  ajiy  risht  of  the;  owner  of  a  trademark 
registered  in  accordance  witli  the  provisions  of  tliis  act,  by  any 
circuit  court  of  the  United  States,  or  hy  a  .judRe  thereof,  may 
l)e  served  on  the  parties  af,^ainst  whom  such  injunction  niay  he 
granted  anywhere  in  tlie  United  States  where  they  may  he 
found,  and  slial!  he  operative,  and  may  be  enforced  by  proceed- 
luixs  to  punish  for  contempt,  or  otherwise,  l)y  the  court  by  whicli 
sucli  iii.juiicliou  was  granted,  or  by  any  other  circuit  court,  or 
,iud^n'  tlieroof,  in  the  United  States,  or  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  District  of  Cohunljia,  or  a  judge  thereof.  The  said  courts, 
or  judges  thereof,  siiall  have  jurisdiction  to  enforce  said  injunc- 
tion, as  lierein  i)rovi(h'd,  as  fully  as  if  the  injunction  had  been 
granted  l)y  the  circuit  court  in  which  it  is  sought  to  be  enforced. 
The  clerk  of  the  court  or  judge  granting  the  injunction  shall, 
wlien  i*e(piired  to  do  so  l)y  the  court  before  wliich  application  to 
enforce  said  injunction  is  made,  transfer  without  delay  to  said 
court  a  certified  copy  of  all  the  papers  on  which  the  said  injunc- 
tion was  granted  that  are  on  file  in  his  office. 

This  section  was  modeled  nn  sec.  4966,  R.  S.  U.  S.,  part  of 
the  Copyright  Act. 

Section  21.  That  no  action  or  suit  shall  l>e  maintained  under 
the  provisions  of  this  act  in  any  case  when  the  trademark  is  used 
in  indawful  business,  or  upon  any  articles  injurious  in  itself,  or 
which  mark  has  been  used  with  the  design  of  deceiving  the  public 
in  the  purchase  of  merchandise,  or  has  been  abandoned,  or  upon 
any  certificate  of  registration  fraudulently  obtained. 

Section  22.  That  whenever  there  are  interfering  registered 
trademarks,  any  i)erson  interested  in  any  one  of  them  may  have 
relief  against  the  interfering  registrant,  and  all  persons  inter- 
ested under  him,  by  suit  in  equity  against  the  said  registrant; 
and  the  court,  on  notice  to  adverse  parties  and  other  due  pro- 
ceedings had  according  to  tlie  course  of  equity,  may  adjudge  and 
declare  either  of  the  registrations  void  in  whole  or  in  part  accord- 
ing to  the  interest  of  the  parties  in  the  trademark,  and  may 
order  the  certificate  of  registration  to  be  delivered  up  to  the 
Commissioner  of  Patents  for  cancellation. 

The  Committee  on  Patents  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  in 
their  report  recommending  the  passage  of  the  act,  said  in  refer- 
ence to  this  section : 


584  .U'PENPix  i:. 

"Sec.  '2'2  proviili's  lor  llu-  caiHtllatioii  of  cortiHeates  of  reg- 
istration wliirli  havi'  Iti-t'ii  j:raiitfil  to  appliiaiits  wlio  arc  siihse- 
(jiUMitly  fouml  not  to  he  the  owners  of  tlir  marks.  This  section 
proviilcs  only  for  the  cancellation  of  traileniarks  which  are  in 
conllict  with  other  rejristered  trademarks.  Sec.  \'.i  provides  that 
any  person,  whether  the  owner  of  any  rejfistered  trademark  or 
not,  who  may  deem  himself  injured  by  the  rt'^istration  of  a 
Diark.  may  make  application  to  the  ('onniiissioner  of  Patents  to 
cancel  the  registration  thereof,  and  pHx-ccdinp^  are  provided 
for  any  such  ca.se  protecting  the  rights  of  the  registrant  of  the 
mark. ' ' 

Section  2;^.  That  nothing  in  this  act  shall  prevent,  lessen, 
impeach,  or  avoid  any  remedy  at  law  or  in  ecpiity  which  any 
party  aggrieved  by  any  wrongful  use  of  any  trademark  might 
liave  had  if  the  provisions  of  this  act  had  not  been  passed. 

The  Comniittee  on  Patents  of  the  IIouso  of  Representatives, 
in  their  report  reconunending  the  passage  of  the  act,  said  in  ref- 
erence to  this  section: 

"Sec.  2:]  is  identical  with  sec.  10  of  the  Act  of  ISSl  on 
the  subject  of  trademarks,  and  is  intended  to  give  the  us(>r  of  a 
commercial  mark,  whether  such  mark  comes  within  the  technical 
definition  of  a  tradenuirk  under  the  i)rovisions  of  tiie  proposed 
act  the  right  to  have  such  remedy  agaiiLst  those  who  make  use 
of  such  mark  with  fraudulent  intent,  as  is  given  by  the  courts 
under  the  doctrine  of  unfair  competition,  and  to  further  pro- 
vide that  the  court.s  of  the  United  States  shall  continue  to  have 
such  jurisdiction  as  they  now  have  to  enforce  relief  in  such 
cases. ' ' 

Section  24.  That  all  applications  for  registration  pending  in 
the  office  of  the  Comn'i.s.sioner  of  Patents  at  the  time  of  the  pas.s- 
age  of  this  act  may  ))e  amended  with  a  view  to  bringing  thorn, 
and  the  certificate  issued  upon  such  applic'ations,  under  its  j)rovi- 
kIoils,  and  the  prosecution  of  siu'h  applications  may  be  proceeded 
■with  under  the  provisions  of  this  act. 

** Pending"  moans  undecidccl.  and  docs  not  comproliond  cases 
under  final  rejection.  I'^r  fxiric  Marl:  Cross  Co.,  IK)  O.  (i.  M'.V.^. 
A  decision  of  the  Commi.ssioner  that  an  applicant  is  not  entitled 
to  amend  so  aT  to  bring  his  ca^e  uiuler  the  Act  of  100.1  virtually 
refuses  registration,  and  is  therefore  ai)peaIablo.  In  re  Mark 
Cross  Co.,  116  O.  G.  2534;  Ex  parte  American  Separator  Co., 
119  0.  0.  339. 


TRADEMAUK    ACT    <)l'    1-KHUI '  AKY    'JO,    190.').  585 

Skction  2').  Tliat  nny  pc^rsnn  who  sliall  procure  roKistration 
of  a  tradt'iiiarU,  or  entry  lliereol",  in  tlie  ollfiee  of  the  (.'oiimiis- 
sioiier  of  Tateiits  l>y  a  false  or  fraudulent  deelaratiou  or  re{)re- 
seiitatioM.  oral  or  in  writing;,  or  hy  any  false  means,  sliall  be 
liable  to  pay  any  damaf;e.s  sustained  in  eonsequonee  thereof  to 
the  injured  party,  to  he  ret.'overed  hy  an  action  on  the  ease. 

This  section  i.s  identical   with  see.  !)  of  the  Aet  of  iSSl. 

Section  2G.  That  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  is  authorized 
to  make  rules  and  re^'ulations,  not  inconsistent  with  law,  for  tlie 
conduct  of  proceeding's  in  reference  to  the  registration  of  trade- 
marks provided  for  hy  this  act. 

Section  27.  That  no  article  of  imported  merchandise  which 
shall  copy  or  simulate  the  name  of  any  domestic  manufacture, 
or  manufacturer  or  trader,  or  of  any  manufacturer  or  trader 
located  in  any  foreign  country  which,  hy  treaty,  convention,  or 
law  affords  similar  privileges  to  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
or  which  shall  copy  or  simulate  a  trademark  registered  in  accord- 
ance with  the  provisions  of  this  act,  or  shall  hear  a  name  or  mark 
calculated  to  induce  the  pulilic  to  believe  that  the  article  is  manu- 
factured in  the  United  States,  or  that  it  is  manufactured  in  any 
foreign  country  or  locality  other  than  the  country  or  locality  in 
which  it  is  in  fact  manufactured,  shall  be  admitted  to  entrv  at 
any  custom  house  of  the  United  States;  and,  in  order  to  aid  the 
officers  of  the  customs  in  enforcing  this  prohibition,  any  domes- 
tie  manufacturer  or  trader,  and  any  foreign  manufacturer  or 
trader,  who  is  entitled  under  the  provisions  of  a  treaty,  conven- 
tion, declaration,  or  agreement  between  the  United  States  and 
any  foreign  country  to  the  advantages  afforded  by  law  to  citizens 
of  the  United  States  in  respect  to  trademarks  and  commercial 
names,  may  require  his  name  and  residence,  and  the  name  of 
the  locality  in  which  his  goods  are  manufactured,  and  a  copy  of 
the  certifieate  of  registration  of  his  trademark,  issued  in  accord- 
ance with  the  provisions  of  this  act,  to  lie  recorded  in  books  which 
shall  be  kept  for  this  purpose  in  the  Department  of  the  Treasury, 
under  such  retrulations  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall 
prescribe,  and  may  furnish  to  the  Department  fac-similes  of  his 
name,  the  name  of  the  locality  in  which  his  goods  are  manu- 
factured,  or  of   his   registered   trademark;   and  thereupon   the 


586  AlTLNniX    K. 

Seori'tary  ol"  tlio  Tivasiiry  sliall  oausi"  one  or  more  copies  of  the 
same  to  he  transmitteil  to  eaeh  eolkn'tor  or  other  proper  ollieer 
of  customs. 

Section  2S.  That  li  .^ii.iu  l.i-  lii.-  *luty  of  tlie  registrant  to  give 
notice  to  the  pnhlic  th.it  a  trath-inark  is  re^ristercd,  either  hy 
affixint;  thereon  the  words  "  Kefristi-red  in  I'.  S.  Patent  Oflice," 
or  ahhreviateil  tluis,  "  He};.  V.  S.  I'at.  OtV.,'  (tr  when,  from  the 
character  or  size  of  tlie  tnuh'inark,  or  from  its  maimer  of  attach- 
ment to  the  artich'  In  which  it  is  npproi)riated,  this  can  not  l)e 
done,  tlien  hy  affixinp  a  hihel  containiiif;  a  like  notice  to  the  pack- 
aijc  or  receptach'  wherein  th.'  artich'  or  articles  are  inclased; 
and  in  any  suit  for  infrin<jemcnt  l»y  a  party  failing?  so  to  pive 
notice  of  rciristration  no  daniiiiics  shall  he  recovered,  except  on 
proof  that  the  defendant  was  duly  iiotilied  of  infringement,  and 
continued  the  same  after  such   notice. 

Damafrcs  are  not  recoverahle  where  the  registrant  has  failed 
to  aflfix  the  imprint  of  the  «roods  or  jrive  notice  to  the  dcfencTant. 
nossuiar,,,  r.  Garmrr.  I'll   Fed.  Kcp-  -^<>1.  128  C.  C.  A.  78. 

Section'  12!>.  That  in  const  ruin-,'  this  act  the  following;  rules 
nnist  he  ol>served,  except  where  the  <'ontrary  intent  is  plainly 
apparent  from  the  context  thereof:  The  United  States  includes 
and  cnd)races  all  territory  which  is  under  the  jurisdiction  and 
control  of  the  United  States.  The  word  "states"  includes  and 
emhrace.s  the  District  of  rolumhia,  the  territories  of  the  United 
States,  and  such  other  territory  as  shidl  he  untler  the  jurisdic- 
tion and  control  of  the  United  States.  The  terms  "person"  and 
"owner."  and  any  other  word  or  term  used  to  desiirnatc  the 
applicant  or  other  entitled  to  a  henefit  or  privilecre  or  rendered 
liahle  under  th"  provisions  of  this  act,  include  a  firm,  corpora- 
tion, or  a.ssociation.  as  well  as  a  natural  person.  The  term  "appli- 
cant" and  "registrant"  embrace  the  succes.sors  and  assigns  of 
such  applicant  or  registrant.  The  term  "trademark"  inclndes 
any  mark  which  is  entitled  to  registration  under  the  terms  of 
this  act,  and  whether  regi.stered  or  not.  and  a  traih'mark  shall 
he  deemed  to  he  "afTlxed"  to  an  article  when  it  is  placed  in  any 
manner  in  or  upon  cither  the  article  itself  or  the  receptacle  or 
packa^re   or  upon   the  envelope  or  other  thing  in,   by,  or  with 


TKADLMAUK  ACT  UI-'  rKHHCAUV  'JO,  IDOil.  587 

uliicli  tlic  <r()0(l.s  arc  piickod  or  inclosod  or  othorwise  prepared 
Tor  siile  or  distril)uti()M. 

Section  ;{0.  That  this  act  sliuU  !)(•  in  force  and  take  cfTect 
April  first,  nineteen  liundred  and  five.  All  acts  and  parts  of  acta 
inconsistent  with  this  act  are  lierehy  repeah'd  except  so  far  as 
the  same  may  apply  to  certificates  of  rej^ist ration  issued  under 
the  Act  of  Congress  approved  Afarch  third,  eif^hteen  hundred  and 
eifi^hty-onp.  entitled,  "An  act  to  authorize  the  refjistration  of 
trademarks  and  protect  the  same,"  or  under  the  act  approved 
August  fifth,  eifrhteen  hundred  and  eif;hty-two,  entitled,  "An 
act  relating  to  the  registration  of  trademarks." 


588  Ain-ENDIX    E. 


Rl'LES  (;OVKHXIX(i   TlIK    IJKi^lSTlJATK  >N'   OK  TRADE- 
MAKKS  UNDKH  'rilM  TlxW  I  )KM  AKK  AC  1"S. 

rN!Ti:i)  St\ti:s  1'atknt  Ofkick, 
WnshiiK/ton.  D.  ('.,  October  !.'>,  1913. 

fOUKKSl'ONDKNCK. 

1.  All  business  with  the  oflico  should  l>e  transacted  in  writing. 
Unless  by  the  consent  of  all  parties,  the  action  of  the  office  will 
be  based  exclusively  on  the  written  record.  No  attention  will 
be  paid  to  any  alle^red  oral  promise,  stipulation,  or  undcnstaiiding 
in  relation  to  which  there  is  disagreement  or  iloulit. 

2.  Applicants  and  attorneys  will  l)e  required  to  conduct  their 
business  with  the  office  with  decorum  and  courtesy.  Papers  pre- 
sented in  violation  of  this  requirement  will  be  returned;  but 
all  such  papers  will  first  be  submitted  to  the  Connnissioner, 
and  only  be  returned  by  his  direct  order. 

3.  All  letters  should  be  addres.sed  to  "The  Commi.ssioner  of 
Patents;"  and  all  remittances  by  money  order,  check  or  draft 
should  be  to  his  order. 

4.  A  separate  letter  should,  in  every  case,  he  written  in  relation 
to  each  distinct  subject  of  iiuiuiiy  or  application.  Complaints 
apainst  the  Examiner  in  cliarfjje  of  Trademarks,  a.ssiprnments  for 
record,  fet^s,  and  orders  for  copies  or  abstracts  must  be  sent 
to  the  office  in  separate  letters. 

f>.  Letters  relatin<?  to  pendinpr  applications  should  refer  to 
the  name  of  the  applicant,  the  serial  luimber  of  the  application, 
and  the  date  of  filinp.  Ijetters  relatinir  to  regfistered  trade- 
marks shoidd  P'fer  to  the  name  of  the  re«ristrant.  the  tuiml>er 
and  date  of  the  certificate,  and  the  merchandise  to  which  the 
trademark  is  applied. 

n.  The  personal  attendance  of  ai^plicants  at  the  Patent  Office 
is  unneces.sary.  Their  ])usiness  cnn  l»e  transacted  by  correspond- 
once. 

7.  When  an  attorney  .shall  have  filed  his  power  of  attoniey, 
duly  executed,  the  correspondence   will   be  held   with   him. 

8.  k  double  correspondence  with  nn  applicant  and  his  attorney, 
or  with  two  attorneys,  can  not,  generally,  be  allowed. 


THADKMAKK    ACT    « >l'    I'Kltltl   AKV    20.     l!)!).").  oSS 

!».  Tlic  oHicc  can  not  uiidertak(!  to  n-spoiul  lo  iiKiuiricH  pro- 
j)ouiul(<l  with  a  view  to  ascertain  whether  certain  trademarks 
have  been  re^nstered,  or,  if  so,  to  whom,  or  for  what  -roods;  nor 
can  it  g'wv.  advice  as  to  th(?  natun;  and  extent  of  the  jjrotcctioii 
affordcil  by  the;  hiw.  or  act  as  its  exponnder,  except  as  (picstions 
may  arise  upon  applications  n^^MiIarly  filed. 

10.  Express,  frei<;lit,  postag(^  and  all  other  char^'es  on  matter 
.sent  to  the  Patent  Otlice  must  be  prepaid  in  full ;  otherwise  it  will 
not  be  received. 

ATTOHNEYS. 

11.  The  owner  of  a  trademark  may  prosecute  his  own  appli- 
cation for  registration  of  such  trademark,  but  he  is  advised, 
unless  familiar  with  such  matters,  to  employ  a  competent  attor- 
)iey.    Tlu^  office  can  not  aid  in  the  selection  of  an  attorney. 

A  register  of  attorneys  is  kept  in  the  Patent  Oflfice,  on  which 
is  entered  tlie  names  of  all  persons  entitled  to  represent  appli- 
cants before  the  Patent  Office  in  the  prosecution  of  applications 
for  patents,  and  any  registered  attorney  will  be  recognized  in 
the  prosecution  of  applications  for  registration  of  trademarks. 

Registration  of  an  attorney  merely  for  the  prosecution  of  an 
application  for  registration  of  a  trademark  will  not  be  required, 
but  in  the  absence  of  registration  recognition  will  be  limited 
to  each  case.  The  Commissioner  reserves  the  right  to  decline 
to  recognize  any  attorney,  agent,  or  other  person  authorized 
to  be  recognized  by  the  preceding  provisions  of  this  rule. 

12.  Before  any  attorney,  original  or  associate,  will  be  allowed 
to  inspect  papers  or  take  action  of  any  kind,  his  power  of  attor- 
ney must  be  filed.  General  powers  given  by  a  principal  to  an 
associate  can  not  be  considered.  In  each  application  the  written 
authorization  must  be  filed.  A  power  of  attorney  purporting 
to  have  been  given  to  a  firm  or  copartncn-sliij)  will  not  be  recog- 
nized, either  in  favor  of  the  firm  or  any  of  its  members,  unless 
all  its  members  shall  be  named  in  such  power  of  attorney. 

18.  Substitution  or  association  may  be  made  by  an  attorney 
upon  the  written  authorization  of  his  principal ;  but  such  author- 
ization will  not  empower  the  second  attorney  to  appoint  a  third. 

14.  Powers  of  attorney  may  be  revoked  at  any  stage  in  the 
proceedings  of  a  ease  upon  application  to  and  approval  by  the 
Commissioner;  and.  when  so  revoked,  the  office  will  connnunicate 


590  Ari'i;Ni>i.\  i:. 

directly  with  tho  nj^plioant,  or  such  other  attomey  as  he  may 
appoint.  A  power  of  attonu-y  appointinjf  a  sei'OMil  principal 
attorney  will  not  be  entered  uidess  such  power  of  attorney 
speeitieally  revokes  that  j:iven  the  principal  attorney  of  record 
(Rule  8).  An  attorney  will  be  promptly  notified  by  tiie  docket 
elerk  of  the  revocation  of  his  power  of  attorney. 

IT).  For  jrross  inisconduct  the  ( 'oniniissioner  iii.iy  refuse  to 
reco^ni/e  any  person  as  an  attorney,  eitlu'r  ^'ciierally  or  in  any 
j)articular  ca.s»> ;  but  the  reasons  for  such  refusal  will  l)e  duly 
recorded  and  bi'  subject  to  tlie  ai)proval  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior. 

WHO    MAY    HKGISTEK    A    TR.VDEMARK. 
Act  of  Fel..   20,   1005,  sec.    1. 

If).  A  trademark  may  be  regri.stered  by  any  person,  finn, 
corporation,  or  association  domiciled  within  the  territory  of 
the  Tnited  States,  or  residing;  in  or  located  in  any  foreign 
country  which,  by  treaty,  convention,  or  law.  atTords  similar 
privili'<;es  to  the  eitizens  of  the  Ignited  States,  aiul  who  is  the 
owner  of  such  tradenuirk.  and  uses  the  same  in  commerce  with 
foreign  nations,  or  amon«r  the  .several  states,  or  with  Indian 
tribes,  upon  [layment  of  the  fee  re(iuired  by  law  and  other  due 
proceedings  had.     (See  Rules  17  and  20.) 

Act  of  Feb.  20,   100."),  Hccs.    1.  2.  and    \ :    Act   of  May  4,  lOOfi,  8PC.  3. 

17.  Except  as  provided  by  sec.  3  of  the  Act  of  May  4,  1906, 
no  trademark  will  be  registered  to  an  applicant  residing  or 
located  in  a  foreign  country  uidess  such  country,  by  treaty, 
convention,  or  law,  atTords  similar  privileges  to  tiie  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  nor  unless  the  trademark  has  been  registered 
by  the  applicant  in  the  foreign  country  in  whidi  he  resides 
or  is  located,  nor  until  such  applicant  has  filed  in  tliis  office  a 
certified  copy  of  the  certificate  of  registration  of  bis  trade- 
mark in  the  country  where  he  resides  or  is  located.  In  such 
(•ases  it  is  not  necessary  to  state  in  the  applic;ition  that  the 
trademark  has  been  used  in  connnen-e  with  the  United  States 
or  among  the  several  states  thereof. 

Art    of    May    1.    1000.    si-c.    .1. 

18.  The  ow7ior  of  a  trademark,  residing  or  located  in  U 
foreign  countrv  and  who  shall  have  a  manufacturing  establish- 


TKADEMAUK    ACT   01-'    KKHUIJAUY    20,    UK).").  r>m 

merit  within  llio  torritory  of  the  United  States,  may  rofristor  a 
Irademark  nscd  on  Hm-  products  of  sudi  estalilishment  upon 
complying'  with  llu-  piovision.s  of  tin;  Act  of  Fehruary  20,  l'J05, 
a.s  j)rcscrilM'(|  for  owners  of  ti'adeuiarks  domiciled  within  the 
territory  oC  the  United  States. 

WHAT  MAY  BE  REGISTERED  AS  A  TRADEMARK. 

Act  (.f   Frl..   20.    mo.-.,  wcs.   1,  .-,.  and  21;   Act  of   K.-h.    ]H,   UlOO,   boo.   1. 

19.  Xo   tradeiiiari<    will    he   retristered   to   an   owner  domiciled 
within  the  territory  of  the  United  States  unless  it  shall  be  marie 
to  apix'ar  that  the  same  is  used  as  such  hy  said  owner  in  com- 
nu^ree  amoufr  the  several  states,  or  between  the  United  States  and 
some   forei|,Mi  nation  or  Indian   tribe;  no  trademark,  except  as 
provided  by  sec.  'A  of  the  Act  of  May  4.  liiofl,  will  be  registered 
to  an  owner  residing,'  in  or  located  in  a  foreifrn  countr>-  unless 
said  country,  by  treaty,  convention,  or  law,  affords  similar  privi- 
leges to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States;  no  trademark  will  be 
registered  which  coiisists  of  or  comprises  immoral  or  scandalous 
matter,  or  which  consists  of  or  comprises  the  flag  or  coat  of  arms 
or  other  insignia  of  tlie  T^nited  States,  or  any  simulation  thereof, 
or  of  any  state  or  nninicipality,  or  of  any  foreign  nation,  or 
which  consi.sts  of  or  comprises  any  design  or  picture  that  has 
been  adopted  by  any  fraternal  society  as  its  emblem,  unless  it 
shall  be  shown  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Commis-sioner  of  Patents 
that  the   mark  was  adopted  and  used  as  a   trademark  liy  the 
applicant  or  applicant's  predecessors,  from  whom  title  is  derived, 
at  a  date  prior  to  the  date  of  its  adoption  hy  such  fraternal 
society  as  its  emblem,  or  which  trademark  is  identical  Avith  a 
regi.stered  or  known  trademark  owned  and  in  use  by  another,  and 
appropriated  to  merchandise  of  the  same  descriptive  properties, 
or  which  so  nearly  resembles  a  registered  or  kno\ATi  trademark 
o\raed  and  in  use  by  another,  and  appropriated  to  merchandise 
of  the  same  descriptive  properties  as  to  be  likely  to  cause  con- 
fusion or  mistake  in  the  mind  of  the  pu1)lic,  or  to  deceive  pur- 
chasers, or  which  consists  merely  in  the  name  of  an  individual, 
firm,  corporation,  or  association,  not  written,  printed,  impressed, 
or  woven  in  some  particular  or  distinctive  manner  or  in  asso- 
ciation  with   a   portrait  of  the   individual,   or  merely   in   words 
or  dcAices  which  are  descriptive  of  the  goods  with  which  they 


592  AIM'ENDIX    E. 

are  used,  or  of  tlio  clmrav'tiT  or  (luality  of  such  poods,  or  nioroly 
u  trt'of^raphical  name  or  term ;  no  portrait  of  a  living  individual 
will  be  registered  as  a  trailenuirk.  except  by  tbe  eoiusent  of  such 
indiviilual  evidenciMl  by  an  instrument  in  writinjr;  and  no  trade- 
mark will  be  registered  which  is  used  in  unlawful  business,  or 
upon  any  article  injurious  in  itself,  or  wbicli  has  been  useil 
with  the  design  of  deceiving  the  public  in  the  purchase  of  mer- 
chandise, or  whii-h  has  been  abandoned. 

A.t  of  F.I..  20.  lito:..  Ktr.  f);   Alt  of  F.-h.   IS.   1011. 

20.  Any  mark,  used  in  connnerce  with  foreign  nations  or 
among  the  several  states  or  with  Indian  tril)es,  may  l>e  registered 
if  it  has  lieen  in  actual  and  exclusive  use  as  a  trademark  of  the 
applicant,  or  his  jiredecessors  from  whom  he  derived  title,  for 
10  years  next  preceding  February  20,  r.)05.     (See  Rule  32.) 

THE   .VTPUCATION. 
Act  of  F.'l).  20,  inOf),  8fc.   1. 

21.  An  application  for  the  registration  of  a  trademark  must 
he  made  to  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  and  must  be  signed  by 
the  ai)plicant. 

Act  of  Feb.   20,  100."),  sec.  1:    Act  of  Feb.    18,   1000,  sec.   1. 

22.  A  complete  application  comprises: 

(a)  A  petition,  requesting  registration,  signed  by  tbe  appli- 
cant.    (See  Form  1,  p.  fill.) 

(b)  A  .statement  specifying  the  naiiie,  domicile,  location,  and 
citizenship  of  the  party  applying,  and  if  the  applicant  be  a  cor- 
poration or  association,  the  state  or  nation  under  the  laws  of 
which  organized;  the  class  of  merchandise  (according  to  the 
official  classification),  and  the  particular  descrijition  of  goods 
comprised  in  such  class  upon  which  the  trademark  has  actually 
)>een  used;  a  statement  of  the  mode  in  which  tbe  same  is  applied 
and  aflRxed  to  the  goods,  and  the  length  ol"  time  during  which 
the  trademark  l<as  been  used  upoii  the  gof^ls  spccificil.  A  descri[v 
tion  of  the  trademark  itself  shall  ])e  included,  if  desired  by  the 
ap<plicant  or  rerpiircd  l)y  the  Commissioner,  provided  such  descrip- 
tion is  of  a  character  to  meet  the  approval  of  the  Commissioner. 
''See  see.  20  of  tbe  Act  of  February  20.  IfW)."),  and  Forms  2,  4. 

.6,  and  10,  pj).  012,  613,  614  and  (116. 


TKADKMAUK    ACT   OF    KKMKl'AUY    'JO,    1005,  503 

(c)  A  declaration  (•(^nplyiiif,'  willi  sec.  2  of  the  Act  of  Feb- 
ruary 20,  1905,  as  aiiieiulcd  hy  the  Act  of  February  18,  1009. 
(See'  Forms  3,  5,  7,  8,  0,  and  11.  i)p.  012,  (113,  014.  (;15,  fJKi, 
and  (J17.) 

(d)  A  drawing  of  the  trademark,  sif^ned  by  the  ai)plicant, 
or  his 'attorney,  which  shall  he  a  facsimile  of  the  same  as  actually 
used  upon  the  goods.  (See  Rules  36  and  37  and  specimen  draw- 
ing, p.  619.) 

(e)  Five  specimens  (or  facsimiles,  ulieit,  from  the  mode  of 
applying  or  affixing  the  trademark  to  the  goods,  specimens  can 
not  be  furnislied)  of  the  trademark  as  actually  used  upon  the 
goods. 

(/)   A  fee  of  $10. 

23.  The  petition,  the  statement,  and  the  declaration  must  be 
in  the  English  language  and  written  on  one  side  of  the  paper 
only. 

24.  The  name  of  the  applicant  will  appear  in  the  certificate 
of  registration  precisely  as  it  is  signed  to  the  statement  of  the 
application,  and,  therefore,  the  signature  to  the  statement  must 
be  the  correct  signature  of  the  applicant,  and  the  name  of  the 
applicant  wherever  it  appears  in  the  papers  of  the  application 
will  be  made  to  agree  with  the  name  as  signed  to  the  statement. 

25.  No  information  will  bo  given,  without  authority  of  the 
applicant,  respecting  the  filing  of  an  application  for  the  regis- 
tration of  a  trademark  by  any  person,  or  the  subject-matter 
thereof,  unless  it  shall,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Commissioner,  be 
necessary  to  the  proper  conduct  of  business  before  the  office. 

Act  of  Feb.  20.  100"),  spcs.   14  and  24. 

26.  All  applications  for  registration  pending  in  the  Patent 
Office  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  February  20, 
1905,  may  be  amended  with  a  view  to  bringing  them  and  the 
certificates  issued  under  such  applications  under  the  provisions 
of  said  act,  and  the  prosecution  of  such  applications  may  be 
proceeded  with  under  its  provisions  without  the  payment  of 
further  fee.  When  such  an  application  is  amended  to  bring  it 
under  the  Act  of  February  20,  1005,  it  will  be  given  a  serial 
number  and  a  date  of  filing  under  said  act. 

A  trademark,  resristered  under  the  Act  of  ]\larch  3,  ""SSI,  may 
be  registered  under  the  Act  of  Februan'  20,  1905,  but  the  appli- 
cation for  such  registration  will  be  subject  to  examination  in 


51)4  Ai-ri  Ni>i\  1.. 

the  siime  munnor  as  other  applications  liled  miuUt  said  Act  of 
Fobruan-  'JO,  1905. 

Art  of   Feb.   20,   lOOf),   h.o.    J. 

21.  An  application  for  registration  of  a  trademark,  filed  in 
this  country  by  any  person  who  has  previously  regularly  filed 
in  any  foreign  country  which,  l)y  treaty,  convention,  or  law, 
atTords  similar  privileges  to  the  citizens  of  the  Fnited  States 
an  application  for  registration  of  the  same  trademark,  shall 
l»e  accorded  the  same  force  and  efTect  as  would  l)e  accorded  to 
the  same  api^lication  if  filed  in  this  country  on  the  date  on 
which  application  for  registration  of  the  same  trademark  was 
first  filed  in  such  foreign  country:  l'rori<!((l.  That  such  applica- 
tion be  filed  in  this  eouutry  within  foui'  iiiontlis  from  the  date 
on  which  the  application  was  first  filed  in  .such  foreign  country. 

Act   of   Feb.   20,   I'lnr),   sro.   .•?. 

28.  Every  applicant  for  registration  of  a  trademark,  or  for 
renewal  of  registration  of  a  trademark,  who  is  not  domiciled 
within  the  United  States,  shall,  before  the  i.ssuance  of  the  cer- 
tificate of  registration,  designate,  by  a  notice  in  writing,  filed 
in  the  Patent  Office,  some  person  residing  within  the  United 
St-ites  on  whom  process  or  notice  of  proceedings  affecting  the 
right  of  ownership  of  the  trademark  of  which  such  applicant 
may  claim  to  I)e  the  owner  may  ^)e  served.  This  notice  shall 
be  indorsed  upon  the  file  wrapper  of  the  application. 

Act   of    Fel).    20,    100.'),   ace.    .3. 

20.  In  pro<'eedings  relating  to  an  application,  or  to  a  regis- 
tration under  the  Act  of  February  20,  1  !•().'>,  it  shall  be  deemed 
sufficient  to  serve  notice  ui)on  the  ;ipj)licajit,  ri^gistrant,  or  rep- 
resentative, by  leaving  a  coi)y  of  the  process  or  notice  of  pro- 
eeediuL's  achlressed  to  him  at  the  last  adikess  of  which  the  Com- 
mi.ssioner  of  Patents  has  been  notified. 

Art  of    May    I.    lilOC.   h.t.    2. 

:?0.  A  trademark  may.  at  the  ojition  of  the  ai>[ilicaiit,  be  reg- 
istered on  a  single  ajjplication,  for  any  or  all  goods  comi)rised 
in  a  single  cla.ss  of  merchandise,  provided  the  particular  descrip- 
tion of  goods  be  stated,  and  provided  that  tlie  mark  has  been 


TRADKMAHK    ACT   OF    FKHRrAUY    20,    1005.  HOfj 

actually  used  upon  all  of  tlie  goods  specified.     (See  classifica- 
tion of  mcrcliaridisc,  AiJpciidix  J,  post.) 

Act  of  Feb.  20,   11)05,  sec.  2;   Act  of  Fe!).    18,  1005),  sec.  2. 

31.  The  applifntion  must  bo  accompanied  by  a  written  declar- 
ation, vcrilit'd  hy  the  applicant,  or  by  a  nu'inl)or  of  the  firm, 
Of  by  an  officer  of  the  corporation  or  as.s(M'ia1ion  apply inf^r,  to 
the  effect  tbat  be  believes  bimself,  or  the  firm,  corporation,  or 
association  in  whose  behalf  he  makes  the  declaration,  to  be  the 
owner  of  the  trademark  souf,dit  to  be  registered,  and  that  no 
other  person,  firm,  cori)oration,  or  association,  to  the  Ix-st  of 
his  knowledge  and  l)elief,  has  the  right  to  use  the  trademark 
in  the  United  States,  either  in  the  identical  form  or  any  such 
near  resemblance  thereto  as  might  be  cabMdated  to  deceive;  that 
such  trademark  is  used  in  commerce  among  the  several  states, 
or  with  foreign  nations,  or  with  Indian  tribes;  that  the  descrip- 
tion and  drawing  truly  represent  the  trademark  sought  to  be 
registered;  that  the  specimens  (or  fnC'similcs)  show  the  niark  as 
actually  u.sed  u[)on  the  goods;  and  that  the  facts  set  forth  in  the 
statement  are  true.  (See  Rule  17  and  Forms  3,  5,  7,  8,  9,  and  11, 
pp   612,  613,  61-4,  615,  616,  and  617.) 

Act' of  Fol).  18,   1911. 

32.  Wliere  application  is  made  under  see.  5  of  the  Act  of 
February  20,  1905,  on  the  ground  that  the  mark  has  been  in 
actual  and  exclusive  use  as  a  trademark  by  the  applicant,  or 
his  predecessors  from  whom  he  derived  title,  for  10  years  next 
preceding  February  20,  1905,  the  applicant  shall,  in  addition 
to  the  requirements  of  sec.  2  of  said  act,  make  oath  to  such 
actual  use  of  the  mark  as  a  trademark  by  himself  or  his  pred- 
ecessors, or  by  those  from  whom  title  to  the  same  is  derived, 
for  the  period  specified,  and  that,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge 
and  belief,  such  use  has  been  exclusive.     (See  Form  8,  p.  615.) 

Act  of  Feb.  20,  1905,  sec.  2. 

33.  If  the  applicant  resides  or  is  located  in  a  foreign  country, 
the  declaration  required,  unless  the  application  be  presented 
under  the  provisions  of  sec.  3  of  the  Act  of  'May  4.  1906.  shall 
also  set  forth  that  the  trademark  has  been  registered  by  the 
applicant,  or  that  an  application  for  the   registration  thereof 


596  API'ENDIX   E. 

has  1)0011  filed  by  him  in  tho  foroipii  country  in  wliiolj  ho  resides 
or  is  located,  and  shall  ^rive  the  (hite  of  such  n-iristration.  or 
of  thf  application  thi-rcfor.  as  the  case  may  he.  lii  such  casj'.s 
it  shall  not  he  necessary  to  state  that  the  mark  has  been  used 
in  eoimueree  with  tlie  I'nited  States  or  anion-:  the  states  thereof. 

Act  of  Muy  4,  1000,  mc.  H. 
If  the  applieation  be  presented  under  the  provisions  of  see. 
'^  of  the  Aet  of  May  4,  1906.  the  declaration,  in  atUlition  to  the 
re(|uirenients  of  Kule  'M,  nuist  state  that  the  ajiplicant  has  a  nian- 
ufacturinp  establishment  within  the  territory  of  the  United  States 
and  that  the  poods  upon  \vhieli  the  trademark  is  used  are  the 
product  of  such  establishment. 

Act  of   Fcl>.  20,  1905,  80c.  2. 

:U.  Tile  deelaration  may  *be  made  before  any  person  within 
the  United  States  authorized  by  law  to  administer  oaths,  or, 
when  the  applicant  resides  in  a  foreiprn  country,  before  any 
minister,  charge  d'affaires,  consul,  or  commercial  apent  hold- 
ing commission  under  the  Oovernment  of  the  United  States, 
or  before  any  notary  public,  .iudge,  or  magistrate  having  an 
official  seal  and  authorized  to  administer  oath.s  in  the  foreign 
country'  in  whicli  the  applicant  may  be,  whose  autliority  sliall 
be  proved  by  the  certificate  of  a  diplomatic  or  consular  officer 
of  the  United  States,  tlie  declaration  being  attested  in  all  cases, 
in  this  and  other  countries,  liy  the  proper  official  seal  of  the 
officer  before  wliom  the  same  is  made,  except  that  no  acknowl- 
edgment may  lie  taken  before  any  attorney  appearing  in  the 
ease.  When  the  person  before  whom  tlie  declaration  is  made 
is  not  provided  with  a  seal,  his  official  character  shall  lie  estab- 
lished by  competent  evidence,  as  by  a  certificate  of  a  clerk  of 
a  court  of  record,  or  other  proper  officer  having  a  seal. 

35.  Amendment  of  the  declaration  will  not  be  permitted.  If 
that  filed  with  the  ai)[)lication  be  faulty  or  defective,  a  sub- 
stitute declaration  must  be  filed. 

DRAWINO. 

36.  (1)  The  drawing  must  be  made  upon  pure  wliite  paper 
of  a  thickness  corresponding  to  two-sheet  Bristol  board.  Tlie 
surface  of  the  paper  must  be  calendered  and  smooth.  India 
ink  alone  must  be  used,  to  secure  perfectly  black  and  solid  lines. 


TK,\i)i;.\i  \i{K'    \<"r  OK  I'lMiur  vwv  20,   ]'.H)7\.  597 

(2)  The  s'y/.v  of  a  slice!  on  uliidi  a  drawiii';  is  made  luusl  be 
exactly  10  by  15  inches.  One  inch  Irom  its  edf^&s  a  sinjifle  niar- 
f^inal  line  is  to  he  drawn,  leaving  the  "sij^ht"  j)re><;isely  H  by 
13  inches.  Within  this  niarj^in  all  work  and  si^^natures  iinist 
l)e  included.  One  of  the  shorter  sides  of  the  sheet  is  regarded 
as  its  top,  and,  nieasurin«^  downwardly  from  the  mar<,'inal  line, 
a  space  of  not  less  than  1 ' /'i  inches  is  to  he  left  blank  for  the 
headinf^  of  title,  name,  nuinhcr,  and  date.  (See  specimen  draw- 
ing:, P-  (>!•'•  > 

(3)  All  drawinj?s  must  be  made  with  the  pen  only.  Every 
line  and  letter,  signatures  included,  must  be  ah.solutely  black. 
This  direction  applies  to  all  lines,  however  fine,  and  to  shadiuf^. 
All  lines  nnist  be  clean,  sharp,  and  solid,  and  they  must  not  be 
too  fine  or  crowded.    Surface  shading,  when  used,  should  be  open. 

Act  of  Fi'1).  20,  mOf),  sec.   1;  Act  of  Vvh.   18,  1909,  sec.   1. 

(4)  The  name  of  the  proprietor  of  the  trademark,  signed 
by  himself  or  by  his  attorney  of  record,  must  be  placed  at  the 
lower  right-hand  corner  of  the  sheet  within  the  marginal  lines, 
but  in  no  instance  should  it  encroach  upon  the  drawing. 

(5)  When  the  view  is  longer  than  tlie  width  of  the  sheet, 
the  sheet  should  be  turned  on  its  side  and  the  heading  should 
be  placed  at  the  right  and  the  signature  at  the  left,  occupying 
the  same  space  and  position  as  in  an  upright  view  and  being 
horizontal  when  the  sheet  is  held  in  an  upright  position. 

(6)  Drawings  transmitted  to  the  office  should  be  sent  flat, 
protected  by  a  sheet  of  heavy  l)indcr's  board,  or  should  be  rolled 
for  transmission  in  a  suitable  mailing  tube.  They  should  never 
be  folded. 

(7)  An  agent's  or  attorney's  stamp,  or  advertisement,  or 
written  address  will  not  be  permitted  upon  the  face  of  a  draw- 
ing, within  or  without  the  marginal  line. 

37.  The  office,  at  the  request  of  applicants,  \nll  furnish  the 
drawings  at  cost. 

EXAMINATIOX    OF   .APPLICATIONS. 
Act  of  Fd).  20.   1905,  sec.  fi. 

38.  All  complete  applications  for  registration  are  considered, 
in  the  first  instance,  by  the  Examiner  in  charge  of  Trademarks. 
Whenever,   on   examination    of   an    applicatioii.    registration   is 


598  .vprENPix  E. 

refused  for  any  reason  wiiatcvor,  tlio  applii-anl  will  he  notified 
thereof.  'I'lu'  reasons  for  sueli  refusal  will  be  stated,  and  sueli 
information  and  rel't-renees  will  he  fiiven  as  may  he  useful  in 
aiding'  the  applieant  to  judge  of  the  propriety  of  further  pros- 
ecuting: his  application. 

[]9.  The  e.\aniin;ition  of  an  application  and  the  action  thereon 
will  be  directed  throughout  to  the  nu'rit.s,  hut  in  each  letter  the 
Examiner  shall  state  or  refer  to  all  his  objections. 

Act  of  Fob.  20,   !!)().-),  see.  (J. 

40.  If,  on  examination  of  an  application  for  the  repristration 
of  a  tradenuirk.  it  sliall  appear  that  tlie  applicant  is  entitled 
to  have  his  trademark  registered  under  the  i)rovisions  of  the 
law,  the  mark  will  he  published  in  the  Oflficial  Gazette  at  least 
once.  Such  publication  shall  be  at  least  thirty  days  prior  to 
the  date  of  registration. 

If  no  notice  of  opposition  be  filed  within  thirty  days  after  such 
publication,  the  applicant  or  his  attorney  will  be  duly  notified 
of  the  allowance  of  his  application,  and  a  certificate  of  regis- 
tration will  be  issued  as  provided  in  Rule  58. 

The  weekly  issue  closes  on  Thursday,  and  the  rertificates  of 
registration  of  that  issue  bear  date  as  of  the  fourth  Tuesday 
thereafter. 

AMENDMENTS. 

41.  The  statement  may  be  amended  to  correct  informalities, 
or  to  avoid  objections  made  by  tlie  office,  or  for  other  reasons 
arising  in  the  course  of  examination,  but  no  amehdments  to  the 
description  or  drawing  of  the  trademark  will  be  permitted  unless 
warranted  by  soiiu'thiug  in  the  spetiimens  {or  fac-b'iuiilcs)  as 
originally  filed. 

42.  In  every  amendment  the  exact  word  or  words  to  be  stricken 
out  or  inserted  in  the  statement  must  be  speeified  and  the  pre- 
cise point  indicated  where  the  erasure  or  insertion  is  to  be  made. 
All  such  amendments  must  he  on  sheets  of  paper  separate 
from  the  papers  p^e^'^ously  filed,  and  written  on  but  onn  side 
of  the  paper. 

Erasures,  additions,  insertions,  or  mutilations  of  the  papers 
and  records  must  not  be  made  by  the  applicant  or  attorney. 

43.  When  an  amendatorv  clause  is  amended,  it  nnist  be  wholly 
re-written,  so  that  no  interlineation  or  erasure  shall  appear  iii 


TRADEMAUK  ACT  OF  FKHKf  AUY  20,  1005.  5f)!) 

the  clauso.  as  finally  amended,  when  the  application  Ls  passed 
to  issue.  If  the  number  or  nature  of  the  amendments  shall  render 
it  otherwise  difficult  to  consider  the  case,  or  to  arrange  the  [)ap(irs 
for  printing  or  copying,  the  Examiner  may  require  the  entire 
statement  to  be  re-written. 

44.  After  allowance,  the  Examiner  will  exercise  jurisdictiftM 
over  an  application  only  by  special  authority  from  the  Commis- 
sioner. 

Amendments  may  be  made  after  the  allowance  of  an  appli- 
cation, if  the  case  has  not  been  printed,  on  the  recommendation 
of  the  Examiner,  approved  by  the  Commissioner,  without  with- 
drawing the  case  from  issue. 

45.  After  the  completion  of  the  application,  the  office  will 
not  return  the  papers  for  any  purpose  whatever.  If  the  appli- 
cant has  not  preserved  copies  of  the  papers  which  he  wishes 
to  amend,  the  office  will  furnish  them  on  the  usual  terms. 

45a.  If  an  applicant  fail  to  prosecute  his  application  within 
one  year  prior  to  November  1,  1911,  or  for  one  year  after  the 
date  when  the  last  official  notice  of  any  action  by  the  office  was 
mailed  to  him,  the  api)lioation  will  be  held  tp  be  abandoned, 
as  set  forth  in  Kule  57a. 

45b.  "Whenever  action  npon  an  application  is  suspended  upon 
request  of  an  applicant  and  whenever  an  applicant  has  been 
called  upon  to  put  his  application  in  condition  for  interference, 
the  period  of  one  year  running  against  such  application  shall 
be  considered  as  beginning  at  the  date  of  the  last  official  action 
preceding  such  actions. 

45c.  Acknowledgment  of  the  filing  of  an  application  is  an 
official  action.  Suspensions  will  only  be  granted  for  good  and 
sufficient  cause  and  for  a  reasonaWe  time  specified. 

45d.  Only  one  suspension  will  be  granted  by  the  Examiner 
of  Trademark'^.  Any  further  suspension  must  be  approved  by  the 
Commissioner. 

INTERFERENCE,    OPPOSITION,    AND    CANCELLATION. 

46.  Whenever  application  is  made  for  the  registration  of  a 
trademark  which  is  substantially  identical  with  a  trademark 
appropriated  to  goods  of  the  same  descriptive  properties,  for 
which  a  certificate  of  reeistration  hMS  been  previously  issued 
to  another,  or  for  registration  of  which  another  had  previously 


600  APPKxnix  E. 

maile  application,  or  whioh  so  noarly  rosomhlos  suoh  trademark, 
or  a  known  tradoinark  o\vno(l  and  used  by  another,  as,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  C'oiniuissioner,  to  he  likely  to  he  mistaken  there- 
for l)y  the  piihlic,  an  interference  will  he  declared. 

The  practice  in  trademark  interferences  will  follow,  as  nearly 
as  i>racti('al)le.  tlie  practice  in  interferences  between  apjilieations 
for  patents. 

47.  Before  the  declaration  of  interference,  all  preliminary 
questions  must  have  been  settled  by  the  Examiner  in  charge 
of  Trademarks,  and  the  trademark  which  is  to  form  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  controversy  mu.st  have  been  decided  to  "be  reg- 
istrable, and  nnist  have  been  published  at  lea.st  once  in  the  Official 
Gazette  of  the  Patent  Office. 

"Whenever  two  or  more  applicants  are  found  to  be  claiming 
substantially  the  same  registrable  trademark,  and  the  applica- 
tion of  one  of  the  applicants  is  ready  for  publieatiou.  the  Exam- 
iner in  charge  of  Trademarks  may  re(piire  th(^  other  ai)p!icants  to 
put  their  applications  in  condition  for  publication  within  a  time 
specified,  in  order  that  an  interference  may  be  declared.  If 
any  party  fail  to  put  his  application  in  condition  for  publica- 
tion ^vithin  the  time  specified,  the  declaration  of  interference 
will  not  be  delayed,  but  after  final  judgment  the  application 
of  .such  party  will  be  held  for  revision  and  restriction,  subject 
to  interference  with  other  applications  or  registered  trademarks. 

48.  The  Examiner  in  charcre  of  Interferences  may.  either  before 
or  in  his  final  decision  in  an  interference  or  opposition,  direct 
the  attention  of  the  Commissioner  to  any  matter  which  may 
have  come  to  his  notice  which  can  not  be  acted  upon  by  him, 
which  in  his  opinion  precludes  a  proper  determination  of  ques- 
tions raised  by  the  proceeding,  or  which  amounts  to  a  statu- 
tory- "bar  to  resristration  of  the  mark  to  any  or  all  of  the  parties. 
The  Tommissioner  may.  before  iudirment,  suspend  the  inter- 
ference or  opposition  nnd  remand  the  same  to  the  Examiner  in 
charge  of  Trademarks  for  his  consideration  of  the  mntters  to 
which  attention  has  lieen  directed.  If  the  ca.se  be  not  so  re- 
manded, the  Examiner  in  chartro  of  Trademarks  will,  jifter  juilcr- 
rnent.  consider  any  matter  affecting  riirht  to  r(>'_ristrati<ni  which 
may  have  lieen  brouglit  to  his  attention,  uidess  the  same  sliall 
have  lieen  previously  disposed  of  in  the  proceeding.     From  the 


TRADEMARK  ACT  OF  FKBRUARY  20,  li)03.         6Ul 

decision  of  the  Examiner  in  charge  of  Trademarks  appeals  may  be 
taken  as  in  other  cases. 

49.  Motions  to  dissolve  an  interference  upon  the  ground  that 
no  interference  in  fact  exists,  or  that  tliere  lias  been  such  irreg- 
ularit}'  in  declaring  the  same  as  will  preclude  a  proper  deter- 
mination of  the  (|U('stion  of  the  right  of  registration,  or  which 
deny  the  rc^gistrability  of  an  applicant's  mark,  should  contain  a 
full  statement  of  the  grountls  relied  upon,  and  should,  if  possible, 
be  luade  not  later  than  the  thirtieth  day  after  the  notices  of 
the  interference  have  been  mailed.  Such  motions,  and  all 
motions  of  a  similar  character,  should  be  accompanied  by  a 
motion  to  transmit  the  same  to  the  Examiner  in  charge  of  Trade- 
marks, and  such  motion  to  transmit  will  be  noticed  for  hearing 
upon  a  day  certain  before  the  Examiner  in  charge  of  Interfer- 
ences. Wlien  in  proper  form  the  motion  presented  will,  with 
the  files  and  papers,  be  transmitted,  by  the  Examiner  in  charge 
of  Interferences,  for  determination,  to  the  Examiner  in  charge 
of  Trademarks,  who  will  thereupon  fix  a  day  certain  when  said 
motion  will  be  heard  before  him  upon  the  merits,  and  give 
notice  thereof  to  all  the  parties.  If  a  stay  of  proceedings  be 
desired,  a  motion  therefor  should  accompany  the  motion  for 
transmission. 

When  the  motion  has  been  decided  by  the  Examiner  in  charge 
of  Trademarks,  the  files  and  papers,  with  his  decision,  will  be 
sent  at  once  to  the  docket  clerk. 

^Motions  to  shift  the  burden  of  proof  should  be  made  before, 
and  will  be  determined  by,  the  Examiner  in  charge  of  Interfer- 
ences. No  appeal  from  the  decision  on  such  motion  will  be 
entertained,  but  the  matter  may  be  reviewed  on  appeal  from  the 
final  decision  upon  the  question  of  priority. 

50.  The  decision  of  the  Examiner  in  charge  of  Trademarks, 
upon  a  motion  for  dissolution,  will  be  binding  upon  the  Exam- 
iner in  charge  of  Interferences  unless  reversed  or  modified  on 
appeal.  Uidess  appeal  ])e  taken  within  the  time  limited  for 
appeal,  the  Examiner  in  charge  of  Trademarks  will  return  the 
files  and  papers  with  his  decision  to  the  Examiner  in  charge 
of  Interferences. 

Act  of  Feb.  20,   lOO.'i,  sees.  6  and   14;   Act  of  "Mar.  2,  1007.  soc.   2. 

51.  Any  person  who  believes  he  would  be  damaged  by  the 
registration  of  a  mark  may  oppose  the  same  by  filing  a  written 


602  APPENDIX    K. 

notice  of  opposition,  stating  the  grounds  tliorcfor,  within  30 
ihiys  after  the  publication  of  tlie  mark  soujjht  to  he  ret:istered, 
which  notice  ot"  opposition  shall  he  accompanied  hy  llie  fee 
reipiireil  l>y  law  and  sIimII  l)e  verified  by  tlu'  person  lilintj:  the 
same  hid'ore  one  of  the  ollicers  mentioned  in  sec.  2  of  the  Act 
of  February  *J0.  IDO.').  An  op|)osition  may  be  fded  by  a  duly 
authorized  attorney,  but  such  opposition  shall  be  null  aud  void 
unless  duly  verified  by  the  opposcr,  within  a  reasonable  time 
after  sucli  filinji.  A  duplicate  copy  of  the  notice  of  o|)position 
must  be  filed,  cither  with  the  notice  of  opposition  or  within  a 
reasonable  time  after  the  filiiifj:  of  the  same. 

Act  of   Fcl..   20,   ion.-),  spc.    i:!. 

7^'2.  Any  person,  deeming  himself  to  be  injured  by  the  regis- 
tration of  a  trademark  in  the  Patent  OfTice,  may,  at  any  time, 
make  application  (see  Form  13,  p.  G18)  to  the  Commissioner  to 
cancel  the  registration  thereof.  Such  application  shall  be  filed 
in  duplicate,  shall  state  the  grounds  for  cancellation,  and  shall 
be  verified  by  the  person  filing  the  same,  before  one  of  the  officers 
mentioned  in  sec.  2  of  the  Act  of  February  20,  1905.  (See  Rule 
34.) 

Act  of   F.-1..   -20.   100.-).   SIT.    l.l. 

53.  If  it  shall  appear,  after  a  hearing  liefore  the  Examiner 
01  Interferences,  tlint  the  regi.strant  was  not  entitled  to  the  use 
of  the  mark  at  the  date  of  his  application .  for  registration 
thereof,  or  that  the  mark  is  not  used  by  the  registrant,  or  has 
been  abandoned,  and  the  Examiner  in  charge  of  Interferences 
shall  so  decide,  tlie  Commissioner  shall  cancel  the  registration 
of  the  mark,  unless  appeal  1)e  taken  within  the  limit  fixed. 

54.  In  cases  of  oppasition,  and  of  applications  for  cancella- 
tions, the  Examiner  in  charge  of  Trademarks  shall  forward  the 
files  nnd  papers  to  the  Examiner  in  cliarge  of  Interferences, 
who  shall  give  notice  thereof  to  tlie  applicant  or  registrant. 
The  applicant  or  registrant  mnst  make  answer  at  such  time, 
not  less  than  30  days  from  the  date  of  the  notice,  as  shall  he 
fixed  by  the  Examiner  in  charge  of  Interferences. 

55.  The  proceedincrs.  on  oppositions,  and  on  applications  for 
eaner-llntion.  .shall  follow,  as  nearly  as  practicable,  the  prac- 
tice in  interferences  U'tween  aj)plications  for  patents. 


TKADEMAHK    ACT    OJ-'    KKHKfAKV    l!0,    IDUo.  003 

APPEALS. 

56.  Ever>'  applicant  whose  mark  lias  1)0(mi  twifo  rofiisod  reg- 
istration by  tlie  Examiner  of  Trademarks  lor  the  same  reasons, 
upon  grounds  involving  tlie  merits  of  the  application,  may 
appeal  to  the  Commissioner  in  person  upon  payment  of  tiie  fee 
required  by  law.  Such  refusal  may  be  considered  by  the  Exanv- 
iuer  of  Trademarks  as  final. 

There  must  have  been  two  i-efusals  to  register  tlie  inark  as 
originally  filed,  or,  if  amended  in  matter  of  substance,  the 
amended  mark,  and,  except  in  cases  of  division,  all  preliminary 
and  intermediate  questions  relating  to  matters  not  affecting  the 
merits  of  the  application  must  have  been  settled  before  the  case 
can  be  appealed  to  the  Commissioner. 

Upon  receiving  a  petition  stating  concisely  and  clearly  any 
proper  question  which  has  been  acted  upon  by  the  Examiner  in 
charge  of  Trademarks  and  which  does  not  involve  the  merits 
of  the  trademark  claimed,  the  refusal  of  registration  of  the  trade- 
mark, or  a  requirement  for  division,  and  also  stating  the  facts 
involved  and  the  point  or  points*  to  be  reviewed,  an  order  will 
be  made  fixing  a  time  for  hearing  such  petition  by  the  Com- 
missioner, and  directing  the  Examiner  to  furnish  a  written  state- 
ment of  the  grounds  of  his  decision  upon  the  matters  averred 
in  such  petition  within  five  days  after  being  notified  of  the  order 
fixing  the  day  of  hearing.  The  Examiner  shall,  at  the  time 
of  making  such  statement,  furnish  a  copy  thereof  to  the  peti- 
tioner.   No  fee  is  required  for  such  a  petition. 

Act  of  Feb.  20,  1905,  sec.  0. 

57.  From  the  adverse  decision  of  the  Commissioner  of  Pat- 
ents upon  the  right  of  an  applicant  to  register  a  trademark, 
or  from  the  decision  of  the  Commissioner  in  cases  of  interfer- 
ence, opposition,  or  cancellation,  an  appeal  may  be  taken  to 
the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Colu«ibia  in  the  manner 
prescribed  by  the  rules  of  that  court. 

ABANDONED    APPLICATIONS. 

57a.  An  abandoned  trademark  application  is  one  which  has 
not  been  prosecuted  within  one  year  prior  to  November  1,  1911, 
or  completed  and  prepared  for  examination  within  one  year 
after  the  filing  of  the  petition,  or  which  the  applicant  has  failed 


604  APPENDIX    E. 

to  proscciito  uitliin  one  year  iifftT  any  actinji  tlioroiii  of  wliich 
notii'o  lias  birii  duly  given  or  which  tlu'  applicant  has  expressly 
alwuuionecl  by  tiling  in  the  oflice  a  written  declaration  of  aban- 
donment, signed  liy  himself  and  a><signee,  if  any.  identifyinj? 
hLs  application  by  serial  number  ami  date  of  filing. 

57b.  Prosecution  of  an  application  to  save  it  from  abandon- 
ment must  include  such  proper  action  as  the  condition  of  the 
c«se  may  require.  The  admission  of  an  amendment  not  respon- 
sive to  th(>  last  olTieial  action,  or  rcfusid  to  admit  the  same, 
ami  any  jiroceedings  relative  thereto,  shall  not  operate  to  save 
the  application  from  abandonment. 

nTc.  liefore  an  application  abandoned  by  failure  to  complete 
or  proswute  can  lie  revived  a.s  a  pending  application  it  must  be 
shown  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Commissioner  that  the  dtlay 
in  the  pro.'jecution  of  the  same  was  unavoidable. 

r)7d.  When  a  new  ai)i)lication  is  filed  in  place  of  an  aban- 
doned or  rejected  application,  a  new  petition,  statement,  declar- 
ation, drawing  and  fee  will  be  required. 

ISSUE,    DATE.    AND   DURATION    OF    CERTIFICATE. 

Act  of  FH).  20,   100.-..  src.    11. 

58.  When  the  requirements  of  the  law  and  of  the  rules  have 
been  complied  with,  and  the  oflfice  has  adjudged  a  trademark 
registrable,  a  certificate  will  be  issued,  signed  by  the  Commis- 
.sioner,  under  the  seal  of  the  Patent  Office,  to  the  effect  that 
the  applicant  has  complied  with  the  law  and  that  he  is  entitled 
to  registration  of  his  trademark.  The  certificate  shall  state 
tjie  date  on  which  the  application  for  registration  was  received 
in  the  Patent  OfTice.  Attached  to  the  certificate  will  be  a  photo- 
lithographed  copy  of  the  drawing  of  the  trademark  and  a 
printed  copy  of  the  statement  and  of  the  declaration. 

Act  (.f  Vrh.  '20.   100.-..  H.T.    12. 

50.  A  certificate  of  registration  shall  remain  in  force  20  years 
from  its  date,  except  that,  in  case  a  trademark  l)e  previously 
registered  in  a  foreign  country,  such  certificate  shall  cejLse  to 
be  in  foree  on  the  day  on  which  the  trademarl<  ceases  to  be  pro- 
te<'ted  in  such  foreign  country,  arnl  .shall  in  no  case  remain  in 
force  more  than  20  years  unless  renewed. 


TBADKMAUK    ACT    OF   KKBUU;VJ{Y    20,    1905.  605 

Act  of  Fcl).  20,  190.'),  BocH.   12  and  11. 

60.  A  certificate  of  re^stration  may  be,  from  time  to  time, 
renewed  for  like  period.s  on  payment  of  tlie  renewal  fetw  required, 
ui)on  re(|uest  by  the  re^strant,  his  legal  representatives,  or 
transferees  of  record  in  the  Patent  Offiee,  and  such  request 
may  l>e  made  at  any  time  not  more  than  six  months  prior  to 
the  expiration  of  the  period  for  which  the  certificate  of  reg- 
istration  was  issued  or  renewed. 

Act  of  Fcl).  20,  100r»,  see.  12. 

61.  Certificates  of  regristration  in  force  on  tli'c  1st  day  of 
April,  1905,  shall  remain  in  force  for  the  periods  for  whieli 
they  were  issued,  and  shall  be  renewable  on  the  same  con- 
ditions and  for  the  same  periods  as  certificates  issued  under  the 
provisions  of  the  Act  of  February  20,  1905,  and,  when  so 
renewed,  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect  a.s  certificates 
issued  thereunder. 

Act  of  Fcl).  20,  100.',  sec.  4. 

62.  A  certificate  of  registration  s^iall  not  be  issued  to  an  appli- 
cant located  in  a  foreign  country  for  any  trademark,  for  reg- 
istration of  which  he  ha.s  filed  an  application  in  such  foreign 
country,  until  such  mark  has  been  actually  registered  by  him 
in  the  country  in  which  he  is  located. 

ASSIGNMENTS. 
Act  of  Feb.  20,  100.-),  sec.  10. 

63.  Every  registered  trademark  and  every  mark  for  the  re^* 
istration  of  which  application  has  been  made,  together  with 
the  application  for  registration  thereof,  shall  be  assignable  in 
connection  with  the  goodwill  of  the  lousiness  in  which  the  mark 
is  used.  Such  assignment  must  be  by  an  instrument  in  wTiting 
and  duly  acknowledged  according  to  the  la\A-^  of  the  country 
or  state  in  Avhich  the  same  is  executed.  Provision  is  made  for 
recording  such  assignments  in  the  Patent  Office;  but  no  such 
assignment  xnW  be  recorded  unless  it  is  in  the  English  language, 
nor  unless  an  application  for  the  registration  of  the  mark  shall 
have  been  first  filed  in  the  Patent  Office,  and  such  assignment 
must  identify  the  application   by  serial   number  and   date   of 


606  APPENDIX    K. 

filing,  or.  wlion  tlu'  mark  has  hcoii  rc^MstonMl.  hy  tlio  certifi- 
cate numbor  niul  tlu-  ilafr  thoivof.  No  partiiMilar  ronii  of  a.ssi^Mi- 
mt'Ht  is  pri'siTilxtl. 

Act  <.f  Vrh.  20,  mor),  Bc-c.  10. 

64.  An  nssipnniont  shall  be  void  as  against  any  subsequent 
purcliasor  for  a  vaiuabli*  consideration,  without  notice,  unless 
it  be  riH'orded  in  the  Patent  Oflico  within  three  months  from 
the  date  thereof. 

Art  of  Toh.  20.  mOf),  flee.  It. 

65.  The  certificate  of  registration  may  he  issued  to  the  assignee 
of  the  applicant,  but  the  assigument  must  first  be  entered  of 
record  in  the  Patent  Office. 

COPIES    AND    PUBLICATIONS. 
Act  of  Fd).  20.  100'),  80C8.  11  and  14. 

66.  After  a  trademark  lias  been  re^stered,  printed  copies 
of  the  statement  and  declaration  in  each  cast,  with  a  photo- 
lithofrraphcMl  copy  of  the  drawing  of  the  trademark,  may  be 
furnished  by  the  office  upon  the  payment  of  the  fee.  (See 
Rule  69.) 

67.  An  order  for  a  copy  of  an  assigiunent  must  give  the  liber 
and  page  of  the  record,  as  well  as  tlie  name  of  the  applicant; 
otherwi.se  an  extra  charge  will  bo  made  for  the  time  consumed 
in  making  a  search  for  such  assignment. 

68.  The  Official  Gazette  of  the  Patent  Office  will  (Miitain  a 
list  of  all  trademarks  registered,  giving,  in  each  case,  a  state- 
ment of  the  goods  to  which  the  trademark  is  applied,  the  name 
and  address  of  the  airplicant.  the  date  of  filing  and  .serial  number 
of  the  application,  and  the  date  of  the  publication  of  the  trade- 
mark in  the  Official  Gazette. 


FEES. 
On  filing;  inch  ori^rimil  npplirntion  for  ropistration  of  n  trii<l.mnrk.    $10.00 
On  filing'  I'Hch  application  for  rcmwal  of  the  rcKistration  of  a  trii<l<'- 

mark     1^^  f»'» 

On  filing  notice  of  oppOHition  to  tlie  registration  of  u  trad,  murk .  .      10.00 


TKADK.MAkK    ACT    ( »K    KKl'-'CT  AJC  Y    'JO,     1905.  607 

On    -ppciil  froni  tlic  |]\iirniiiir  in  cliiir^'c  of   rrndcinarku  to  tlic  ('oin- 

iniHHioiicr    of     I'litnitH l.'i.OO 

On  up|)<'til  from  thf  (IcciHiun  of  tin-  Kxamiiicr  in  c-liiir^o  of  liiU'rfiTfii- 
tT8,  uwtirdiii^  owiuTHliip  of  a  trudfinurk  or  cunei-Ilinji  tin-  n'jj;iHtru- 

tion  of  a  trudfiiiark,  to  the  C"omniiHHioinT  of  l'ut<iitH 15.00 

On  appeal  from  tin-  dcciHion  of  tiw  ]^.\amin<r  in  cliar^jc  of  Tradc- 
niarkn,  on  a  motion  for  tlic  diHHohition  of  an  intf-rffrcncr  on  tin- 
^'round    of    non-interference    in    fact    or    non-ref.'iHtraliility    of    a 

mark,    to    <!ii'    CommisHioner    of    TateiitH ir>.00 

¥oT  manuscript  copies,  for  every    100  wordtj  or   fraction   thereof..  .10 

For  rc'cordinj^  every  asHignment,  power  of  attorney,  or  otlier  j)aper 

of  300  worda  or  under 1 .  00 

Of  over  300  and  under    1,000   worda 2.00 

And   for  eadi   additional   tliousand   wordn  or    fraction  thereof.         1.00 
For  ahwtracts  of  title: 

For  the  searcii,  one  hour  or  less,  and  certificate 1 .00 

Each   additional    liour  or  fraction   tliereof .50 

For  encli  brief  from  the  <li;;est  of  assif^nments  of  2(H)  words  or 

less      20 

Each  additional  hundred  words  or  fraction  thereof .10 

For  searching'  titles  or  records,  one  hour  or  less .50 

Each  additional  liour  or  fraction  thereof .50 

For  a  single  printed  copy  of  statement,  declaration,  and  draw- 
ing      .05 

If    certified,    for    tlie    grant,    additional .50 

For   the  certificate .25 

Rev.  Stat.,  4935. 

70.  All  payments  of  money  required  for  office  fees  mast  be 
made  in  specie,  treasury  notes,  national  bank  notes,  treasury 
certificates  of  deposit,  post-office  money  orders,  bank  drafts,  or 
certified  checks.  Money  orders  and  checks  should  be  made  pay- 
able to  the  " Commis.sionep  of  Patents."  Payment  ma.y  also 
be  made  to  tlie  Treasurer,  or  to  any  of  the  Assistant  Treasurers 
of  the  United  States,  or  to  any  of  the  depositaries,  national 
banks,  or  receivers  of  public  money,  designated  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  for  that  purpose,  who  shall  give  the  depositor 
a  receipt  or  certi-ficate  of  deposit  therefor.  The  duplicate  receipt 
or  certificate  of  deposit  must  be  filed  in  the  Patent  Office  within 
ten  days  after  the  money  is  paid. 

71.  ]\roney  sent  by  mail  to  the  Patent  Office  will  be  at  the 
risk  of  the  sender.  Letters  containing  money  should  be  regis- 
tered. 


608  APPENDIX    K. 

RF.PAYMKNT   OK    MONET. 
Tiiv.  Stat..  VX\(\\   Alt  of  K»l..  '20,   lOOf.,  boo.  l.*). 

72.  Money  paid  by  nctiial  mistake,  such  as  a  pa>Tnent  in 
excess,  or  when  not  n'(|uiretl  l)y  law,  or  hy  ncjrlert  or  misinfor- 
ination  on  the  part  of  the  oflii-e,  will  he  rerundetl ;  hut  a  mere 
thaiii:i'  of  pnrpo.se  aftt  r  the  payment  of  money,  as  wlien  a  party 
desires  to  withdraw  his  application  for  the  repistration  of  a 
trath'mark.  or  to  withdraw  an  ai)peal.  will  not  entitle  a  party  to 
demand  such  a  nturn. 

NOTICE  OF  REGISTRATION. 
Act  of  Feb.  20.  lOO.!.  wc.  28. 

7;^  It  shall  Ih'  tlie  (hity  of  the  re^strant  to  give  notice  to  the 
public  that  a  trademark  is  registered,  either  by  affixing  thereon 
the  words  "Rep:istered  in  U.  S.  Patent  Office,"  or  "Keg.  U.  S. 
Pat.  Olf.,"  or,  when  from  the  character  and  size  of  the  trade- 
mark, or'from  its  manner  of  attachment  to  the  article  to  which 
it  is  appropriatt^l,  this  can  not  be  done,  then  by  affixing  a  la1)el 
containing  a  like  notice  to  the  package  or  receptacle  wherein  the 
article  or  articles  are  inclased;  otherwise,  on  a  suit  for  infringe- 
ment, no  damages  shall  be  recovered  except  on  proof  that  the 
defendajit  was  duly  notified  of  infringement,  and  continued 
the  same  after  such  notice. 

AMKNDMENTS    OK    THE    RUI-ES. 

74.  All  amciidiiients  of  the  foregoing  rules  will  be  published 
in  the  Official  Gazette. 

qi:i->;tion.s  not  si'ECIKicaij-y  ri{Ovini:n  for. 

75.  All  cases  not  specifically  defined  and  provided  for  in 
these  rules  will  he  decided  in  accordance  with  the  merits  of  each 
ca.se  under  the  authority  of  the  roinniissioncr,  and  such  decision 
will  be  coriuiiunicatcd  to  the  interested   parties  in  writing. 

Thomas  Ewino, 
Cnttnnissioner  of  Patents. 

The  foregoing  rules  were  approved  October  1  i,  V^^1,  by  the 
.Secretar\'  of  the  Interior. 


TKADK.MAUK     \CT    OK    FKBKIAKY    'J(l,     lUO'j.  009 

KKCUKUIMi     IKADKMAKKS    WITH    COLMOCTOKS    OF    CUSTOMS. 

Tkeasuky  Dki'AUT.mknt,  Stpttiiilur  7,  1009. 
To  Collectors  of  Customs  mid  Otlirrs  Coiiccriicd : 

The  attention  of  oriiccrs  of  the  (Mistoiiis  and  otlicrs  is  invited 
to  the  following  provisions  of  sec.  27  of  the  Act  approved 
February  20,  1905,  effective  Ai)nl  1,  i:t(>5: 

Sirtioii  "27.  'I'liat  in>  articl.'  i>f  iiM|>niti'(l  Micnhiiiulisi'  wliicli  hIuiII  cdpy 
or  Himiiliitc  till-  iiariif  of  any  doincHtii;  inamifactJin-,  or  mariufaitun-r  or 
trader,  or  of  any  nianufaitiinr  ()r  trader  located  in  any  fon-i;,'n  country 
which,  l»y  treaty,  convention,  or  hiw  alFords  Himilar  privih-^^'es  to  citizena 
of  the  United  States,  or  wliidi  ahall  copy  or  simulate  a  trademark  reg- 
istered in  accordance  witli  the  provisions  of  this  act,  or  shall  b«'ar  a 
name  or  mark  calculated  to  induce  the  puldic  to  believe  that  tlie  article 
is  manufactured  in  tlie  United  States,  or  that  it  is  manufactured  in  any 
foreijjn  country  or  locality  other  than  tin-  country  or  locality  in  which 
it  is  in  fact  manufactured,  aliall  he  admitted  to  entry  at  any  custom- 
house of  the  United  States;  and.  in  order  to  aid  the  oflicers  of  the  cus- 
toms in  enforcing  this  prohibition,  any  domestic  manufacturer  or  trader, 
and  any  foreign  manufacturer  or  trader,  who  i.s  entitled  under  the  pro- 
vision of  a  treaty,  convention,  declaration,  or  agreement  between  the 
United  States  and  any  foreign  country  to  the  advantages  afTorded  by 
law  to  citizens  of  the  United  States  in  respect  to  trademarks  and  com- 
mercial names,  may  require  liis  name  and  residence,  and  the  name  of  the 
locality  in  wliich  his  goods  are  manufactured,  and  a  copy  of  the  certifi- 
cate of  registration  of  his  trademark,  issued  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions  of  this  act,  to  be  recorded  in  books  whicli  shall  be  kept  for 
this  purpose  in  the  Department  of  the  Treasury,  under  such  regulations 
as  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  prescribe,  and  may  furnish  to 
the  department  facsimiles  of  h.is  name,  the  name  of  the  locality  in  which 
his  goods  are  manufactured,  or  of  his  registered  trademark;  and  there- 
upon the  Secretary  of  tiie  Treasury  shall  cause  one  or  more  copies  of 
the  same  to  be  transmitted  to  each  collector  or  other  proper  ofhcer  of 
customs. 

The  provision.s  of  this  .section  give  to  manufacturers  and 
traders  located  in  foreign  countries,  which,  by  treaty  stipula- 
tions, give  .similar  privileges  to  the  United  States,  the  same 
advantages  as  are  griven  to  domestic  manufacturers  and  traders.'. 
The  act  does  not  affect  names  or  trademarks  heretofore  recorded 
in  the  Treasury  Department,  and  as  to  tliem  the  prote«tion 
granted  so  far  as  conceriis  prohibition  of  importation  vdU 
continue.  Nor  does  the  act  appear  to  make  it  compulsory'  on 
the    part    of    domestic    manufacturers    or    traders,    or    foreign 


GIO  Ai*i'ENi>ix  i:. 

manufacturers  or  traders,  to  rt'pistor  names  (not  trademarks) » 
witli  the  (Commissioner  of  I'atents,  in  order  to  previ-iit  illegal 
importations. 

Domestic  manufaeturcrs  ;iiul  traders  and  foreign  manu- 
faeturi-r.s  ami  tnulcrs,  to  avail  thcnusi'lves  of  the  privileges  of 
tlie  act.  so  far  as  i-oiumtiis  trademnrks.  arc  rccpiircd  to  register 
their  trailemarks  witli  the  Commis^sioner  of  Patent-s  before  the 
Treasury  Department  can  act. 

Applications  for  recording  the  names  and  tradetnarks  in  this 
department  under  sec.  21  will  state  the  name  of  the  owner,  his 
residence,  and  the  locality  in  wliicli  his  poods  are  manufactured, 
and  in  the  case  of  trademarks  sliould  l)e  accomimnied  with  a 
certified  copy  of  the  certifit-ate  of  registration  of  his  trademark 
issued  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  act  and  the  names 
of  the  ports  to  which  far-niyniJrs  should  be  .sent.  In  the  ca.si' 
of  the  name  of  a  domestic  manufacture,  manufacturer,  or  trader 
(not  registered  as  a  trademark  in  the  Patent  Office),  the  applica- 
tion must  be  accompanied  by  the  proper  proof  of  ownership 
and  proof  as  to  the  country  or  locality  in  whicli  his  goods  arfe 
manufactured,  which  must  consist  of  the  affidavit  of  the  owner 
or  one  of  the  owners,  certified  by  an  officer  entitled  to  ailminister 
oaths  and  having  a  seal. 

On  the  receipt  by  a  customs  officer  of  any  such  fdr-simUes,  with 
infonnation  from  the  department  that  they  have  l>een  recorded 
therein,  he  will  properly  record  and  file  them  and  will  exercise 
care  to  prevent  the  entry  at  the  customhouse  of  any  article  of 
foreign  manufacture  copying  or  simulating  such  mark. 

No  fees  are  charged  for  recording  trademarks  in  the  Treasury 
Department  and  custondiouses. 

A  sufficient  nund)er  of  fac-sfinnlrs  should  be  forwarded  to 
enable  the  department  to  send  one  copy  to  each  port  named 
in  the  a{)[)lication,  with  ten  additional  copies  for  the  files  of 
the  department. 

Especial  attention  is  invited  to  the  provision  in  .said  section 
prohibiting  the  entry  of  articles  "which  shall  bear  a  name  or 
mark  calodated  to  induce  the  public  to  believe  that  the  article 
is  manufactured  in  the  I'nited  States,  or  that  it  is  manufacttired 
in  any  foreign  country  or  locality  other  than  the  country  or 
locality   in    which   it    is   in    fact    manufactured."   and   collectors 


TRADKMARK    ACT   OK   FEBRUARY   20,    1905.  <J11 

and  otluT  ofiicers  of  the  customs  arc  instructed  to  use  due 
diligence  to  prevent  violations  of  this  provision. 

The  provisions  of  the  act  also  apply  to  Porto  Kico,  the  I'hilip- 
pine  Islands,  Hawaii,  and  any  other  territory  under  the  juris- 
diction and  control  of  the  United  States. 

Attention  is  also  invited  to  the  following  provisions  of  sec.  3 
of  tlie  Act  jfpproved  May  4,  li)OC,  effective  July  1,  1906: 

Section  ."J.  That  any  owner  of  a  tradrmark  wlio  hIiuII  havo  a  maniifactur- 
in}?  c'8tal)lislini(nt  witliin  tlic  tt-rritory  of  tlu'  United  StatcH  Hhall  lie 
accorded,  so  far  as  tlic  re^fintration  and  -jirotection  of  tradi/marka  used 
on  the  products  of  Huch  estahliwhrnent  are  concerned,  the  Hame  riphts 
and  privih'^'cs  that  are  accor<h'd  to  owners  of  trademarks  domiciled  within 
the  territory  of  tin;  T'nited  States  liy  the  act  entitled  "An  act  to  author- 
ize the  refrist ration  of  trademarks  used  in  commerce  with  forei^'u  nations 
or  amonjr  the  several  states  or  witii  Indian  trihes,  and  to  protect  the 
same,"  approved   Feliruary  20,   190."). 

This  department  has  ruled  that  affidavits  aceompanying- 
applications  for  recording  the  names  of  foreign  manufactures, 
manufacturers,  or  traders  (not  registered  a.s  trademarks  in  the 
Patent  Office),  may  be  certified  by  American  consular  officers. 

James  B.  Reynolds, 

Acting  Secretary. 


PATENT  OFFICE  FORMS. 

The  following  forms  illustrate  the  manner  of  preparing  papers 
for  applications  for  registration  of  trademarks.  Applicants  will 
find  their  business  facilitated  by  following  them. 


(1)   PETITION. 

To  the  Commissioner  of  Pateyits: 

The  undersigned  presents  herewith  a  drawinjr  and  five  specimens  for  far- 
similrs]  of  his  trademark,  and  requests  that  the  same,  together  with  the 
accompanying  statement  and  declaration,  may  be  registered  in  the  United 
States  Patent  Office  in  accordance  with  the  law  in  such  cases  made  and 
provided. 


[Signature  of  appUcan-t.\ 
Dated  [date  of  evcecution]. 


612  APPENDIX    E. 

(2)    STATKMKM'   lOi;    A\    1  \  1)1\  1  DUAL. 
7o  all  trlmm   it  may  cuncvrn: 

lU-   it   known   tliat   I,  ,   [namv  of  (ippliiant]   a  [rifizinahip 

of  appluiitti]  rrsuliny  at  ,  lapplirant's  «</</;•.««)  and  doiii^' l.uHint'BH  at 

,    [busnutis   udthtss]    liavi-   a(l(i|itc(i    and    uwd   tin-  trudcniark    uliuwii 

in    the    Hoannpanyin;.'    diawin;^     |«(c    A'li/r    152/(1     fur .    \  pdrtirnlar 

dfsrription    of   goods]    in    ilass   No. [nuniliir    and    fillr   of    rlnaa — 

gvc  vlassifiration]. 

Tlu>  tradt-niark  lias  In m  c-dntinunuslv  used  in  niv  liusim-ss  (and  in  the 
biisinrsH  of  my  prrdcfcssor,  ),  [twmi-  of  pndn  rssor,  if  any;  if  appli- 
cant   has    had    no    pndvtcssors,    omit    this    (lausi]    sincr [rarlieat 

date  of  uar]. 

Tho  tradiniark  is  aiiplird  »»r  adixiil  to  tin-  ;,'oods,  or  to  tlu-  packaj^cs 
containing;  the  sann-.  by  jdacinjj  tluTcon  a  printed  laliel  on  which  the 
tradi-mark  is  shown    \'>r  state  other  mode  or  iiiodis  of  applirntion]. 


laiyuaturc  of  applicant  :  fust  name   must  In-  yiicn   in  full]. 


(3)    DECLARATION    FOi:   AN    INDIXIDIAL. 


State  of  , 

County  of  ,  ss: 

,    [name  of   applicant]    liein;.'    duly   .sworn,   deposes   and    says   that 

he  is  the  applicant  named  in  the  fore<,'oinfj  statement;  that  he  ladievea 
the  fore^oin;:  statement  is  true;  that  he  believe!*  himself  to  be  the  owner 
of  the  trademark  sou;,'lit  to  be  ri'<,'istered ;  that  no  other  person,  firm, 
cor[)oration,  or  association,  to  the  best  of  his  knowh-d^e  and  belief,  has 
the  right  to  use  said  trademark  in  the  United  States,  either  in  the 
identical  form  or  in  any  such  near  resemblance  thert-to  as  might  he  calc\i- 
lated  to  deceive;  that  said  trademark  is  used  by  him  in  commerce  among 
the  several  states  of  the   United  States    (and  hctween   the  United   States 

and    fort«ign    nations   or   Indian    tribes,    and    particularly    with    )  ; 

{names  of  foreign  coxnitries  or  Indian  tribes;  if  appli<ant  <loes  not  have 
commerce  uith  foreign  nations  or  Indian  trilies,  this  clause  should  he  omitted] 
that  the  descripti»)n  and  drawing  presented,  truly  represents  the  trade- 
mark sought  to  be  registered;  and  that  tlie  specimens  |  or  facsimiles] 
sliiiu   flu-  fra<bni;irk  as  actually  used  upon  the  goods. 


[Signature    of  ap/dicnnt.] 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  biforc  nic-,  a  ,  [offii-inl  lilh]   this  

[date   of   rxeculion]. 

rr..  s.]  , 


[Offiiial  title.] 


'IKADKAIAKK    ACT    OK    FKUKI' AH V    li(»,    lOOj.  ()13 

(J)    STATKMEXT  FOK  A   I'lU.M. 
7'u  all  ichoiH  it  may  cunccni: 

Be   it  known  tliat  wo,  ,   [firm  name]   a  firm  doniicik-d   in  , 


[doinirilc]   doing  liUHini'SH  ut ,    \1)uhukhn  (uldrcHN]    luid  compomrd   of 

tiu;   followinj^   incmlxTH,  ,    |  ndints   of  mcmhrrH   of    tin-  firm"]    citi/.ona 

of  ,    \(itiziiiship   of   mcmbiiH   of   the  firm]    liavc  adopted   and    uwd 

the    trademark    Hliown    in    the    aeeompanyiiiK   drawing    \i«c    rule    22/>  |    for 

,   [partirulor  ilisiription  of  goods]    in  claHH  No.  ]numljir  and 

title  of  class — SVC  classillcation]. 

Tile  trademark  lias  been  coiitinuouHly   used   in  our  husineHS    (an<I  in  tin; 

business    of    our    j)redecessors,   ),    \iiauf  of  predecessors,   if   any;   if 

applicant  has  had  no  predecessors,  omit  this  <l(iusc]   since  [earliest 

date  of  ««<■]. 

The  tradt'mark  is  ai»|)lied  or  aflixed  to  tiie  goods,  or  to  tin;  ])ackage8 
tontaining  the  sanu,  \>y  phicing  tiiereon  a  printed  hil)el  on  wiiich  the 
trademark  is  shown  lor  state  other  mode  or  modes  of  application]. 


[Firm   name]. 
By , 

[Signature  of  a  mcmhcr  of  the  firm.] 

A   Member  of  the  Firm. 


(5)    DECLARATION  FOR  A  FIRM. 


State  of  , 

County  of  ,  ss: 

,   [name  of  a/ftanl']  being  chily  sworn,  deposes  and  says  tiiat  lie  is 

a  member  of  the  firm,  the  applicant  named  in  the  foregoing  statement; 
that  lie  believes  the  foregoing  statement  is  true;  that  he  lielieves  said 
firm  is  the  owner  of  the  trademark  sought  to  be  registered;  that  no  other 
person,  firm,  corporation,  or  association,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and 
belief,  has  the  right  to  use  said  trademark  in  the  United  States,  either  in 
the  identical  form  or  in  any  such  near  resemblance  thereto  as  might  be 
calculated  to  deceive;  that  said  trademark  is  used  by  said  firm  in  com- 
merce among  the  several  states  of  the  United  States  (and  between  the 
United  States  and  foreign  nations  or  Indian  tril)es,  and  particularly  with 

)  ;    [names  of  foreign  countries  or  Indian  trihcs ;  if  applicant  does 

not  have  commerce  tcith  foreign  nations  or  Indian  tribes,  this  clause  should 
be  omittedl  that  the  description  and  drawing  presented  truly  represent 
the  trademark  sought  to  be  registered;  and  that  the  specimens  [or  fac- 
similes]   show  the  trademark  as  actually  used  upon   the  goods. 


[Signature  of  affiant]. 

Subscribed  and   sworn   to  before  me,  ,    [official   title]    this   

[datt  of  execution]. 

[L.  S.J  , 

[Official   title.] 


CH  APPENDIX    E. 

(0)    STAir.MF.M"    K(iK   A   lOUPOllATIOX  OH   ASSOCIATION. 

To  all  irhom  it  mn-y  («<n(N;Ti ; 

He   it    known   thnt   ,    {name   of   applicant]    n.  corporatii)n    [1/   the 

applii-ant  be  an  association,  the  uord  "asHoriation"  ahould  he  suhstittited  for 

the  trord  "corporation"]   duly  ornjinizod  undi-r  tlu'  laws  of  [state  or 

country  under  the  Inirs  <>f  uhieh   organized]   and   locatrd  in  ,    [loca- 
tion   of    corporation]    and    (U)inf,'    busim-HH    at    • ,    [busimss    address] 

has  adopted  and  usrd  tho  trathniark  uliown  in  tin'  aiiompanyinj,'  drawing 

[sec   rule  2J/»|    for  ,    [particular  description  of  (foods]    in   I'laHS   No. 

[uuiulnr  ami   title   of   class — see    classification]. 

Thf  trademark  has  been  continuously  usc<l  in  tlie  liusincss  of  said 
corporation  1 1/  the  applicant  be  an  association,  the  uord  "association" 
should  he  substituted  for  the  word  "corporation"]    (and  in  the  business  of 

its  predecessors,  ),    [«a»ic  of  predecessors,  if  any;   if  applicant  has 

had    no   predecessors,    omit    this    clause]    since \gi>c    eaHicst    date 

of  use]. 

The  trademark  is  applied  or  afllxed  to  the  jroods,  or  to  the  packapes 
containing,'  tlie  same,  by  jilacin^'  thereon  a  printed  lal)el  on  which  the 
trademark  is  shown    [or  state  other  mode  or  modes  of  application]. 


[\ame  of  applicant.l 


[Signature  of  officer — official   title.} 


(7)    DECLARATION  FOR  A  (ORrORATinX  OK  ASSOCIATION. 


State  of  , 

County  of  ,  ss: 

,   [name   of   afTiaui]    hv\x\<i   duly    sworn,   deposes   and   says  that  he 

J9  ti,e  [official  title[  of  tlie  corporation,  1 1/  applicant  be  an  asso- 
ciation, the  vord  "association"  should  he  suhstituted  for  the  u-ord  "corpora- 
tion"] the  apjilicant  named  in  the  forepoin;,'  statement;  tiiat  he  believes 
the  foregoing  statement  is  true;  tiiat  lie  believes  said  eorj)oration  1 1/  appli- 
cant he  en  association,  the  trord  '•association"  should  he  substituted  for 
the  word  "corporation"]  is  the  o*vner  of  the  trademark  sought  to  be  regis- 
t«'red;  that  no  other  person,  fifm,  corporation,  or  association,  to  the  best 
of  his  knowledge  and  belief,  has  tlie  right  to  use  said  trademark  in  the 
I'nited  States,  either  in  the  identical  form  or  in  any  sucli  near  resem 
blanci*  thereto  as  miglit  be  calculated  to  deceive;  that  said  trademark  is 
uwd  by  said  cfirjmration  [1/  applicant  he  an  association,  the  u'-nrd  "asso- 
ciation" should  he  substituted  fur  Ihc  irord  "corporation"]  In  commerce 
among  the   several   states  of  flu-   Cniled   States    (and  between    the  United 

States  and  foreign  nations  or  Indian  tribes  and  particularly  with  )  ; 

[names  of  foreign  nations  or  Indian  tribes:  if  the  applicant  doca  not  havo 


TRADEMAUK    ACT    OK    l-'KBKl  AHY    20,    lOO;").  615 

commerce  irith  foreign  tinliotis  nr  ludiau  tribes,  thin  eldUHC  ahouhl  he 
omitte<{]  tluit  tlic  dcHcriptioii  und  drawing;  jtrfwiitfd  triily  ri'iiP-Hcnt  th« 
tradimark  H<)U<,'lit  to  Ix-  n';,MHt<Tfd ;  und  that  tin;  HptciiiuMiH  [or  fuc-HimilcH] 
hIiow   tli«'  tradfiiiark  as  actually    ii.Hcd   upon   tlic  goodn. 


[Signature  of  affiant.] 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  In-foro  me,  a  ,  [offu-inl  title]   this  

\date  of  execution]. 


[L.  S.] 


[Official  title. 


(8)    DECLARATION    FOR    APPLICANTS    UNDER    THE    TEN- YEAR 

PROVISO. 

[In    cas(>    till"   aj)])licant    is   a    firm,   corporation,   or    association,    the   decla- 
ration should  be  modified  accordingly.] 

State  of  , 

County  of  ,  ss: 


,    [name  of  applicant]    being   duly   sworn,  deposes  and   says  that 

lie  is  the  aiiplicant  named  in  the  foregoing  statement;  that  be  believes 
tlie  foregoing  statement  is  true;  that  he  believes  liimself  to  be  the  owner 
of  the  mark  sought  to  be  registered;  that  no  other  person,  firm,  corpo- 
ration, or  association,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  belief,  lias  the 
right  to  use  said  mark  in  the  United  States,  either  in  the  identical  form 
or  in  any  such  near  reseml)lance  thereto  as  might  i)e  calculated  to  deceive; 
that  said  mark  is  used  by  him  in  commerce  among  the  several  states  of 
the  United  States  (and  between  the  United  States  and  foreign  nations,  or 

Indian   tribes,  and   ))articularly  with  )  ;    [names  of  foreign  .nations 

or  Indian  tribes ;  if  applicant  docs  not  have  commerce  irith  foreign  nations 
or  Indian  trihcs,  tJiis  clause  should  he  omitted']  that  the  description  and 
drawing  presented  truly  represent  the  mark  souglit  to  be  registered ;  that 
the  specimens  or  fticsimilcs]  show  the  mark  as  actually  used  upon  the 
goods;  and  that  the  mark  has  been  in  actual  use  as  a  trademark  of  the 
applicant  (and  applicant's  predecessors  from  whom  title  was  derived) 
[if  applicant  has  had  no  predecessors,  this  clause  should  be  omitted}  for 
ten  years  next  preceding  February  20,  lOO/i,  and  that,  to  the  best  of  his 
knowledge  and  belief,  such  use  has  been  exclusive. 


[Signature    of    affiant.'] 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  a  ,  [official  title]  this  

[date  of  execution], 

[L.  8.]  . 


[Official  titl€.] 


G16  APPEN'niX    E. 

(Hi  i)i:i[..\i;.\i  loN  i(»i;  i'(>ki:i<:ni:i;.* 

United  fitatrs  Ct>uitul(ttc, 

London,    Hngltiud.    h»: 

,    [iKimc    ()/   affiatil]    lii-in;,'   <hil_\    Hworn.   doponcs  nml   kjivh   that    hi' 

i«  tlu»  ftppliraiit  iiiinitil  in  tin-  fon-;;niii>,'  Htatrmciit ;  tlmt  hi-  l>i«HcV('»  tlu> 
fori'jioiii;;  t»tat«-nirn(  is  (ru<-;  tliat  lu-  Im-Hcvch  himself  tu  !"•  tlic  ownt-r  of 
till-  traih-mark  bou;,'lit  to  lu'  n-^iihti-ntl ;  tliat  no  other  person,  lirm,  rorpo- 
ratioii,  or  assttiiation,  to  the  hest  of  his  kno\vh"(l;;e  and  heliif,  ha8  the 
rijrht  to  U!M'  said  tra«hnuirk  in  tlie  I'nited  States,  i-itlier  in  tiie  identical 
form   or    in    any   sncii    near   resemhhinee   tlieret<)  as   ini;;lit  Im-  eaU-nlati'd    to 

dccoive;     (tluit    said    trach-mark    lias    Iteen    ref^istered    in    ,    \namc   of 

count;/]    on   .    |f/fi/«]    No. 1;    Inumhrr   of   rrgintration ;   if   the 

tradtmark  hns  not  t/rt  hcvn  rcgiHtmil,  hut  tni  application  for  rvgistration 
has  hrcn  fiUd  in  thr  countr;/  irhcrc  applicant  resides  or  is  located,  this 
clause  shouhl  he  omitted  and  the  follouing  substituted  therefor:  "'that 
an   application  for  rt gistration  of  said  trademark   uas  filed  h;f  him  on  the 

.  (date  of  fiiinji)    in  (name  of  country  1]:   tliat  the  description 

and  drawin;;  presented  truly  represent  the  trademark  soujrht  to  he  regis- 
tered; and  that  tlie  specimens  [or  facsimiles}  sliow  the  trademark  as 
actually   used   upon   the  {,'ood3. 


ISigtHifurc    of    affiant.] 

Suhscrihed  and  sworn  to  hefore  me,  a  ,  {official  till<  \  tliis 

\date  of  execution]. 

[Seal.l  . 

[Official    title.] 


(10)    STATEMENT    FOR    AN    IXniVIDUAL    UNDKU    SECTION    3    OP 
TIIE  ACT  OF   MAY  4,    lOOfi. 

fin   case   applicant    he    a   firm,   corporation,   or   association,    the    statement 
should  he  modified  accordingly.  1 

To  all  i/hom  it  may  concern: 

Be   it  known  that  T,  ,   [name  of  applicant]   a  ,    \citizenship 

of  applicant]    residin;;   at  ,    [applicant's  residence]    and   doing  husi- 

yjpfig    at    ,    [business    address]    and    having;    a    mamifacturinj:    estah- 

lisliment    at    ,    [location    of    business]    have    adojited    and    used    the 

trademark    shown    in    the    acconipanyin;,'    <lrawiii<r    |.s«r    rule    'lib]    for    the 

following;   products  of  such    manufacturinj,'   estaldishmeiit.    namely,  , 

[particular  dcsi-ription    of  goods]    in    Class   No.   [numJicr  and    title 

of  class — see   classification]. 

The  trademark   has  1 n  coiitiniiously   used    in   my   husiness    (and   in   tlie 

hu»ineH»  of  my  j)redecc88or,  ,  [name  of  predecessor,  if  any;  if  appli- 

•  In   caw  the  applicant   is  a    firm,  corporation,  or  association,   tlie  decla- 
ration   Hhould    Im-  modified    a<-cordinf,'ly. 


TK  Vl»i;.M  AICK    ACT    OK    TKUWI   AICV    20,    IDOf).  017 

wnil   hns   JkiiI   nn  jtinlircssor.   uiiiit    this  rlinisr]   hImcc [inrliiHt    dntr 

of  UHe\. 

Tlie  tnuhnuuk  is  aj)|)lit<l  <>r  allixifl  t<>  the  ^^mmmIs.  <.r  to  tli.-  |.a<-kaj,'«-H 
cuntainin;^  tlic  Kami-,  liy  plueinj^  tlicn-on  a  i>riiit<'<l  lalnl  on  wliidi  tin; 
(ladcmark    is  hIiowii    |  or  ntutc  othvr  niotir  or  modiN  of  npplu ntiun]. 


\  Sifjiiiitun-  (jf  <i]tpli<-iinl .] 

(in    I)K(  I.AIJATKiX   FOR  FOREICNKRS  UNDKK  SKCI'loN  :j  OF    IHK 
ACT   OF    MAY    4,    HHMi. 

I  In  c-aso  applicant    lif  a    tirni.  corporation,  or   aanociation,  the  dt-claration 
should    tic   modified    accordiii^jrly.] 

Vnitcd  Stairs  Consulnfr, 

London,   Kughind,    ss: 

,   [name  of  affiant]    licin;;  duly   sworn,  dcpoaos  and   says  tliat   he 

is  the  applicant  named  in  tiie  fore{,'oin<,'  statement;  that  he  believes  the 
foregoing  statement  is  true;  that  he  believes  himself  to  be  the  owner  of 
the  trademark  soufjht  to  be  re<ristered;  that  no  other  person,  firm,  corpo- 
ration, or  association,  to  tiie  best  of  his  knowledge  and  belief,  has  the 
right  to  use  said  trademark  in  tlie  United  States,  either  in  the  identical 
form  or  in  any  such  near  resemi)lance  thereto  us  might  be  calculated 
to  deceive;  that  said  trademark  is  used  by  him  in  commerce  among  the 
several   states  of  the  United    States    (and   between   the  United    States  and 

foreign  nations  or  Indian  tribes,  and  particularly  with  )  ;   [names  of 

foreign  count rir.<t  or  Indian  tribes;  if  applicant  docs  not  have  commerce 
vith  foreign  nations  or  Indian  tribes  this  clause  should  be  omitted]  that 
the  description  and  drawing  presented  truly  represent  the  trademark 
sought  to  be  registered;  that  the  specimens  [or  facsimiles]  show  the 
trademark  is  actually  used  upon  the  goods;  that  his  manufacturing 
establishment  is  located  at  ;  [location  of  manvfactvring  establish- 
ment \  and  that  the  goods  for  whidi  the  trademark  is  claimed  in  this 
application    are   the   products   of   such    establishment. 


[Signature    of    affiant.] 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  a  ,  [official  title']  this  

[date  of  execution  \. 

[Seal.]  , 

[Official  title]. 

(12)    NOTICE   OF    OPPOSITION. 

rif  the  opposing  party  he  a  firm,  corporation,  or  association,  the  notice  of 
opposition    should    be    modified    accordingly.] 

To   the  Commissioner  of  Patents: 

In  the  matter  of  an  application  for  the  registration  of  a  trademark  for 
,    [particular    goods]    Serial    No.    ,    [number    of   application] 


(518  .U'PENDIX    h. 

fll4^    ,    [date    of    application]    >.y    .    \»nnir    of    applir,i„t]    .J 

,  [location  or  rcaiihncc  of  applicant]  wI.hIi  whs  piiMislu-d  om    pun.- 

Vol    _^  Xo.  _,  [page,  volume  ami  vumlicr]   of  tin-  OlVuiiil   Cii/.rtto  i>f 

'  [date  of  the  Official  (iasvttc\   1,  ,   [name  of  party  opposing] 

residinj?    at ,    [residence   or   location    of    party    opposmg]    l.i-liovr    I 

would  Ik-  dumnp-a  «.y  such  rc^iBtration  aiul  I  lur.l.y  ^'iv.-  lu.tici'  of  my 
intention   to  «>i)poK«'  tin-  n-Kistrntion  of   nnid  tradtninrk. 

Tlu'  firoundH  for  opponition  aro  as  follows:  ]hcrc  state  the  grounds 
for  opposing    registration]. 

Stati'  of  ,  IStynnture   of   opposing   parti/.] 

County  of  ,  »»• 

On  this  ,  \(f(itc  of  CTCcution]   l.i-for.'  mc.  a  ,   [official  title] 

in  and   for  County.   State  of  .   personally   appeared  . 

[name  of  party  opposing]  who.  l.ein^'  l>y  me  duly  sworn  \or  affirmed], 
deposes  and  says  tliat  lie  has  read  the  forejroing  notice  of  oi)poBition,  and 
knows  the  contents  thereof,  and  that  the  same  is  true  of  his  own  knowl- 
vdffv,  except  as  to  tlie  matters  therein  stated  on  infornmtion  and  h.-lief. 
and  as  to  those  matters  he  believes  it  to  be  true. 

[L.  S.]  ' 

[Official  title.] 

(13>    APPLTCATIOX  FOR  CANCELLATION  OF  TKADKMAKK. 
[If  the  party  apply in<r  for  cancellation  be  a  firm,  corporation,  or  associa- 
tion, tlie  aiiplieation  for  the  cancellation  should  be  modified  accordingly.) 

To   the  Commissioner  of  Patents: 

In  the  matter  of  trademark  No.  ,  [numhcr  nf  registration]  rej,Ms- 

t^Ted    ,    ]flatc  of  registratioti]    by    .    ]vame   nf   registrant]    of 

,    [residence   or  location  of   registrant]    I,   ,    [name   of  party 

applying    for    cancellation]    residiuK    at    ,    [residence    or    location] 

deem  myself  injured  by  said  registration  and  I  h.T.-by  apply  for  th.^ 
cancellation   thereof. 

The   grounds  for   panellation    are   as    follows:     [here   stale    the   grounds 

for  canccnation].  ~' 

[ Signature  of   party  applying   for  cancillation.] 

State  of , 

City  of  ,  Bs: 

On  tliJH  ,  [date  of  cxccutioni  before  mo,  a  ,   [official  title] 

in  and   for  city   of   ,   State  of  ,  personally  appeared . 

[name  of  party  applying  for  cancellation]  who,  bein-  by  me  duly  sworn 
lor  affirmed],  deposes  and  says  tliat  he  has  read  tlu-  fore-oin;;  apidication 
for  eane.dlation.  and  knows  the  contents  thereof,  and  that  (lie  same  ia 
true  of  his  <.wn  knowle(l^'e,  .•xc<-i)t  as  to  the  matters  therein  stated  on 
information  and  U-lief,  and  as  to  tliose  matters  lie  believes  it  to  be  true. 

(L.  S.]  • 

[Official   title  \ 


TUADKMAHK    ACT    OK    FKMRI 'AHY    20,    1005. 


619 


The  size  of  ///<?  sheet  mu^f  6e 
exactfi/  /Ox/5  inc/ies  See  ru/e:i6{^J. 


-Thts  space  must  be  eiqfrt incfies. * 


APPFNHIX  I  . 

TRADEMARK  STATUTES  OF  THE  STATES  AND 
TERRITORIES. 


ALABAMA. 

No  registration  law. 

Article  8.  c  li>G,  Code,  189G,  an  act  relating  to  the  unauthor- 
ized use  or  (lef'acenient  of  the  l)ottles,  siphons,  kegs,  etc.,  of 
nianufai-turers,  bottlers  and  venders  of  soda  water  and  other 
beverages. 

Act  of  .March  1.  II'DI.  An  iict  for  tlic  protection  of  labels 
of  labor  unions. 

ALASKA. 

Cartt-r's    Aiinotatid    -Alaska    ('<i(lcs,    Pa;,'»>    IS. 

Section'  84.  Knowingly  I'sing  or  Counterfeiting  Trademarks, 
etc.  That  if  any  pn-soii  shall  wilfully  and  knowingly  use  or 
cause  to  be  used  any  j)rivate  brand,  lal)el,  stamp,  or  trademark 
of  another,  either  by  counterfeiting  the  same  or  iLsing  any 
impression,  or  copy  thereof  made  or  prepared  by  the  proprietor 
tliereof,  (tr  shall  wilfully  and  kiiowiiiLdy  use  or  c;iuse  to  be  used 
any  colorable  imitation  of  such  brand,  label,  stamp,  or  trade- 
mark, with  intent  to  deceive  any  one,  such  person,  upon  convic- 
tion thereof,  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  county 
jail  not  le.ss  than  one  month  nor  more  than  six  months,  or  by 
fine  not  less  than  twenty  nor  more  than  three  hundred  dollars. 

ARIZONA. 

REVI.SF.D   STATl'TK.'^.    101:1  —  PKNAI-    COPE. 

Title  9. 
CirAPncR  XII. 

.s.-c.  .Tir.;  p.  r.  10(11 

Section  357.     Every  such  association,   union  or  corporation 
that   h?is  heretofore  adopt<>d.  or  shall   hereafter  adopt,   a   label, 
traileiiiark  or  form  of  advertisement,  as  aforesaid,  shall  file  the 
r.20 


AKKANSAS    STATI'TKS.  G'J  1 

same  in  the  ofiicc  of  tlw  Secretary  of  State  by  leaving  two 
copies,  eoiiiiteipiiits  or  fac-siniiles  thereof,  with  the  Secretary 
of  State.  Said  Seeretary  shall  deliver  to  such  eori)oratioii,  asso- 
ciation or  union  so  filing,'  tlie  same,  a  duly  attested  certifieat*; 
of  the  record  ol"  the  same,  for  which  he  shall  receive  a  fee  of 
three  dollars;  such  certificate  of  record  shall  in  all  suits  and 
prosecutions  under  this  chapter  he  sufficient  proof  of  the  adop- 
tion of  such  lahel,  trademark,  or  form  of  advertisement,  and 
of  the  ri.udit  of  said  union,  eor])oration  or  association  to  adoi)t 
the  same. 

Si'C.   :n!t;    V.   ('.    l!Mll. 

It  shall  he  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  State  to  .see  that  all 
associations,  unions  or  corporations  enjoyin<>:  the  henefits  of 
lahels,  trademarks,  or  forms  of  advertisements  herein  descrihed 
shall  comply  with  the  provisions  of  this  section  in  all  respects. 

Fees  of  Secretary  of  State,  .t-'^OO  for  the  certificate,  plus 
25  cents  for  filing. 

ARKANSAS. 
Section.  KEGISTRATTOX  OF  TRADEMARKS. 

TiMiO.      I'rutfction  in  use  of,  how  fi(>ciirpd. 

70()1.     Declaration  under  oath   of   party    claiming. 

70(52.     Secretary   of   State   not   to   record   name   unaccomi)ani(d   hy   marks 

distinguishal)le   from  others. 
7!Mi.3.     Copies  of   trademark,   etc.,   under   seal   of   Secn-tarv  of  State,   may 

he   used   as  evidence. 
7004.     Trademarks    to    remain    in    force   twenty-five   years;    exception. 
7965.     Penalty  for   violating   trademark. 
7066.     No  action  allowed   to  protect  trademark   used    in   unlawful  husincas 

or   ohtained    hy    fraud,   etc. 
70(i7.      Persons  ohtaining  trademark  hy  fraud  liahle  for  damages. 
7068.     Construction   of   act. 
7060.      For  hottles,  boxes,  siphons,  etc..  liow  ohtained.     Fee  of  clerk. 

7070.  T'nlawful  for  persons  other  than  owner  to  fill  hottles  or  deface  mark. 

7071.  Or  to  have  in   possession,  sell  or  destroy  hottles,   etc. 

7072.  Penalties   for   violation   of   act. 

707.'?.     Searcli   warrant  may  he  issued  for.      Party  having  arrested. 

7074.  Purduiser  of  contents  to  return  hottles,  casks,  etc. 

7075.  Fines   collected   to  go  to  general  revenue  fund  of  county. 

Section  1960.  Any  person  or  firm  in  this  state,  or  any  of 
the  United  States  or  territories  thereof,  and  any  eorporatio'i 
created  by  the  authority  of  this  state,  or  the  United  States  or 


622  APPKNDIX    F. 

any  of  the  states  or  tiTritorirs  tlicivof,  iiiid  any  porson.  firm 
or  eorpoiation,  resilient,  or  loeuteil  in  any  foreign  country, 
whieh,  by  treaty  or  convention,  alTords  similar  privile^'es  to 
citizens  of  tlie  rniteil  States,  ami  who  may  be  entitled  to  the 
exclusive  use  of  any  lawful  trademark  or  device,  or  who  may 
intend  to  adopt  and  use  any  trademark  or  device  for  exclusive 
use  in  this  state,  may  obtain  protection  for  such  lawful  trade- 
mark or  device  by  compiyin';  with  the  following'  re(piisitcs  and 
rccpiiremeiits: 

Pirst — By  making  out  and  tiling  in  the  oHice  of  the  Secretary 
of  StAte  of  this  state,  to  l)c  there  registered  or  recorded,  a  state- 
ment specifying  the  names  of  the  parties  and  their  residence 
and  i)lace  of  business  who  desire  the  protection  of  the  trade- 
mark, the  class  of  merchandise,  and  p;irtieiilar  description  of 
goods  comprised  in  such  class,  by  which  or  to  which  the  trade- 
mark has  been  or  is  intended  to  be  appropriated;  a  description 
of  the  trademark  itsi'lf  or  device,  or  combination  of  words,  letters 
or  figures  or  characters  used  or  intended  to  be  used  as  such, 
and  the  mode  in  which  it  has  been  or  is  intended  to  be  applied 
and  used,  and  the  length  of  tinu',  if  any.  during  which  the 
trademark  has  i)een  in  use. 

Second — By  making  payment  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  for 
the  use  of  the  state,  of  a  fee  of  not  less  than  twenty-five  nor 
more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  to  be  detenu ined  by  the  Secre- 
tary according  to  a  schedule  of  fees  arranged  with  reference 
to  the  number  of  words,  figures,  characters,  etc..  contained  in 
such  .statement,  which  schedule  it  is  made  the  duty  of  the 
Seeretar>'  to  make  and  keep  posted  up  in  his  office. 

Section  TOCl.  The  certificate  prescribed  in  the  preceding 
section  nuist,  in  order  to  create  any  right  whatever  in  favor 
of  the  party  filing  it,  be  accompanied  liy  a  written  declaration, 
verified  by  the  person  or  by  some  meml)er  of  the  lirm  or  officer 
of  the  corporation  by  whom  it  is  filed,  to  the  elTect  tluit  the  party 
claiming  the  protection  for  the  trademark  has  a  right  to  the  use 
of  the  same,  and  that  no  other  person,  firm  or  corporation  has 
the  right  to  such  u.se,  either  in  the  identical  form  or  in  any  such 
near  resemblance  thereto  as  mi^ht  be  calculated  to  deceive,  and 
that  the  fnc-siwilrs  presented  for  record  are  true  copies  of  the 
trademark  sought  to  be  protected. 


ARKANSAS   STATUTES.  623 

Skction  Titfi'J.  Tlir  Sci'i-ctiifv  shall  not  receive  and  rccurd 
any  proposed  trademark  wliieli  is  not  and  can  not  become  a 
lawl'ul  trademark,  or  wliieli  is  merely  tlie  naiiK;  of  a  person, 
linn  or  eoriioi'at  ion,  iinai'ri)mpanie(l  liy  a  mark  suflii-ieiit  to 
<listin.miisli  it  from  the  same  name  when  nsed  hy  other  iiersons, 
or  which  is  identical  with  a  Irach'iiiark  appropriated  to  the  same 
class  of  merchandise  and  1m  lon^'in^'  to  a  dilTerent  owner,  and 
already  refristered  or  received  for  i'et,Msti-ation,  or  which  so 
nearly  reseMd)lcs  snch  last-mentioned  trademark  as  to  he  likely 
to  deceive  the  puhlic.  lint  this  section  shall  not  j)r(?vent  the 
rejristry  of  any  lawful  trademark  i-i^ditfully  in  use  on  the  first 
day  of  :\Iay,  1883. 

Skction  7063.  The  time  of  the  receipt  of  any  trademark  at 
the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  for  registration  or  record, 
shall  he  noted  and  recorded.  Copies  of  the  trademark,  and  of 
the  date  of  receipt  thereof,  and  of  the  statement  filed  therewith, 
under  the  seal  of  the  Secretary  of  State  .shall  he  furnished  hy 
the  Secretary  to  any  person  who  may  apply  therefor,  and  pay 
the  fee  therefor  fixed  by  the  Secretary,  not  exceeding  the  fee 
required  for  the  original  registration  thereof,  and  such  copies 
shall  be  evidence  in  any  suit  or  proceeding  in  which  such  trade- 
mark shall  he  hroutrht  in  controversy. 

Section  7064.  A  trademark  registered  as  above  prescribed 
shall  remain  in  force  for  twenty-five  years  from  the  date  of  such 
registration,  except  in  case  where  such  trademark  is  claimed 
for,  and  applied  to,  articles  not  manufactured  in  this  state,  and  in 
which  it  receives  protection  under  the  laws  of  some  other  state, 
territory  or  foreign  country  for  a  shorter  period,  in  which  case 
it  shall  cease  to  have  any  force  in  this  state,  by  virtue  of  this 
act,  at  the  same  time  tliat  it  becomes  of  no  effect  elsewhere. 

Section  7065.  Such  trademark,  during  the  period  it  remains 
in  force,  shall  entitle  the  person,  firm  or  corporation  regi.stering 
the  same  to  the  exclusive  use  thereof,  so  far  as  regards  the 
description  of  goods  to  which  it  is  appropriated  in  the  statement 
filed  under  oath,  as  aforesaid,  and  no  other  party  shall  lawfully 
use  the  same  trademark,  or  substantially  the  same  or  so  nearly 
resembling  it  as  to  be  calculated  to  deceive,  on  substantially 


G24  -U'PKNDIX    V. 

the  f?ainc  iloscription  of  goods,  or  obtain,  use  or  employ  any 
articli'  or  thinj^  wliatever  upon  uhidi  siu'h  tradiMnark,  or  sul)- 
staiitially  the  sanic,  or  one  so  nearly  resomljliiiLT  it  as  to  )>«> 
calculated  to  deceive,  luis  heen  printed,  painted,  stamped,  woven, 
hraiuled  or  in  any  maimer  put  or  placed,  i'or  tiic  purpose  of 
putting;  up.  shipping;,  scUintr.  or  otherwise  disposinjj  of  sub- 
stantially the  s;ime  description  of  poods  as  those  to  which  the 
same  has  been  apjiropriatcd  Ity  the  party  ri<xht fully  entitled 
to  the  use  of  such  trademark;  and  any  person  or  member  of  any 
finii,  or  ajrent.  or  officer  of  any  corjioralion,  not  entitled  so  to 
do.  who  shall  kno\vin<zly  use  such  trademark,  or  obtain,  use  or 
employ,  as  afon^said,  any  such  article  or  thin'_'.  or  shall  repro- 
duce, counterfeit,  cojiy  or  imitate  any  rtM-ordt^d  trademark,  ;uid 
affix  the  same  to.  or,  for  the  purpose  of  havin<r  the  same  iLsed 
or  disposed  of,  to  affix  to  proods  of  substantially  the  same  descrip- 
tive properties  and  qualities  as  those  referred  to  in  the  refristra- 
tion,  or  who  shall,  with  intent  to  defraud,  deal  in  or  sell,  or  keep, 
or  offer  for  sale,  or  cause  or  procure  the  sale  of.  any  floods  of  sub- 
stantially the  same  descriptive  properties  a.s  those  referred  to  in 
the  repristration  of  any  trademark  resristered  in  pursuance  of 
this  act,  to  which,  or  to  the  packacre  in  which  the  same  are  put 
up,  is  fraudulently  affixed  said  trademark,  or  any  colorable 
imitation  thereof,  calculated  to  deceive  the  public,  knowing  the 
same  to  he  counterfeit,  or  not  the  preTUiine  article,  or  goods 
referred  to  in  said  rejristration.  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a 
high  misdemeanor,  and  upon  conviction  thereof,  shall  he  punished 
by  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  thousand  dollars,  or  imprisonment 
not  exceeding  one  year,  or  hoth  such  i\uo  and  imprisonment. 
and  such  person,  and  also  the  firm  of  which  he  is  a  member,  or 
the  corporation  of  which  he  is  an  agent  or  officer,  and  which  may 
have  countenanced  or  connived  at  his  act.  shall  moreover  he 
liable  to  an  actioti  for  damages  for  such  wrongful  act.  at  the 
suit  of  the  owner  of  such  trademark,  and  thi^  party  aggrieve<l 
shall  also  have  his  remedy  according  to  the  course  of  inpiity.  to 
enjoin  the  wTongful  use  of  his  trademark,  and  to  recover  com- 
pensation therefor  in  any  court  of  competent  jurisdiction,  and 
in  any  such  action  or  suit  such  owner  or  aggrieved  party  shall 
he  entitled  to  recover  a  reasonable  amount  for  attorney's  fees, 
to  be  paid  by  the  [)arty  or  fiartics  held  liable  therein. 


ARKANSAS    STATUTES.  02.") 

Section  TOfifi.  No  action  .sliall  ho  maintain^  undor  llic 
provisions  of  this  act  l)y  any  person  claiinint,'  the  exclusive 
rifjlit  to  any  trademark  which  is  used  or  chiiiiied  in  any  unhiwl'id 
business,  or  upon  any  artich'  which  is  injurious  in  itself,  oi- 
upon  any  tra(h'inark  which  has  l)een  frauduh-ntly  o})tained,  or 
which  lias  l)een  formed  and  used  with  the  design  of  deceiving 
the  public  in  the  purchase  or  use  of  any  article  of  merchandise. 

Section  TlXiT.  Any  person  who  shall  procure  the  ref^istry  of 
any  trademark,  or  of  himself  as  the  owner  of  a  trademark,  by 
makinj;  false  or  fraudulent  representations  or  doclarations, 
verbally  or  in  writing;,  or  by  any  fraudulent  means,  shall  be 
liable  to  pay  any  damages  sustained  in  consequence  thereof  to 
the  person  injured  thereby. 

Section  TlHiS.  Xotiiing  in  this  act  shall  prevent,  lessen,  im- 
peach or  avoid  any  remedy  at  law,  or  in  ecpiity,  which  any 
party  aggrieved  by  any  wrongful  u.se  of  any  trademark  might 
have,  if  the  provisions  of  this  act  had  not  been  enacted,  and 
nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  be  construed  by  any  court 
as  abridging,  or  in  any  manner  affecting  unfavorably,  the  claim 
of  any  person  to  any  trademark  after  the  expiration  of  the  term 
for  which  such  trademark  was  registered. 

Act  ]\rarch  31,  1883. 

FOR   BOTTLES,   CASKS,   B.VRRELS,  ETC. 

Section  7069.  All  manufacturers  or  dealers  in  carbonated 
goods,  mineral  waters,  soda  waters,  wine,  cider  or  other  bever- 
ages, or  manufacturers  of  medicine  or  other  compounds  rerpiiring 
the  iKse  of  kegs.  ca.sks,  barrels,  boxes,  siphons,  bottles  or  any 
other  ves.sels,  or  containers,  upon  which  the  names,  brands, 
marks  or  trademarks,  or  other  designations  of  owner.ship  or 
•proprietorship  stamped,  engraved,  etched,  blown,  impressed  or 
otherwise  produced  upon  such  boxes,  siphons,  bottles,  or  any 
other  vessels  for  containers,  may  file  in  the  office  of  the  county 
clerk  of  the  county  in  which  the  principal  place  or  office  of 
business  is  situated,  a  fnc-siniile  or  description  of  the  name  or 
names,  marks  or  devices  so  used  by  such  manufacturer  or  dealer 
in  such  wares  herein  enumerated,  and  such  description  to  be 
pulilished  in  a  public  newspaper  published  in  such  county  for 


626  APPENDIX    K. 

thrvo  snocoRsivo  wook><.  and  tlu'  act  of  so  filinpr  and  cnnsinR  it 
to  Ih>  rtTonli'd  l)y  tho  county  i-lork,  and  puhlisliinfr,  shall  (>i)orate 
as  a  trademark,  sfcnrini,'  to  the  siiid  nianulai'turiT  the  rull  pro- 
tection of  tlic  law  as  a  trademark,  entitlinjj  tlie  said  ninnu- 
factiirer  to  the  sole  ami  exclusive  »ise  in  the  state  of  Arkansas 
of  said  marks,  name  or  device.  The  county  clerk  shall  receive 
for  his  services  for  so  recording,  one  dollar  to  Ik?  paid  hy  party 
havin},'  such  record  nuidc. 

Section  7070.  It  is  horcliy  declared  unlawful  for  any  persons, 
corporate  or  otherwise,  other  than  the  proprietor,  or  hy  his 
written  consent,  to  till  for  tlio  purpose  of  traffic,  or  for  sale, 
with  any  compouiui  uhalcvcr.  any  box,  sijihon,  hottlc  or  otiier 
container  so  marked,  recorded  in  the  oflice  of  the  county  clerk 
and  published  as  aforesaid,  or  to  deface,  erase,  ol)literate,  cover 
uj)  or  otherwise  remove  or  cancel  any  su<'h  mark  or  device. 

Section  71^71.  To  have  in  ]iosses.sion  otherwise  than  l)y  con- 
tract with  the  proprietor  of  the  poods  herein  enumerated,  or 
with  his  duly  accredited  apent.s.  of  any  of  the  vessels  herein 
enumeratccl.  or  to  use,  buy,  sell  or  dispose  of  any  such  vessels 
with  or  without  contents  of  any  kind,  except  by  authority  from 
the  proprietor,  or  to  wilfully  or  maliciously  break,  damage, 
mar,  injure  or  destroy  any  such  vessel,  is  declared  hereby  to 
constitute  a  misdemeanor,  punishable  by  a  fine  upon  conviction 
in  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction,  an  emj)loye  being  equally 
liable  with  the  |)rincipal  so  olTendin^'. 

Section  71)72.  Any  person  violatinp  any  of  the  provisions  of 
thus  act  shall  he  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  aiul  upon  con- 
viction before  a  justice  of  the  peace  shall  be  fined  for  such 
unlawful  use  of  each  and  ever>'  box,  five  dollars;  for  each  and 
ever>'  siphon,  five  dollars;  for  each  and  every  l)ottle,  one  dollar; 
and  for  everv  otlier  receptacl(\  except  a  fountain,  five  dollars; 
and  for  each  fountain,  twenty-five  dollars.  The  fines  so  desig- 
nated to  be  the  minimum  in  each  case,  the  maxinuini  not  to 
exceerl  doid)le  the  mininuim. 

Section  7073.  r'rf>secutions  uikIct  the  [irovisioji.s  of  this  net 
may  be  inaintained  ui)on  the  information  of  the  owiier  or  pro- 
j)rietor   of   any   of   the   vessels   or   confairie?'s    mentioned    ht>rein 


ARKANSAS   STATUTES.  G27 

or  of  his  a^ciit,  iiiadr  uiidtT  oafli  hct'orc  a  justice  of  tlio  peace 
()!•  any  other  ofheer  having'  the  same  jiirisdictioii,  setting  forth 
that  lie  has  j^'ood  reason  (o  believe  and  does  iMjlieve  that  another 
j)ei-son  than  llie  rij,ditrid  owner,  without  lawful  authority  is 
usinj^  ()!•  has  used  any  of  such  vessels  or  receptacles  contrary 
to  the  ])i'ovisions  of  this  act.  Upon  filinj;  of  sueh  information 
the  justice  of  the  peace  or  any  other  officer  havintr  the  same 
jurisdiction  shall  issue  his  search  warrant  and  cause  the  same 
to  he  executed  by  a  (pialified  officer  upon  the-  premises  to  he 
designated  hy  the  i)ersons  makincr  tlu;  eomi)laint,  and  if  the 
said  officer,  actinir  under  the  said  search  warrant,  shall  discover 
any  of  such  property  as  herein  specified,  he  shall  at  once  arrest 
the  party  named  in  such  warrant  and  hrinf?  him  ])efore  the 
justice  of  the  peace,  who  shall  proceed  at  once  to  hear  and 
determine  sueh  ease,  and  if  the  accused  he  found  «ruilty  he  shall 
he  fined  as  provided  in  sec.  7972. 

Section  7074.  Any  merchant  or  dealer  purcha-sini?  g^oods 
contained  in  such  registered  retainers  paying  only  for  the  con- 
tents thereof,  shall  be  liable  for  the  value  of  said  retainers,  and 
.shall,  when  demanded,  return  to  the  owner  thereof  all  such 
containers  when  empty,  or  within  a  reasonable  time  after  the 
goods  have  been  delivered.  If  containers  are  demanded  hefore 
empty  hy  the  owner  thereof,  he  shall  refund  the  price  received 
for  the  contents  thereof. 

Section  7975.  All  moneys  collected  as  fine  or  penalty  under 
the  provisions  of  this  act,  shall  l)e  returned  by  the  constahle 
unto  the  county  treasurer  to  become  a  part  of  the  general  county 
revenue  fund. 

Act  April  20,  1895. 

TRADE^IARK  APPLICATTOX. 

STATK    OF    ARKANSAS. 

To  the  Secrctar;/  of  fitatr: 

fSworn  application  accompanying,'  a   trademark  and  label.] 

Be   it   known,   that  has   horotoforo   adopted   and   used   a   certain 

trademark  and  laliel  and  herewith  files  the  same  for  record  in  the  ofilce  of 
tlio  S(>eretary  of  State  l>y  leavin;;  two  copies,  counterparts  or  fac-simile3 
thereof  with  said  Secretary,  and  hy  filinji  therewith  this  sworn  appli- 
cation. 


(VJ8  APPENDIX   F. 

(I)    Till-    nnnio    «>f    tin-    person    so    (ilin;,'    »\\v\\    Innlrinark    luul    lalnl    is 


(2)    TIh"   iliiss   of    iiurrluiiiclim-    upon    wliii-h    tin-    Minn-    lias    lut-ii    usi-d    ih 
,    and    a    jiarticiilar    dcsfriptioii    of    tlir    j:ooi1m    i-ouipriH*'*!     in    sucli 


claiM  is 


(3)  Said  trademark   ami    lalnl,   as    Iuti'  shown,   lias   Ihcii   used   l.y  apjili 
cant  Hinct'  . 

(4)  Said  tradtmark  and  laliil  is  as  fi>llo\vs:   ,  tho  (>HBi-ntiul  ft-ature 

»(f  which . 


By 


Stat»-  of  — 
C'-<)untv  of 


I,  ,  lioinj:  first  duly  Bworn,  doposo  and  say  that  T   am  of 

th«'   njiplioant    herein,   and    make    this   alVidavit   and   verification    in 

hehalf.      That    I    have    read    the    above    and    forej^oinji    application 


and    know    the    contents    thereof,    and    that    the    facts    set    out    therein    are 

true;    that   said  so  filinj,'  said   trademark   and   lal>el   has  the   ri^^ht 

to  the  use  of  the  same  and  that  no  other  person,  firm,  association,  union, 
corporation  or  or<rani/.ation  has  the  rij,'ht  to  such  use,  cither  in  tin- 
identical  form  or  in  any  such  near  resemblance  thereto  as  may  Ito  calcji- 
lated  to  deceive,  and  that  the  two  copies,  counterparts  or  facsimiles  filed 
herewitli    are  true   and  correct. 


Subscribed   and    sworn    to   before  me    this  day    of   ,    101 — . 


Notary   J'ubliv. 
Fee  $2:).0()  enclosed. 

(To  l>i'  filed   in   duplicate.) 


CALIFORNIA. 

TRADEMARK    I-AWS   OF   CAI.irOKNI.V  —  POLITICAL  CODE. 

Section  SlOfi.  The  plirase  "trademark"  as  used  in  thi.s 
chapter  iiicliidt's  every  deseriptimi  of  word,  letter,  device, 
eiidtlem,  staiiii).  iin[)riiit.  f)rinted  tieket,  lahe!,  or  wrapper  usually 
affixed  hy  any  iiieelianie.  inanufaeturer,  driiprprist.  inereliaiit  or 
tradesniaii.  to  denote  any  jroods  to  he  proods  iinportecl.  inann- 
faetnred,  i)rodin*ed.  eoiiij)ounded  or  sold  hy  him,  other  than 
any  name,  wonl.  or  expression  prenerally  denoting  any  poods  to 
be  of  some  partienlar  class  or  description,  and  also  any  name 
or  names,  marks  or  devices,  branded,  stamped,  enprraviMl,  etched, 


CAMKOKNIA    STATL'TICS.  'i-!> 

blown,  or  otherwise  att<i<.'lic(l  or  produced  upon  any  cask,  keg, 
l)()tllt',  vessel,  siplioii,  can,  case,  or-  otlni'  pac^kage,  used  by  any 
iiici'hanic.  manufacturer,  drugf^ist,  merchant  or  tradesman,  to 
liold,  contain  or  in(;h)se  the  floods  so  imported,  manufactured, 
produced.  comp()Uii(hM|  (»i"  soM  hy  liim,  otlicr  than  any  nainje, 
word  or  expression  }z<'nerally  (h'liotiiijr  any  ^roods  to  Iw  of  some 
particuhir  chiss  or  descrii)tion.  [AmeiKhiienl  approved  March 
;i  VMY,].] 

Section  319Ga.  Any  person  may  adopt  a  name  for  any  farm 
or  estate  owned  or  leased  hy  him,  and  ref^ister  it  in  the  manner 
provided  for  the  I'efjfistration  of  tra(hMiiarks.  Sucji  re|n:istration 
shall  have  the  same  effect  as  the  registration  of  a  trademark. 
[Approved  March  8,  1909.] 

Section  ;U961).  Any  person  selling-  or  marketing  the  pro- 
ducts grown  on  any  particular  farm  or  estate  may  ase  the  name 
of  such  farm  or  estate  as  a  trademark  on  such  products,  in  the 
same  manner  as  provided  for  other  trademarks  in  sec.  3196 
of  this  code,  and  subject  to  the  same  rights  and  duties  as  pro- 
vided in  this  article.     [Approved  oMarch  8,  1909.] 

Section  3197.  Any  person  may  record  any  trademark  or 
name  by  filing  vnth  the  Secretary  of  State  his  claim  to  the  same, 
and  a  copy  or  description  of  such  trademark  or  name,  with  his 
affidavit  attachi-d  thereto,  certified  to  l)y  an  officer  autliori/ed 
to  take  acknowledgments  of  conveyances,  setting  forth  that  he 
(or  the  firm  or  corporation  of  which  he  is  a  mem'ber),  is  the 
exclusive  owner,  or  agent  of  the  owner  of  such  trademark  or 
name.     [Amendment  approved  March  21,  1911.] 

Section  3198.  The  Secretary  of  State  must  keep  for  public 
examination  a  record  of  all  trademarks  or  names  filed  in  his 
office,  with  the  date  when  fiied  and  name  of  claimant ;  and  must 
at  the  time  of  filing  issue  to  the  claimant  a  certificate  of  such 
filing  under  the  great  seal  of  the  state,  and  collect  from  such 
claimant,  a  fee  of  five  dollars,  as  provided  for  in  section  four 
hundred  and  sixteen  of  this  code;  provided,  however,  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  shall  refuse  to  file  any  trademark  or  name 
identical  with,  or  so  similar  to  any  trademark  or  name  already 
filed  a.s  to  be  calculated  or  liable  to  deceive.  [Amendment 
approved  March  fi,  1909.] 


630  ArrKNoix  f. 

Section  3109.  Any  person  wlio  has  first  adopted  and  used  a 
trademark  or  name,  whetlier  within  or  heyond  the  liiiiit.s  of  tliis 
state,  is  its  ori«;inal  owiici-.  ."^luh  owiiei-shij)  may  he  trans- 
ferred in  tlie  same  maniur  as  personal  property,  and  is  entitled 
to  the  same  protection  liy  suits  at  law;  and  any  eourt  of  com- 
petent jurisdiction  may  restrain,  h\'  injiniction,  ;iiiy  use  of 
trademarks  or  names  in  violation  of  this  cliapter.  [Amend- 
ment approved  March  'Jl.  1!>11.] 

Section  '.V2(H).  Any  ti-.nlc  union.  h'i])()r  association,  or  lahor 
or<ranization.  organized  and  existing  in  this  state,  whether  incor- 
porated or  not.  may  adopt  and  use  a  tradeiiuirk  and  atHix  tlie 
same  to  any  goods  made,  produced,  or  manufactured  hy  the 
memhei's  of  such  trade  union,  labor  association,  or  lal)or  orgran- 
ization.  or  to  the  box.  cask,  case,  or  package  containing  such 
goods,  and  may  record  such  trademark  hy  filing  or  causing 
to  be  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State  its  claim  to  the  same, 
and  a  copy  or  description  of  such  trademark,  with  the  affidavit 
of  the  president  of  such  trade  union,  labor  association,  or  labor 
organization,  certified  to  by  any  officer  authorized  to  take 
acknowledgment^  of  conveyances,  setting  forth  that  the  trade 
union,  labor  association,  or  labor  organization,  of  which  he  is 
the  president,  is  the  exclusive  owner,  or  agent  of  the  owner, 
of  such  trademark;  and  all  the  provisions  of  Article  TTT.  Chapter 
VIT.  Title  VTT,  Part  TTT.  of  the  Political  Code,  are  hereby  made 
applicable  to  such  trademark.     [Approved  March  17,  1889.] 

Section  3201.  The  president  or  other  presiding  officer  of  any 
trade  union,  labor  association,  or  labor  organization,  organ- 
ized and  existing  in  this  state,  which  shall  have  complied  with 
the  provisions  of  the  preceding  section,  is  hereby  luthorized 
and  empowered  to  commence  and  prosecute  in  his  own  name 
any  action  or  proceedings  he  may  deem  necessary  for  the  pro- 
tection of  any  trademark  adopted  or  in  use  under  the  provisions 
of  the  preceding  section,  or  for  the  protection  or  enforcement 
of  any  riirhts  or  powers  which  may  accrue  to  .such  trade  union, 
labor  association,  or  labor  orcrani'/ation  by  the  use  or  adoption 
of  .said  trademark.     [Approved  March  17,  1889.] 


C.\LIK()I{NIA    S'PATCTh'S.  631 

CIVIIi   CODi:. 

Section  655.  There  may  he  owiiership  of  all  inaiiiinatc  things 
which  are  eapaihle  of  ai)i)r()i)ria1i()ii  oi-  of  manual  delivery;  of  all 
(k)me.sti('  aiiimals,  of  all  ol)ligatioiis,  of  siieh  produets  of  lahor 
or  skill  as  the  composition  of  an  author,  the  goodwill  of  a  husi- 
ness,  trademarks  and  si^rns,  and  of  rifjhts  created  or  granted 
by  statute.     [Approved  .March  14,  1885.] 

126  Cal.  119;  183  Cal.  71. 

Section  991.  One  who  produces  or  deals  in  a  particular 
thing,  or  conducts  a  particular  business,  may  appropriate  to 
his  exclusive  use,  as  a  trademark,  any  form,  symbol,  or  name, 
which  has  not  been  so  appropriated  by  another,  to  designate 
the  origin  or  ownership  thereof;  but  he  can  not  exclusively 
appropriate  any  designation,  or  part  of  a  designation,  which 
relates  only  to  the  name,  quality,  or  the  description  of  the  thing 
or  l)usiness,  or  the  place  where  the  thing  is  produced,  or  the 
business  is  carried  on.     [Tn  efiFect  July  1,  1874.] 

63  Cal  46 ;  100  Cal.  677  ;  103  Cal.  73. 

Section  1772.  One  who  sells  or  agrees  to  sell  any  article  to 
which  there  is  affixed  or  attached  a  trademark,  thereby  warrants 
that  mark  to  be  genuine  and  lawfully  used. 

PENAL   CODE. 

Section  350.  Every  person  who  wilfully  reproduces,  eopie.;, 
imitates,  forges,  or  counterfeits,  or  procures  to  be  reproduced, 
copied,  imitated,  forged,  or  counterfeited,  any  trademark  usually 
affixed  by  any  person  to  his  goods,  which  has  been  duly  recorded 
in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  or  with  the  Commissioner 
of  Patents  in  the  United  States  Patent  Office,  or  any  label  or 
brand,  composed  in  whole  or  in  part  of  a  reproduction  of  said 
trademark,  or  who  affixes  the  same  to  goods  of  essentially  the 
.same  descriptive  properties  and  qualities  as  those  referred  to  in 
the  registration  of  such  trademark,  with  intent  to  p.is.s  off.  or  to 
assist  other  persons  to  pass  off,  any  goods  to  which  sucli  repro- 
duced, copied,  imitated,  forged,  or  counterfeited  trademark,  or 
label,  or  brand  is  affixed,  or  intended  to  be  affixed,  as  the  goods 
of  the  person,  firm,  company,  or  corporation  owning  the  said 
trademark,  is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor.  [Approved  March 
27,  1897.1 


u:V2  APPENDIX   P. 

Section  ll')!.  Evfry  pt'i-son  who  m-Us.  or  keeps  for  sale,  or 
inamifactures  or  prepares,  for  the  ])urpo.se  of  sale,  any  floods 
iil)on,  or  to  whirh  any  rrpnuhieed,  eopietl,  imitated,  for^'ed.  or 
eounterfeited  t  i;i<liiii;irk.  or  hihel,  or  hraiid.  eoniposed  in  whole 
or  in  part  of  sudi  a  r('|)rodiiced,  eopifd,  imitated,  forj:ed  or 
eounterfeited  tradi-marU  lias  hecii  affixed,  after  sueh  trademark 
has  heen  recorded  in  thf  oHice  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  or 
with  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  in  the  United  States  Patent 
Ofliee.  intendin«:  to  represent  sueh  poods  as  the  peniiine  p)ods 
of  the  person,  firm,  eompany,  or  corporation  owninp:  the  said 
trademark,  knowing;  the  same  to  W  reproduced,  eopied.  imitated, 
fortred,  or  eounterfeited,  is  {ruilty  of  a  misdemeaiior.  [Approved 
Mareh  '21.  18M7.] 

Section  352.  The  phra.ses  "  forjjed  trademark"  and  "eounter- 
feited tradenmrk:"  or  their  ecpiivalents.  as  used  in  this  chapter, 
include  every  alteration  or  imitation  of  any  trademark  .so 
resemhlintr  the  orijrinal  as  to  he  likely  to  deceive. 

Section  3r)3.  The  phrasr  "trademark."  as  used  in  the  three 
preceding  sections,  includes  ever>-  description  of  '.»ord,  letter, 
device,  emhlem.  stamp,  imprint,  brand,  printed  ticket,  label, 
or  wrapper,  usually  affixed  by  any  mechanic,  manufacturer, 
drugrgist,  merchant,  or  tradesman,  to  denote  any  floods  to  be 
•roods  im7X)rted.  manufactured,  produced,  coiupouinled.  or  sold 
by  him,  other  than  any  name,  word,  or  expression  p-enerally 
denotinjr  any  <roods  to  be  of  some  particidar  class  or  description. 

Section  3r)4.  Every  person  who  has  in  his  passession.  or  who 
uses  any  cask,  bottle,  vessel,  case,  cover,  label,  brand,  or  other 
thinp  bearinpr,  or  havinfr  in  any  way  connected  with  it,  the 
trademark  of  another,  which  has  lieen  duly  recorded  in  the 
office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  or  with  the  ("Commissioner  of 
Patents  in  tlie  I'nited  States  Patent  Office,  or  the  tradename  of 
another,  foi*  the  purjjose  of  disposin<r  of  any  ai'licje  othei-  tlian 
that  which  such  cask,  bottle,  vessel,  case,  cover,  label,  brand,  or 
other  thinf;  orijrinally  contained,  or  is  coimected  with  by  the 
owner  of  such  trademark  or  tradename,  with  intent  to  deceive  or 
defraud,  is  puilty  of  a  misdeineaiior.  [Approved  Mari'h  27, 
1897.1 


CAI.IIOKMV     STA'l'ITKS.  C'V' 

Section  3541,'o.  Every  [)('rsnn  wlio  wilfully  soils,  or  tralTlcs 
in  any  cask.  kopr.  hottio,  vo.ssol,  .sii)hon,  can,  case,  or  other  pafka^'c 
hearing  tlic  duly  lilcd  trademark  or  name  of  another,  jjrintcd. 
branded,  stamped,  engraved,  etched.  Mown,  or  otherwise  attached 
or  produced  thereon,  or  refills  any  such  cask,  kep,  bottle,  vessel, 
siphon,  cm.  ease,  or  other  jiackafre  with  intent  to  defraud  tin; 
ownrr  tlicreof,  wifhoiil  the  consent  of  tlif  owTier  thereof,  or 
uidess  the  same  shall  have  been  piirfliased  from  the  owner 
thereof,  is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor.     (Approved  .March  14,  18!)!>.] 

Skctiox  '.]')A'y^.  Kvei'v  pccson  who  sli;ill  uiil'iilly  deface, 
erase,  obliterate,  cover  up,  or  otherwise  remove,  destroy,  or 
conceal  the  duly  filed  trademark  or  name  of  another,  printed, 
branded,  stamped,  enjrraved,  etched,  blown,  impressed,  or  other- 
wise attached  to.  or  produced  upon  any  cask,  keg,  bottle,  vessel, 
siplion.  can,  case,  or  othei-  ipackafre,  for  the  i)urpose  of  selling 
or  trafficking  in  such  cask,  keg,  bottle,  vessel,  siphon,  can,  case, 
or  other  package,  or  refilling  such  cask,  keg,  bottle,  vessel,  siphon, 
can,  case,  or  other  package,  with  intent  to  defraud  the  owner 
thereof,  witliout  the  consent  of  the  owner,  or  unless  the  same 
shall  have  been  purchased  from  the  owner,  is  guilty  of  a  mis- 
demeanor.    [Approved  ^larch  3.  1899.] 

AX  ACT  to  protect  the  owners  of  bottles,  boxes,  siplions,  and  kegs  used 
in  the  sale  of  soda  waters,  mineral  or  aerated  waters,  porter,  ale, 
cider,  ginper  ale,  milk,  cream,  small  beer,  lager  beer,  weiss  beer, 
l)eer,   white   beer,   or   other   beverages. 

(Api>roved  March  .SI,   ISOl  ;    as  amended,  approve<^  "Marcli   "),   100.*?.) 

The  people  of  the  State  of  CaJifornia,  represented  in  Senate 
and  Assembly,  do  enact  as  follows: 

Section  1.  Any  and  all  persons  engaged  in  manufacturing, 
bottling,  or  selling  soda  waters,  mineral  or  aerated  waters,  porter, 
ale,  beer,  cider,  ginger  ale.  milk,  cream,  small  beer,  lager  beer, 
weiss  beer,  white  beer,  or  other  beverages  in  bottles,  siphons,  or 
kegs,  with  his.  her.  its,  or  their  name  or  names,  or  other  marks 
or  devices,  branded,  stamped,  engraved,  etched,  and  lilown, 
impressed,  or  otherwise  produced  npon  such  bottles,  siphons,  or 
kegs,  or  the  boxes  used  by  him,  her,  it,  or  them,  may  file  in  the 
oflSce   of  the   clerk   of   the   count v   in    which    his,   her.   or   their 


(l.rt  AriM:N'Pix  F. 

priin'ipal  plnco  of  business  is  situated,  and  also  in  tlio  office  of 
tlu'  Secretary  of  State,  a  ilescription  of  tlic  name  or  names, 
marks  or  ilevices.  so  useil  by  him.  Iicr,  it,  or  lliciii,  respectively, 
anil  cause  such  dj'scri|)ti()M  to  l»e  printed  once  in  each  week  for 
three  weeks  successively,  in  a  newspai)er  pul)lishe<l  in  the  county 
in  which  said  notice  may  have  been  filed  afon'sai<l. 

Skction  2.  It  is  hereby  dfcbircd  to  be  unlawful  for  any 
peiNon  or  persons,  corporation  (u-  corporations,  to  (ill  with  smla 
waters,  mineral  or  aerated  waters,  porter,  ale.  cider,  ^infjer  ale, 
milk,  cream,  beer,  lajrer  beer,  weiss  beer,  white  l»eer,  or  other 
bi'verajies,  or  with  medicine,  compounds,  or  mixtures,  any 
bottle,  box,  siphon,  or  Ucl'.  ^(i  niMrki-d  or  distinguished  as  afore- 
said, with  or  by  any  name,  mark,  or  device  of  which  a  descrip- 
tion shall  have  been  filed  and  pulilished,  as  provided  in  section 
one  of  this  act.  or  deface,  erase,  obliterate,  cover  up.  or  otherwise 
remove  or  conceal  any  such  name,  mark,  or  device  thereon,  or 
to  sell.  buy.  pive.  take,  or  otherwise  dispose  of  or  traffic  in  the 
same,  without  the  wi'itten  consent  of.  or  uides.s  the  same  shall 
have  been  purchased  from,  the  jierson  or  persons,  corporation 
or  corporations,  whose  mark  or  devico  shall  be  or  shall  have  been 
in  or  upon  the  bottle,  box.  siphon,  or  kei;  so  filled,  trafficked  in. 
used,  or  handled  as  aforesaid.  Any  person  or  persons  or 
corporation  offendiiifj  ag:ainst  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall 
be  deemed  pruilty  of  a  misdemeiinor.  and  shall  be  punished  for 
the  first  ofTense  by  imprisonment  not  less  than  ten  days  nor 
more  than  six  months,  or  by  fine  of  fifty  cents  for  each  and 
every  such  bottle,  box,  siphon,  or  kefj  so  filled,  sold,  used,  dis- 
posed of,  boufrht,  or  trafficked  in,  or  by  both  such  fine  and 
imprisonment ;  and  for  each  subsequent  offense  by  imprison- 
ment not  less  than  twenty  days  nor  more  than  one  year,  or 
by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  one  dollar  nor  more  than  five  dollars, 
for  each  and  every  bottle,  siphon,  and  kej?  so  filled,  solil.  used, 
dispased  of.  boufrht.  or  trafficked  in,  oi-  iiy  both  such  fine  and 
imprisonment,  in  the  discretion  of  the  nui|_'istrate  bc^fore  whom 
the  offense  shall  be  tried. 

Sr:rTif)K  3.  The  use  by  any  person  other  than  the  person  or 
ftersons,  corporation  or  corporations,  whose  device,  name,  or  mark 
shall  be  or  shall  liave  been  upon  the  same,  without  such  written 


CAI.IKOUNI  \    STVTUTES.  O."}.' 

consent  or  jMircliasc,  as  aforesaid,  of  any  such  mark  f)r  dis- 
tin^-iiislied  bottle,  l)ox,  siphon,  or  kef;,  a  descrijition  of  the  name, 
mark,  or  device  whereon  .shall  have  been  filed  and  i)ul)lished.  as 
herein  provided,  for  the  sah-  therein  of  .soda  waters,  mineral  or 
aerated  waters,  porter,  ale,  cider,  ^inp-r  ale,  ndlk,  cream,  l)eer, 
small  beer,  la^'cr  beer,  weiss  beer,  white  beer,  or  other  beverages, 
or  any  article  of  nierchandise,  medicines,  compounds,  or  prepa- 
rations, or  for  the  furnishinpr  of  such  or  similar  l)everaf,'r's  to 
eu.stomers,  or  the  l)iiyinj;,  .selling:,  usiiiK>  (li-sposin?  of.  or  trafTfiick- 
ing  in  of  an>-  such  )»ottles,  'boxes,  siphons,  or  kegs,  by  any 
person  other  than  said  persons  or  corporations,  having  a  name, 
mark,  or  device  thereon,  or  such  owner,  without  such  written 
consent,  or  the  having  by  any  junK-dealer.  or  dealer  in  .second- 
liand  articles,  possession  of  any  such  bottles,  boxes,  siphons,  or 
kegs,  a  description  of  the  marks,  name.s,  or  devices  wherein 
shall  have  been  so  filed  ami  published  as  aforesaid,  without 
such  written  consent,  shall  and  is  hereliy  declared  to  be  pre- 
sumptive evidence  of  the  said  unlawful  u.se,  purchase,  or  traffic 
in  of  such  bottles,  boxes,  siphons,  or  kegs. 

Section  4.  AVlienever  any  person,  or  poi-sons,  or  corporations, 
mentioned  in  section  one  of  this  act,  or  his,  her,  its,  or  their 
agent,  .shall  make  oatli  before  any  magistrate  that  he,  she,  or 
it  has  reason  to  believe,  and  does  believe,  that  any  of  his,  her, 
or  their  bottles,  boxes,  siphons,  or  kegs,  a  description  of  the 
names,  marks,  or  devices  whereon  has  been  so  filed  and  pub- 
lished, as  aforesaid,  are  being  unlawfuljy  used  or  filled,  or  had 
by  any  person  or  corporation  manufacturing  or  selling  soda, 
mineral  or  aerated  waters,  porter,  ale,  cider,  ginger  ale,  milk, 
cream,  small  l)eer,  lager  beer,  weiss  beer,  white  beer,  and  other 
beverages,  or  that  any  junk-dealer,  or  dealer  in  secondhand 
articles,  vendor  of  bottles,  or  any  other  person  or  corporation, 
has  any  such  bottles,  boxes,  siphons,  or  kegs,  in  his,  her,  or  its 
possession  or  secreted  in  any  place,  the  said  magistrate  mu.st 
thereupon  issue  a  search  Avarrant  to  discover  and  obtain  the 
same,  and  may  also  cause  to  be  brought  before  him  the  person 
in  whose  possession  such  bottles,  boxes,  siphons,  or  kegs  may 
be  found,  and  then  inquire  into  the  circumstances  of  such 
possession ;  and  if  said  magistrate  finds  that  sucb  p«rson  has 
been  guilty  of  a  violation  of  section  two  of  this  act,  he  must 


G;k)  APPENDIX    F. 

impose  tho  puiiLshiiuMit  therein  presfriltcd.  and  In-  sliall  nlso 
award  possession  of  the  property  taken  nj)on  such  search  warrant 
to  the  owner  thereof. 

Sfctidn  .').  The  recpiirinj;.  lakinir  <>r  aereptinj;  of  any  deposit 
for  any  pnrpose.  upon  any  hotth\  l»o.\.  siplion.  or  kejr  shall  not 
he  deemed  or  eonstitute  a  saU»  of  sinh  pioperty.  either  o|)tional 
or  otliervvi.se.  in  any  proceeding'  umhr  this  act.  [Aniendinent 
approved  March  a.  IDO,}.! 

Skction  ().  Any  jx-rson  or  persons,  c()rporati(tn  or  corpora- 
tions, that  ha.s  or  have  heretofore  fih'd  in  the  oflices  mentioned 
in  section  one  of  tliis  act.  a  (h>seription  of  the  name  or  names, 
niark-s.  or  devices,  npon  his.  her.  their,  or  its  property  therein 
mentioned,  and  hjus  caused  the  .same  to  ))e  pnhlished  aceordinj^  to 
the  hnvs  e.xistinjr  at  tlie  time  of  such  filiu'^'  and  publication  shall 
not  he  re(|uired  to  nfrain  file  and  i)ul)lisli  such  descri[)tion  to  he 
entitled  to  the  l)enefits  of  tliis  aet :  and  an.v  person  or  persons, 
corporation  or  corporations,  havinpr  complied  with  the  pro- 
vision.s  of  this  act  may  as  a  part  of  the  sale,  assijrninent  or 
transfer  of  all  his.  her.  their  or  its  said  hottles.  boxes,  siphons, 
or  keps.  used  as  aforesaid,  wit'ti  hi  \  her.  tlieir  or  its  name  or 
names  or  other  marks  or  devices,  h.'anded.  stamped,  enpraved, 
etched,  and  lilown,  impressed  or  otherwise  produce  upon  such 
hottles,  boxes,  siphons  and  keijs,  to  any  other  person  or  persons, 
enrporation  or  corporations.  cnGrafred  in  manufacturing,  bottlinpr, 
or  selline  soda  waters,  mineral  or  aerated  waters,  porter,  ale. 
beer,  cider,  prinfrer  ale.  milk,  cream,  small  beer,  laper  beer,  weias 
beer,  white  beer  or  otber  beverajres.  sell,  assicm.  and  transfer 
the  sole  and  exclusive  ripht  of  nsiner  said  name  or  names,  marks 
and  devices  in  said  bu.siness.  And  in  the  event  of  such  sale, 
transfer  or  assijrnment  as  aforesaid,  or  in  tlie  event  of  the 
transfer  by  operation  of  law  or  by  sale  under  order  of  any 
court  of  the  entire  business  of  such  person  or  persons,  corpora- 
tion or  corporations,  nr  of  tlie  entin*  stock  of  bottles,  boxes, 
siphons  or  ketrs  belonirintr  to  them.  him.  her  or  it.  to  any  person 
or  persons,  corporation  or  corporations,  euiracred  in  mainifac- 
tnrinp.  l)ottlincr  or  sellinpr  soda  waters,  mineral  or  aerated 
waters,  port*'r.  ale.  l>cer.  cider,  pinL'cr  ale.  milk,  cream,  small 
beer,  laper  beer,  weiss  beer,  white  beer  or  other  beverages,  such 


CAM  I  "OH  MA    STATCTKS.  G!J7 

j)er.soii  or  persons,  corporation  or  corporations,  shall  not  he 
a^ain  nMjuirt'il  to  Hh*  and  publish  a  description  of  said  name  or 
names,  marks  or  devices,  hereunder,  l)ut  shall  he  entitled  to  all 
the  benefits  of  this  act  innnediately  upon  acquiring  such  Iwttles, 
siphons  or  kepi  or  such  business  as  aforesaid.  [Amendment 
approved  March  f,,  1  !)().*}.] 

Skction  7.  All  acts  and  parts  of  acts  inconsistent  herewith 
are  for  the  purjjose  of  this  act  hereby  repealed.  [l{<.'-nunibercd ; 
approved  March  5,  1!)03.] 

C.VSES   DKCIDKD    HV    TIIK    SII'KEME    COIKT    OF    CALIFORNIA    RELATIVE 
TO   USE,    PROTECTION,    ETC.,   OF   TRADEMARKS. 

Definition  and  o}>j<<t  of  ini<h  nuirks.—Bnrlr  v.  Cassin,  45 
Cal.  467 ;  Eggers  v.  Hink,  03  Cal.  445. 

Recording  trademark  with  serretarif  of  state. — Whitticr  v. 
Dietz,  G6  Cal.  78;  S picker  v.  Lash,  102  Cal.  52. 

Cam  won  hnr  npplirahJe  as  to  right  to. — Derringer  v.  Plate, 
29  Cal.  292;  Falkinburg  v.  Lucy,  35  Cal.  52. 

Terntorial  limits  of  trademark. — Derringer  v.  Plate,  29  Cal. 
292. 

What  constitutes  trademark. — Pight  to  use  irhat  ax. — Wood- 
xvard  v.  Lazar,  21  Cal.  448:  Falkinburg  v.  Lucy,  35  Cal.  52; 
Choynski  r.  Cohen,  39  Cal.  501;  Burke  v.  Cassin,  45  Cal.  467; 
Eggers  v.  Ilink,  63  Cal.  445:  Schmidt  v.  Brieg,  100  Cal.  674; 
Spieker  v.  Lash,  102  Cal.  38;  Weinstock,  Luhin  d-  Co.  v.  Marks, 
109  Cal.  529;  Castle  v.  Siegfried,  103  Cal.  71;  Nolan  Bros. 
Shoe  Co.  V.  W.  II.  .\olan,  131  Cal.  271. 

Infrinqemcnts  of  trademark. — ^^'ood^rnrd  v.  Lazar,  21  Cal. 
448;  Derringer  v.  Plate.  29  Cal.  292;  Falkinburg  v.  Lucy,  35 
Cal.  52;  Graham  v.  Plate,  40  Cal.  593;  Burke  v.  Cai^sin,  45  Cal. 
467;  Pierce  v.  Guittard,  68  Cal.  68;  Sperry  v.  Percival  Milling 
Co.,  81  Cal.  252:  Schmidt  v.  Brieg,  100  Cal.  672;  Spieker  v. 
Lash,  102  Cal.  38;  Castle  v.  Siegfncd,  103  Cal.  71;  Weinstock, 
Luhin  ((•  Co.  v.  Marks,  109  Cal.  529;  yolan  Bros.  Shoe  Co.  v. 
^y.  11.  Xolan.  131  Cal.  271. 

The  Secretary  of  State  has  prescribed  the  following  form 
for  application.s  for  rcEristration : 

Stato  of  (\Tlifornia, 

County  of  , 

,  lieiiifr  (liil.v   sworn,  deposes  and  says  that  ho   is  located 

and    doinjr   business    in    tiie    ,    State    of    California.      That   the    said 


638  Al'l'KNDlX    F. 

—    i(*    (ho    oxoliisivo    hwiut    of    tlir    tnuUmnrk    dcBcrlbod    \n    tkft 


ppt'oiftcation  accompHnyiii};  this  nllUlavit,  and  In-  jHtitiDiirt  that  th«-  said 
tradtmark  may  bo  fUod  in  th*«  offico  of  tlio  Socntary  of  Stato  of  tlio  Stato 
of  (.'alifornia.  iii  aicordaiu-f  witli  tlif  hiw  in  «uoh  cattos  made  and  pro- 
vided. 


Subscribed   and   .swnni    to   b.fon-    m.'.    this   day  of  ,   19 — . 


yotary   Public   in  ami  for  the  said  ,   State  of  California. 

SPECIFICATION. 

To  all   irhom    il    may   concern: 

Be  it  known  that  of  ,  State  of  California,  being  engaged 

in  the  business  of   ,  adopted   for   use   a   trademark, 

of  whicli  tlie  foHowiiij,'  is  a  description: 

This  trademark  consists  . 

It    has    generally    been    arranj:fd    as    shown    in    tlie    accompanying   fac- 
simile,    . 

(Space    for    attaehin;,'    label.  I 

This   trademark    has    been    used    in    its   business    since    the    day 

of  ,  . 

The    class    of    merchandise    and    tlie    particular   goods    upon    which    the 

trademark  is  used  is  . 

It  has  been  the  custom  to  imprint  it  upon  . 

Witnesses : 


COLORADO. 

AN  ACT  to  confer  exclusive  rights  to  the  use  of  labels,  trademarks, 
terms,  designs,  devices  or  forms  of  advertisement  and  provide 
for  the  recording  of  the  same,  to  provide  a  remedy  for  the  viola- 
tion of  such  right,  and  the  penalty  for  the  unlawful  use  of  labels, 
trademarks,  terms,  designs,  devices  and  forms  of  advertising,  and 
to  repeal  all  acts  and  parts  of  acts   inconsistent   lierewith. 

Be  it  enacted  lijj  the  (Icueral  Assontttu  of  thr.Staic  of  Colorado: 
Sectiox  1.  AVhenever  any  person,  or  any  association  or 
union  of  workinfjrnien,  has  heretoforo  a(loi)tO(l  or  used,  or  shall 
hereafter  adopt  or  nse,  any  label,  trademark,  term,  design, 
device  or  form  of  advertisement  for  the  purpose  of  de.sitrnatin<?. 
making  known,  or  distinguisliing  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise 
or  other  product  of  labor,  as  having  been  nuide,  manufactured, 


COLORADO   STATUTES. 


630 


produced,  prepared,  packfd  or  put  on  sale  by  such  person  or 
association  or  union  oi"  workiii^Miu-n  or  hy  a  nieinbcr  or  iiiemljers 
of  such  association  or  union,  it  shall  Ix;  unlaui"ul  to  counterfeit 
or  imitate  such  hibcl,  trademark,  Icrni,  (lcsi«rn,  device  or  form 
of  advertisement,  or  to  use,  sell,  otTer  for  sale  or  in  any  way 
utter  or  circulate  any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  such  label, 
trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement. 

Section  2.  Wlioever  counterfeits  or  imitates  any  such  labels, 
trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement;  or 
sells,  offers  for  .sale  or  in  any  way  utters  or  circulate.s  any 
counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  such  label,  trademark,  term, 
design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement ;  or  keei)s  or  has  in 
his  possession  with  intent  that  the  same  .shall  be  sold  or  dispased 
of,  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  product  of  lalmr  to 
which  or  on  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  printed, 
painted,  stamped  or  impres.sed ;  or  knowingly  sells  or  disposes 
of  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  product  of  labor  con- 
tained in  any  box,  case,  can  or  package,  to  which  or  on  which 
any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached,  affixed,  printed, 
painted,  stamped  or  impressed ;  or  keeps  or  has  in  his  pos.session 
with  intent  that  the  same- shall  be  sold  or  disposed  of,  any 
goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  products  of  labor  in  any 
box,  case,  can  or  package  to  which  or  on  which  any  such  counter- 
feit or  imitation  is  attached,  affixed,  printed,  painted,  stamped 
or  impressed  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  five 
hundred  dollars  ($500),  or  by  imprisonment  for  not  more  than 
three  months,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment. 

Section  .3.  Every  such  person,  association  or  union  that  has 
heretofore  adopted  or  used,  or  shall  hereafter  adopt  or  use,  a 
label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement 
as  proAaded  in  sec.  1  of  this  act,  may  file  the  same  for  record 
in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  by  leaving  two  copies, 
counterparts  or  fac-simile.<i  thereof,  with  said  secretary  and  by 
filing  there^^^th  a  sworn  application  specifying  the  name  or 
names  of  the  person,  a.ssociation  or  union  on  whose  behalf  such 
label,  trademark,  term,  design,  de\nce  or  form  of  advertisement 
shall  be  filed:  the  class  of  merchandise  and  description  of  the 
goods  to  which  it  has  been  or  is  intended  to  be  appropriated 


640  APPENDIX    F. 

stating  that  the  party  so  filing  or  on  whoso  belialf  such  label, 
trademark,  term,  ih'sign.  dovico  or  form  of  advertisement  shall 
he  tiled,  has  the  right  to  the  use  of  tlu»  same;  tluit  no  other 
person,  lirm.  assoeiation,  UTiion  or  eorporation  ha.s  the  right 
of  such  use.  (Mtlu^r  in  th<>  identical  form  or  in  any  .such  near 
rcsemhlance  thereto  as  may  he  calculated  to  d<'ceive  and  that 
the  fac-.s'innir  or  counterparts  tiled  tlnrf\vitli  ari'  true  and  correct. 
There  .shall  he  paid  for  such  filing  and  recording  a  fee  of  one 
dollar.  Said  Secretary  shall  deliver  to  such  person.  as.sociation 
or  union  so  filing  or  causing  to  he  filed  any  such  lahcl.  trademark, 
term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advert iscMiuMit.  so  many  duly 
attested  certificates  of  the  recording  of  tlie  same  as  such  person, 
association  or  union  may  apply  for.  for  each  of  which  certificates 
said  Secretary  shall  receive  a  fee  of  one  dollar.  Any  such 
certificate  of  record  shall  in  all  suits  and  prasecutions  under 
this  act  he  sufficient  proof  of  the  adoption  of  such  label,  trade- 
mark, term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement.  Said 
Secretan-  of  State  shall  not  record  for  any  person,  union  or 
association  any  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form 
of  advertisement  that  would  probably  be  mistaken  for  any  label, 
trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  there- 
tofore filed  by  or  on  behalf  of  any  other  person,  union  or 
asjsociation.  Rut  the  said  Secretary  shall  file  and  record  under 
this  act  any  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of 
advertisement,  which  may  have  been  previously  filed  by  any 
person,  or  any  association  or  union  of  workingmen.  provided  the 
person,  a.ssociation  or  union  seeking  to  file  and  record  under 
this  act  is  the  same  peiNon.  association  or  union  that  previously 
filed  or  recorded  the  .same  lalicl.  trademark,  tcnii.  design,  device 
or  form  of  advertisement. 

Skction  4.  Any  person  who  shall  for  himself  or  on  behalf 
of  any  other  person,  association  or  union  procure  the  filing  of 
any  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  or  form  of  advertisement  in 
the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  under  the  provisions  of  this 
act,  by  making  any  false  or  fraudulent  representations,  or 
declarations,  verbally  or  in  writing,  or  by  any  fraudulent  means, 
.shall  bo  liable  to  pay  any  damages  sustained  in  consenuence  of 
any  such  filing,  to  bo  recovered  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  party 
injured  thereby  in  any  court  having  jurisdiction  and  shall  be 


COLORADO    STATITTKS. 


641 


])uiiish('(l  hy  a  'iiic  not  exceeding  five  Imiidrccl  dollars  ($500)  or 
hy  iiiipi-isomiiciit  not  exceeding'  llir<r  luonflis,  or  hy  both  such 
fine  and  imprisonment. 

SiocTioN  f).  Every  siicli  person,  association  or  union  adoptinf? 
or  usin«r  a  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of 
adv.rtiscniciit  as  aforesaid,  may  proceed  by  suit  for  damages 
to  enjoin  the  manufacture,  use,  display  or  sale  of  any  counter- 
feits or  imitations  thereof  and  all  courts  of  competent  juriwlic- 
tion  shall  grant  injunction  to  restrain  such  manufacture,  use, 
display  or  sale  and  award  the  complainant  in  any  such  suit 
damages  resulting  from  such  manufacture,  use,  sale  or  display 
as  may  be  by  tlie  said  court  deemed  just  and  reasonable,  and 
shall  require  the  defendant  to  pay  to  such  person,  association  or 
union  all  profits  derived  from  such  wrongful  manufacture,  ase, 
display  or  sale;  and  such  court  shall  also  order  that  all  such 
<'ounterfeits  or  imitations  in  the  possession  or  under  the  control 
of  any  defendant  in  such  cause  be  delivered  to  an  officer  of  the 
court,  or  to  the  complainant  to  be  destroyed. 

Skction  n.  Every  person  who  shall  use  or  display  the  geiuiine 
label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  fonn  of  advertisement 
of  any  such  person,  association  or  union  in  any  manner,  not 
being  authorized  so  to  do  by  .such  person,  union  or  as.sociation, 
shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  shall  be  punished 
by  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  three  months  or  by  a  fine 
of  not  more  than  five  hundred  dollars  ($500 "i. 

In  all  cases  where  such  as.sociation  or  union  is  not  incorporated, 
suits  under  this  act  may  be  commenced  and  prosecuted  by  an 
officer  or  member  of  such  association  or  union  on  behalf  of 
and  for  the  use  of  such  association  or  union. 

Rection  7.  Any  person  or  persons  who  shall  in  any  way  use 
the  name  or  seal  of  any  such  person,  association  or  union  or 
officer  thereof  in  and  about  the  sale  of  goods  or  otherwise,  not 
being  authorized  to  .so  use  the  same,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  mis- 
demeanor, and  shall  be  punishable  by  imprisonment  for  not 
more  than  three  months,  or  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  fivo 
hundred  dollars  ($500). 


642  ATl'ENniX    K. 

SecTiON  8.  In  case  the  plaint ifT  is  successful  in  niaintuining 
his  action  citlicr  for  ilama^cs  or  for  permanent  relief  hy  injunc- 
tion, or  for  noiiiinal  danianes  only,  lie  shall  he  entitled  to  recover 
a  rca.soiu»hle  attorney's  fee.  to  he  taxed  hy  the  court  as  a  part 
of  the  costs,  and  iiier^'ed  in  tlie  .iiKJ^'inciit. 

Section  H.  All  act.s  and  parts  of  acts  inconsistent  herewith 
are  herehy  repealed;  proridrd.  that  tiiis  a<t  shall  not  he  con- 
strue<l  as  impairing;  any  ri^'hts  lu-retofore  ae<'rncd,  nor  aa 
affectinj:  the  remedies  therefor  heretofore  existing. 

Approved.  April  1<\  IS'lH. 

Fi»KM    KOi:    AIM'LK  ATION    FOR    HKiasTKATION. 

,   la— . 

To   the  Ilonarablr  the  Sccrrtary  of  f^tatc  of  the  Stair  of  Colorado: 

I,    ,    bi'iiifj    desirous    of    avail in<j    myself    of    the     provisions    of 

an  act  of  the  Lejiislature  of  the  State  of  Colorado,  in  relation  to 
trademarks  and  laltels,  approved  April  10,  IS'.til,  have  adopted  a  certain 
trademark  for  the  purpose  of  desij^nating  and  distin;,'ui8hinji  a  certain 
article  in  manner  and  form  as  folh)\va,  viz:   

That  the  said  has  the  ripht  to  use  the  same  and  that  no  other 

person,  firm,  association,  union  or  corporation  has  the  ri^ht  to  use 
the  same,  either  in  the  identieal  form  or  in  any  such  near  resemblance 
thereto  as  may  be  calculated  to  deceive,  and  that  the  fac-gimik-8  or 
counterparts  tiled  herewith  are  true  and  correct. 


State  of 


88: 


On  til  is day  of  ,  A.  D.  10 — ,  before  me  personally  appeared 

tlie   above   named   ,   to   me   personally   known,   and   made   oath   that 

the    fore},'oin^'    statement   by   him    subscribed    is   true    ami   correet. 

My   commission   expires  , 


Yofnn/   Public. 

The  Secretar>'  of  State  of  Colorable  pives  the  following: 

XoTK'E — In  makin;;  yotir  ai>plication  for  Trademark,  it  is  imjiortant 
that  you  furnish  this  ofliee  with  two  counterparts  or  far  sim-ilcs  of  Label 
or  Tra<lemark  desired.  Should  certified  copies  of  this  filing  l>c  desired,  it 
will  Iw  necessary  for  you  to  forward  as  many  additional  counterparts  or 
fac-timilra  of  Laltol  or  Trademark  as  co[»ies  n-fpiired. 


CONNECTicnrr  sTATrTi->;. 


G4:j 


CONNECTICUT. 

General  Statut«'H,  Hcvinion  of  1002. 

Section  4899.  Recokd  ok  certificate.  Every  person  entitled 
to  the  exclusive  um)  of  any  tradiMimrU,  or  who  intends  to  adopt 
and  use  any  trademark  not  previously  adopted  or  used  by 
another,  may  file  for  record  in  11h'  office  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  a  certificate  setting,'  I'ortli :  iiis  name,  residence  and  place 
of  business;  the  class  of  merchandise,  and  the  i)articidar  descrip- 
tion of  poods  comprised  in  such  class,  to  which  such  trademark 
has  ])een  or  is  to  be  ai)pn)i)riated  ;  a  descrijjtion  of  such  trade- 
mark, and  of  the  mode  in  whicli  it  is  to  be  applied  and  used; 
the  date  when  such  trad<Miiark  was  first  used  or  adopted;  that 
he  has  a  ri^dit  to  the  use  of  it;  and  that  no  other  person  has  the 
ripht  to  such  use,  either  in  the  identical  form,  or  havinp:  .such 
near  resemblance  thereto  as  miplit  he  calculated  to  deceive.  A 
fac-.ti)nilr  of  fjucli  trademark  shall  be  incorporated  in  or  annexed 
to  such  certificate,  and  a  duplicate  shall  be  filed  therewith,  to 
be  pasted  or  bound  into  the  record-book,  if  practicable.  Such 
certificate  shall  be  sifriied  by  the  person  in  which  behalf  it  is 
filed,  or  ])y  his  agent,  and  the  person  so  sio^iinp:  it  shall  make 
oath  or  affirm  that  all  the  statements  therein  contained  are  true 
to  the  best  of  his  knowledfre  and  belief. 

Section  4900.  LiABiLrn'  for  false  swearino.  Ever^'  person 
who  shall  wilfully  swear  or  affirm  falsely,  in  any  such  affirma- 
tion or  affidavit,  as  to  any  matter  therein  required  to  be  set 
forth,  shall  be  gruilty  of  perjury,  and  shall  pay  treble  damages 
to  every  party  injured  thereby. 

Sfcttox  4901.  ^Mandamus  to  compel  record.  Tf  the  Secre- 
tarv  of  State  has  reason  to  apprehend,  on  the  filing  of  any  such 
certificate,  that  the  statements  therein  contained,  or  any  of 
them,  are  untrue,  he  may  decline  to  record  the  same,  unless  the 
party  filing  it  shall  obtain  a  writ  of  mandamus  to  compel  such 
recording.  Such  writ  may  be  granted,  but  without  costs  to  the 
Secretary',  by  any  proper  court,  on  due  proof  that  all  the  state- 
ments in  such  certificate  are  true,  but  no  final  hearintr  on  the 
application  therefor  .shall  be  had  until  snch  notice  thereof  as 
said  court  may  order  has  been  advertised  in  one  or  more  news- 
papers published   in   the   county   where  the  party   filing  such 


r.44  APPKNDIX    P. 

I'tTtificato  ro.siilt's.  Any  pcrsoMs  who  dt'sin'  m.iy  apix-ar  and 
iiitorvi'iu*  ns  jU'fiMitlaiits  and  oppcxsc  the  granting  of  smli  writ, 
Hiul  shall  l)«'  liable  to  judf^mciit  for  aiiy  costs  (u'<'a<!ioiM'tl  l>y 
siK-h  intcrvfiitioii. 

Skction  4nO'J.  KpFKrT  of  kkcoudini;.  I-'vcry  pti-soii  haviiif; 
tlir  ri^'lit  to  make  and  file  siicli  a  cert iticatc  and  atlidavit.  upon 
the  n-cordinj;  of  tlir  same  in  said  otlicc.  shall  ho  cntitlcij  to  tlu? 
I'Xclusivc  usr  of  tlu'  trademark  therein  desei-ihcd  for  so  ion^'  as 
lie  or  his  assiirns  shall  eontiniie  to  Ite  eii^'aired  in  the  inannfaeture 
or  sale  of  the  merchandise  or  description  of  i:o<»ds  to  which  it 
is  appropriated;  and  such  riirht  shall  he  assignable  in  writiiip, 
but  all  assi<.Miments  thereof  shall  be  <:oo<l  only  af^Jiinst  the 
assiLMior  ai;d  his  personal  representatives  until  lodged  for  record 
in  said  oflice. 

Skction  tno:^  CoiMKs  i-kima  facii:  fvioknci:.  The  Secretary 
shall  retain  all  such  certificates  on  file,  and  cause  the  same  and 
all  assi«xnments  of  iradem-U'k  rijihts  to  be  recorded  at  lenfjth  in 
his  office.  Copies  of  the  record  of  any  such  certificate  attested 
by  him  uiKh-r  the  s.  al  of  the  state,  shall  be  prima  facie  evidence 
of  the  rifrht  of  the  party  filing:  such  certificate  to  the  exclusive 
use  of  the  trademark  therein  described  for  the  jieriods  limited 
in  sec.  4002. 

Srctiox  4nn4.  roT'NTERFEiT  oi;  IMITATION.  Every  person 
who  shall  reproduce,  (-opy.  counti-rfeit.  oi-  imitate  any  such 
recorded  trademark,  knowing;  the  same  to  have  been  n-corded, 
and  afTi.x  sudi  reproduction,  copy,  counterfeit,  or  imitation  to 
troods  resemlilinL'  or  desljrned  to  resemble  those  to  whiiOi  such 
trademark  is  so  appropriated,  shall  pay  to  the  owner  of  such 
trademark  double  damatres.  and  also  such  sum.  not  more  than 
five  hundred  dollaiN.  as  the  court  before  which  the  action  is 
brou{.dit  may  order  to  be  addi-il  to  the  dama<;es  foun<l  by  the 
verdict  or  jud'^'ment. 

SKfTinv  4f)0.'»  Existing  KiniiTS  not  afffptfo.  The  pro- 
visions of  this  chapter  shall  not  nbridpe  any  riirhts  to  any 
trademarks  existing  on  the  twenty -second  da\-  of  April.  1S80, 
whether  the  same  shall  be  recorded  or  not.  n(»r  any  remedies 
or  ncrht"^  of  aetion  otherwise  or  theretofore  existing  in  favor  of 
ownenj  of  tradjiiiarks. 


COXNECTICIT   STATITES.  G4.') 

Skction  400G.  Upk  with  intknt  to  dkckivk.  ICvcry  person 
who  fraiululcntly  and  with  intent  to  (Icccivc,  afTixrs  any  trade- 
mark recorded  umler  this  chapter,  or  any  snch  imitation  tliereof 
as  is  caleuhited  to  decoivc,  to  any  goods,  receptaeh',  or  i)aeka>;<' 
similar  in  descriptive  properties  to  those  to  whicli  such  trath-- 
mark  is  appropriatiMl :  or  who  fraudnh-ntly  and  with  intent  to 
deceive  jdaces  in  any  receptaeh'  or  packajre  to  wliidi  is  lawfully 
affixed  a  recorded  trademark,  poods  other  than  those  wliich  said 
trademark  is  desi<_Mied  and  appropriated  to  protect;  or  who 
fraudulently  and  with  intent  to  deceive,  deals  in  or  keeps  for 
sale  any  jjoods  with  ;i  trademark  fraudulently  affixed  as  ahove 
descrihed  in  this  section,  or  any  proods  contained  in  any  package 
or  receptacle  havinjr  a  lawful  tJ'ademark,  which  are  not  such 
jjoods  as  such  trademark  was  designed  and  af)|)ropriated  to 
protect,  shall  he  fined  not  more  than  five  hundred  dollars,  or 
imprisoned  not  more  than  thirty  days,  or  hoth. 

DEVICES   ox    ROTTLEP.   CANS,   JARS.   SU'IIONS,   TOWELS,   COATS, 

APPIONS,   AND  TOILET   CABINETS. 

(As  amended  liy  Chapter  208.  Pul.lie  Acts  of  mil.) 

Section  1.  Description  may  be  filed.  Sec.  4013  of  the 
general  statutes  as  amended  hy  eh.  115  of  the  public  acts  of 
1903  is  hereby  amended  to  read  as  follows :  Any  person  engagred 
in  manufacturing,  bottling,  or  selling  soda  waters,  mineral  or 
aerated  waters,  porter,  ale,  beer,  cider,  ginger  ale.  milk,  cream, 
small  beer,  lager  beer,  wei.ss  beer,  white  beer,  or  other  beverages, 
or  medicines,  medical  preparations,  perfumerv,  oils,  compounds, 
or  mixtures  in  bottles,  cans,  jars,  or  siphons,  with  his  name  or 
other  marks  or  devices  branded,  .stamped,  engraved,  etched, 
blown,  impressed,  or  otber\dse  produced  upon  such  bottles, 
cans,  jars,  siphons  or  th'^  boxes  used  by  him.  or  any  person 
eniraged  in  the  business  of  snpplyincr  towels,  coats,  aprons,  or 
toilet  cabinets  to  others,  for  hire  or  compensation,  with  his  name 
or  other  marks  or  devices  brnnded.  stamped,  marked,  sewed,  or 
otherwise  impressed  thereon,  mav  file  in  the  office  of  the  clerk 
of  the  superior  court  of  the  countv  in  which  his  principal  place 
of  business  is  .situated,  or  if  such  place  of  business  .shall  be 
situated  out  of  the  stnte.  then  in  any  county  in  the  state,  and 
also  in  the  office  of  the  ?5ecretar\'  of  ?!tate.  a  description  of 
the  name  or  names,  marks,  or  devices  so  used  by  him,  and  may 


G4G  APrKNPix  F. 

onuso  such  ilescription  to  l>o  print<»il  oiu-o  in  ouch  wvck,  for  three 
weeks  suooeJisivtly.  in  a  iu'W.spapor  published  iu  the  county  in 
which  such  notice  has  l)oen  fiU'd  as  aforesaid. 

Suction  2.  rNi.AWFUi.  isk  ok  dkvicks:  pkxai.ty.  Sec.  4914 
of  the  jieneral  statutes  ns  anien<h'd  Ity  cli.  115  of  tlie  Puhlie 
Acts  of  l!U):{  is  hereby  amended  to  read  as  follows:  No  person, 
other  than  the  owner  of  such  name,  mark,  or  device,  shall  till 
with  soda  water,  mineral  or  aerated  water,  porter,  ale.  cider, 
jrinjrer  ale,  milk,  cream,  beer,  .small  beer,  l.iper  beer,  weiss  beer, 
white  l)eer.  or  other  beverage,  or  with  any  medicine,  medical 
preparation,  perfumery,  nil,  compound  or  mixture,  any  bottle, 
can.  jar.  box.  or  si|ihon.  or  shall  uso  any  towel,  coat,  or  apron, 
or  toilet  cabinet,  by  supplyiiifi.  furnisliinc;,  or  rentinj^  the  same 
to  others  for  hire  or  compensation,  which  is  so  m.irked  or  dis- 
tinjruislied.  as  aforesaid,  with  or  by  any  nanu'.  mark,  or  device, 
a  description  of  which  shall  have  been  filed  and  juiblished  as 
provided  in  s(>c.  A9)'.^  and  amendments  thereof,  or  shall  deface, 
erase,  obliterate,  cover  up.  or  otherwise  remove  or  conceal  any 
such  name.  mark,  or  device  thereon,  or  shall  sell.  b\iy.  jrive.  take, 
or  otherwise^  dispose  of  or  traffic  in  the  same,  without  the  written 
consent  of  the  jierson  whose  mark  or  dcnice  .shall  be  or  shall  have 
been  in  or  upon  the  bottle,  can.  j,ir.  ]>ox.  or  si[ihon  so  filled, 
trafficked  in.  used,  or  handled  as  aforesaid,  or  whose  name,  mark, 
or  device  shall  be  or  shall  have  been  upon  the  towel,  coat,  apron, 
or  toilet  cabinet  so  unlawfully  used,  except  that  the  u.se  of  such 
towels,  coats,  aprons,  and  toih^t  ca))inets,  at  the  places  where  the 
.same  are  supplied  or  delivered  liy  tiie  owner,  utxh^r  an  ajjree- 
ment  with  or  lease  or  licetise  from  such  owner,  sliall  not  be 
unlawfid.  Every  j)erson,  actinj;  for  himself  or  as  the  agent 
of  any  person,  firm,  or  corporation,  who  shall  violate  any  pro- 
vision of  this  section  shall,  for  the  first  ofTense  be  fined  not  more 
than  fifty  cents  for  each  sucli  bottle,  can.  jar,  box.  sii)hon.  towel, 
coat,  apron,  or  toilet  cabinet  so  filled,  sold.  used,  supplied, 
disposed  of.  bou<:ht,  or  trafficked  in.  or  impri.soned  not  more  than 
thirty  days,  or  lioth  ;  and  for  each  subsequent  ofTense  shall  be 
fined  not  more  than  one  dollar  for  each  such  bottle,  can.  jar, 
box,  siphon,  towel,  coat,  or  apron,  or  toilet  cabinet  so  filled, 
sold,  used,  supplied,  disposed  of,  bought,  or  trafficked  in,  or 
imprisoned  not  more  than  one  vear  or  both. 


CONNECTICUT   STATUTES. 


647 


Section  :}.     Pimisimption  ok  unlawful  use.     Sec.  4015  of 
thr  ^'-'rifi-Jil  stiiliitfs,  -IS  aiiiciKli'd   l)y  ehaptrr  11.")  of  the  Pulilic 
Acts  of  I'JOiJ,  is  luTchy  amcmkHl  to  read  as  follows:    The  use  by 
any  person  other  than  llie  person  whwo  deviee,  name,  or  mark 
shall  lie  or  shall  have  heen  upon  the  same,  without  such  written 
consent   or  purchase  a.s  aforesaid,  of  any  such  marked  or  dis- 
tin^'uished  hollle,  can,  jar.  liox,  or  siphon,  a  descrii)tion  of  the 
name,  mark,  or  device  whereon  shall   have  been  filed  and  pub- 
lished  as    provided   in   see.   4!)i:J   and    amendments  thereof    for 
the  sale  therein  of  soda  waters,  mineral  or  aerated  waters,  porter, 
ale,  cider,  gingrer  ale,  milk,  cream,  beer,  small  beer,  lager  beer, 
weiss  beer,  wliite  l)eer,  or  other  beverage,  or  any  article  or  mer- 
chandise,  medicine,   medical    preparation,   perfumery,   oil,   com- 
pound, mixture,  or  preparation,  or   for  the   furnishing  of  such 
or  similar  beverages  to  customers,  or  the  use,  by  any  person  other 
than  the  owner  whose  name,  mark,  or  device  shall    have  been 
upon  the  same  and   those   exempt   l)y  tlie   proviso  of  sec.   4!)14 
as  amended,  of  any  such  marked  or  distinguished  towel,  coat, 
or  apron,  or  toilet  cabinet,  a  description  of  the  name,  mark,  or 
device  whereon  shall  have  been  filed  and  published  as  provided 
in  said  sec.   4!)1."?  as  amended,   or  the  buying,  selling,   or   dis- 
pasing  of,  or  trafficking  in  any  such  Iwttles,  cans,  jai-s.  boxes, 
siphons,  towels,  coats,  aprons,  or  toilet  cabinets  by  any  person 
other  than  the  person  having  a  name,  mark,  or  device  as  such 
owner  thereon  without  such   written  consent,  or  the  possession 
by  any  junk  dealer,  or  dealer  in  rags  or  second-hand  articles, 
or  person  engaged  in  the  business  of  supplying  or  renting  tow- 
els, aprons,  coats,  or  toilet  cabinets,  of  any  such  bottles,  cans, 
jars,  boxes,  or  siphons,  whether  whole  or  broken,  or  any  such 
marked  or  distinguished  towel,  cont.  or  apron,  or  toilet  cabinet, 
a  description  of  the  marks,  names,  or  devices  whereon  shall  have 
l)een  so  filed  and  published  a.s  aforesaid,  without  such   written 
consent,  shall  be  pre.sumptive  evidence  of  such  unlawful  uses, 
l>urchase,  and  traffic  in  such  bottles,  cans,  jars,  boxes,  siphons, 
towels,  coats,  aprons  or  toilet  cabinets. 

Section  4.     Issuanck  of  search   warrants.     Sec.  4016  of 

^he  general  statutes,  as  amended  by  chapter  115  of  the  Public 

Acts  of  1903  and  chapter  48  of  the  Public  Acts  of  1005,  is  hereby 

amended  to  read  as  follows:    "Wlienever  any  person  mentioned 


C4S  APrKNDlX    F. 

in  sec.  4*.U3  aiul  aiMondinents  thereof,  or  his  a^'cnt.  shall  makf 
oath  iH'fore  nuy  justice  of  the  peace  or  the  jml^'c  of  any  city, 
boroujrh.  town,  or  police  court  within  tlie  town,  that  \u'  has 
rciuion  to  iK'lieve  and  does  lielieve  tlial  amy  of  his  hottles.  cans, 
jars,  boxes  or  siphons,  a  (U-scription  of  the  names,  marks,  or 
drvices  whereon  luis  hcen  so  (iU'il  aM<l  published  as  aforesaid,  are 
bein>r  uidawfully  used  or  lille»l  or  had  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  such  justice  of  the  peace,  or  such  court,  hy  any  person  manu- 
faeturinp  or  selling  soda,  mineral  or  aerated  waters,  porter,  ale, 
cider,  jrinfrer  ah*,  milk,  cream,  snudl  heer.  la^er  heer,  weiss  beer, 
or  other  beverage,  or  medical  preparations,  perfumery,  oils, 
compounds,  or  mixtures,  or  tlwit  any  junk  dealer  or  dealer  in 
second-hand  articles,  vmdor  of  bottles,  cans,  jars,  or  siphons, 
or  other  person  has.  within  such  jurisdiction,  any  such  bottles, 
cans.  jaiN.  boxes,  or  siphons  in  his  possession  or  secreted  in  any 
place,  or  that  any  of  his  towels,  coats,  aprons,  or  toilet  cabinets 
a  description  of  the  names,  marks  or  devices  whereon  has  l)een 
filed  and  published  as  aforesaid,  are  being  unlawfully  used  or 
lield  within  the  juristliction  of  such  justice  of  the  peace  or  such 
court,  said  justice  of  the  peace  or  court  shall,  if  sufficient  reason 
be  shown  therefor,  issue  forthwith  a  search  warrant,  tlirected 
to  any  police  officer  or  other  proper  officer,  to  discover  and  obtain 
the  same;  and  said  justice  of  the  jjcace  or  <ourt  shall  i.ssue  a 
warrant  for  and  cause  to  ))e  brou^jht  before  him  tlie  person 
in  whose  possession  such  bottles,  cans.  jars.  l)oxes.  siphons,  tow- 
els, coats,  aprons  or  toilet  cabinets,  may  be  fo-.iml  and  shall  incpiire 
into  the  circumstances  of  .such  pos.session  ;  and  if  such  justice 
of  the  peace  or  court  shall  find  that  such  person  b.as  ln-en  .guilty 
of  a  violation  of  sec.  4'.)14  as  amended  he  shall  award  the  prop- 
erty taken  upon  such  warrant  to  the  owner  tlu-rcof,  tofjether 
with  his  costs  for  such  search  warrant  and  officer's  fees  thereon. 

Sp:ction  .).  Dkposits  foh  sEcrRiTY.  Sec.  4017  of  the  gen- 
eral statutes,  as  amended  by  Ch.  11.')  of  the  Public  Acts  of  lOO:?, 
is  hereby  amendet]  to  read  as  follows:  The  refpiirinp:.  takinpr. 
or  aeeeptirifr  of  any  sum  of  money  as  a  deposit  for  .security  for 
the  safekee[)in^  and  return  of  any  bottle,  can.  jar.  box,  siphon, 
towel,  coat,  or  apron,  or  toilet  e.iliinet  shall  not  constitute  a 
sale  of  such  property,  either  optional  or  otherwise,  in  any  pro- 
eccdinjr  under  sees   4nir{.  4:)1  1.  4fnr»,  or  4010  as  amended. 


l)i;i-AWAKI,    STATIITES.  G4I> 

(Appruv.d,  AiiyiiHt   1\.    1!»11.) 

Section  41)18.  Ri;iii-ino  of  otrviCE  not  requirkd.  Any  per- 
son, lirni,  <)!•  corporation  tliat  lia.s  filed  in  the  oflkM;  mentioned  iix 
see.  4'.'r{  a  di'scription  of  the  name  or  nanifs,  mark,  or  devices 
ui)on  his  or  its  property,  therein  mentioned,  and  has  caused  the 
same  to  he  piihiishcd  .iccordiii^'  lo  Ih.-  law  existing  at  the  time 
of  such  lilin^;  and  imlilieation,  sliall,  if  no  sale  of  any  article 
of  such  property  so  marked  has  he.-n  made  hy  such  owner,  not 
be  required  ajjain  to  file  and  puhlish  sucli  description  to  he  en- 
titled to  the  ])enefits  of  sees.  4913,  41114,  4915  and  4916. 

General  Statutes,  1902. 

KOKM    Foil   APPLICATION    I\)U   PvKGISTUATION. 
Knoio  all  men  hij  these  preiienta: 

That  ,    ri'sidin^'   in   the   town   of   ,   county    of   ,  and 

State    of    ,   and    liaving   place    of    husiness    in    and 

engaged   in   the   and   sale   of   ,   ha—   adopted   the   followin;; 

trademark,  to  Ix-  api)lied  hy  lahel,  or  hy  en},'raving,  or  stamping  said 
trademark  upon  said  {.'oods  or  the  packages  containing  them,  or  in  adver- 
tising the   same. 

(Here   insert   trademark    if    possilile,    and    send   extra    copies    for    record 
and    certified    copies,    or    accurately   describe.) 

And    further    certify    that    said    trademark    was    first    used    l)y 

on  or  about  the  day  of  ,  A.  D.  lO— ,  and  tiiat • 

have  the  exclusive  right  to  the  use  of  the  same. 

State  of  ,  County  of ss: 


-,  m— . 


Personally  appeared.   ,   and   made   oath  to   the   trutli   of  the    fore- 
going certificate,   Ix'fore   me, 

yotnri/    Puhlir.     Justice   of    the  Peace. 

DELAWARE. 

Chapter  GOO,   ^'olume    10,   Laws  of   Delaware. 

[Page   r).32.   Code   of   1893]. 

AN  ACT  to  protect  associations  and   unions  of  workingmen   and  persons 
in   their  labels,   trademarks   an<l   forms  of  advertising. 

Be  it  enacted  hi/  the  Senate  and  Tlouse  of  Bepresentatives  of  the 
State  of  Delavare  in  General  Assemhhj  met: 
Section    1.     "Wlienever  any   person,   a.ssociation   or  union   of 
■workingmen   have   adopted,   or  shall    hereafter   adopt    for  their 


G50  APPENnix  F 

protection,  juiy  lahel.  trademark,  or  form  of  advertisement  an- 
nounoinf?  tlint  goods  to  whirli  such  label,  trudcmark,  or  form  of 
advertisomcnt  sliall  ho  attached  were  mamifactured  by  such 
person,  or  l»y  a  member  or  members  of  such  association  or  union, 
it  shall  1h«  unlaw  fid  for  any  person  or  corporation  to  counter- 
feit or  inutate  such  label,  trademark,  or  form  of  advertisement. 
Every  person  violatinfr  this  se<'lion  shall,  upon  conviction,  be 
punished  by  im{)risonment  in  the  coiiiily  jail  for  not  less  than 
three  months  nor  more  than  our  year,  or  by  a  fine  of  not  less 
than  fifty  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars  (^100),  or  both. 

Section  2.  Every  person  who  shall  use  any  counterfeit  or 
imitation  of  any  label,  trademark,  or  form  of  advertisement  of 
any  such  person,  union  or  association,  knowing  the  same  to  be 
counterfeit  or  imitation,  shall  be  pmilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and 
shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  for  not 
less  than  tliree  months  nor  more  than  one  year,  or  by  a  fine  of 
not  less  than  fifty  nor  more  [than]  one  hundred  dollars  ($100), 
or  both. 

Section  3.  Every  pei-son.  as<;ociation  or  imion,  that  has  here- 
tofore adopted,  or  shall  hereafter  adopt,  a  label,  trademark,  or 
form  of  advertisemeTit  as  aforesai<l.  may  file  the  same  in  the  office 
of  the  Secretary  of  State,  by  leavinix  two  copies,  counterparts 
or  fnr-siwiles  thereof  with  the  Secretarv  of  State;  said  Secretary 
shall  deliver  to  such  person,  apsnciation  or  union  so  filinjj  the 
same  a  duly  attested  certificate,  for  Avhich  ho  shall  receive  one 
dollar.  Such  certificate  of  filine  shall  in  all  suits  and  prosecu- 
tions under  this  act  be  sufficioTit  proof  of  the  adoption  of  such 
label,  trademark  or  form  of  ndvorti^ement.  and  of  the  rierht  of 
such  person,  association  nr  UTiion  to  adopt  the  same.  No  label 
shall  be  received  and  filed  hy  the  Secretan-  of  Stat(>  that  prob- 
ably wfddd  fbe]  mistaken  for  a  label  already  filed. 

Section  4.  Every  such  person.  a«i<=:ociation  or  union  ndoptinp 
a  label,  tr.ideniark  or  form  of  advertisement,  as  aforesaid,  may 
proceed  by  suit  to  euioin  the  mapufacture.  use.  displav.  or  SJile 
f)f  anv  such  counterfeits  or  imitatin»is.  and  all  courts  hnvincr 
jurisdietion  thereof  shall  crant  iniupctions  to  restrain  such 
manufacture,  use.  displnv.  or  sale,  and  shall  award  the  com- 
plainant in  Kuch  .suit  such  damap«3,  re.^lltinff  from  such  ^vTong- 


I>i:i.AA-AUi:    STATUTES.  C)')\ 

ful  iiianufactiiiv,  use,  display  or  sale  as  may  l>y  said  court  ])<'. 
deeniocl  jusl  and  rcas()iial>l(',  and  shall  rci|iiirc  the  dcd'cndanfs 
to  |iay  to  siU'ii  person,  association  or  union  the  j»i-ofits  il<.*rivt'<l 
from  swell  wi-on^'fid  manulachirc.  use,  display  or  sale;  and  said 
court  shall  also  ordri-  that  all  such  cuuntfrfcits  or  imitations  in 
the  possession,  or  under  the  control,  of  any  defendant  in  such 
case  be  delivered  to  an  oflic^'r  of  the  court,  or  to  the  complainant. 
to  be  destroyed. 

Sfction  f).  Every  persctn  who  shall  use  or  dis[)l;iy  the  ^'enuinc 
label,  tiademark,  or  form  of  advertisement  of  any  such  person, 
association  or  unioji  in  any  manner  not  authorized  by  .such 
person,  union  or  association,  shall  bo  deemed  jrnilty  of  a  mis- 
demeanor, and  shall  be  i)unished  l)y  imprisonment  in  the  county 
jail  not  less  than  three  months  nor  mor<'  than  one  year,  or  In- 
fine  of  not  les.s  than  fifty  Tior  more  than  one  hundred  dollars, 
ar  ])otb.  Tn  all  cases  where  such  association  or  union  is  not 
iiicorpoi-ated,  suits  nnder  this  act  may  be  commenced  and  prose- 
cuted by  any  member  or  ofificer  of  such  association  or  union  on 
behalf  of  and  for  the  use  of  such  association  or  union. 

Section  G.  Any  person  or  persons  who  shall  in  any  way  use 
the  name  or  seal  or  any  such  person,  association,  or  union,  or 
officer  thereof,  in  and  about  the  sale  of  goods,  or  otherwise,  not 
being:  authorized  to  .so  u.se  the  same,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  mis- 
demeanor, punishable  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  of  not 
less  tiian  three  months  nor  more  than  one  year,  or  by  a  fine  of 
not  less  than  fifty  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  or  both. 

Section  7.  The  fines  provided  for  in  this  act  may  be  en- 
forced before  a  justice  of  the  peace  in  all  cases  where  the  party 
complainant  shall  so  elect,  and  in  case  of  conviction  before  such 
justice  of  the  j)eace,  the  offender  shall  stand  committed  to  the 
county  jail  until  the  fine  and  costs  are  fully  paid. 

Section  8.    This  shall  be  deemed  and  taken  to  be  a  public  act. 

Pas.sed  at  Dover.  :\rarch  29,  180:1 

Delaware  Rev.  St..  1915,  sec.  3r)04  (27  Del.  Laws,  c.  178.. 
forliids  use  of  milk  bottles  belonging  to  another;  it  is  no  de- 
fense that  a  particular  bottle  was  left  with  defendant's  cus- 
tomer in  place  of  one  of  defendant's  bottles;  the  offense  must 


652  AIM'KNniX    F. 

Ih>  pn)Vt'(l  hovoixl  a  rt'asonahli'  tloiiUt.  State  v.  Hoifd  (,Del.),  95 
Atl.  Hop.  2.12. 

lliapttT  ;»L'.  vol.  U;.  L.ius  of  Di'luwan-  (I'oik"  18;»:{,  p.  551), 
rt'latt's  to  tlu'  protection  of  iiiamifacturiTs  and  vendors  of  min- 
eral water,  porter,  ale,  or  other  l)everaj;es  a^rainst  the  unauthor- 
ized use  of  or  injury  to  their  hottles. 

Chapter  'J'J«;.  p.  iXK  of  the  Laws  of  Delaware  of  1S1»S-1S!»!), 
n-lales  to  the  pnfteetion  of  any  lahor  or^'ani/ation  in  the  adop- 
tion ami  u.si-  of  a  lahi-l  or  seal. 


FOKM  (»!•■   AI'l'LU  ATI«>N    r<Hl   I{K(;iS  ri;.\  TK  »\.   DKL.WVAUK. 

To  all  irhom  it  may  concern: 

Bo    it    known,   tliat   n   corporation   orjianizod    under  tlio   laws   of 

the   State   of   ,   and   located   and    doin^   husineHu    in    ,   county 

uf  .  and  Stuto  of  ,  lias  ad()|itcd  for  its  uw  hh  trademark  for 

,  of  whioli   the   f<>llo\vin>i  is  a  de8crij>titin : 


This  trad<-mark  consists  of 


The  followinji  is  a  copy,  far-simile  or  coiintrrpurt  of  tlie  said  trade- 
mark,  tu-wit:    

The  class  and  particular  description  of  }:oods  to  wliicli  tlie  said  trade- 
mark has  liecn  and  is  intended  to  lie  appropriated    is  . 

The  said  trademark  has  lieen  ctmtinuously  used  in  the  husiness  of 
j-aid   corporation    since   ai)out   the    day   of . 

The  said  trademark  is  usually  applied  hy  means  of  labels  or  by  stamp- 
in-.'   or   jirintin;,'   it   upon    the  packages   containing    the   goods. 


State   of  - 
I'ountv    of 


,   heing   duly    sworn,   says   that    he   is   ,    of   the   corporation, 

the  applicant   named    in  the  foregoing    statement;    that   he   verily 

iMdieves  that  the  foregoing  statement  is  true;  that  the  said  corporation 
at  this  time  has  the  right  to  tlie  use  of  the  trademark  therein  prescrihed; 
that  no  otluT  person,  firm,  association  or  corjioration  has  the  right  to 
hiieli  iis<',  either  in  the  identical  form  or  in  any  sui-li  near  reseml)lance 
lliereto  as  may  he  calculated  to  deceive;  and  that  t!w  description  and 
copy,  far  nimilr  or  counterjiart  filed  tlier"<'!»li  truly  represent  the  trad«»- 
mark    Miught   to   he   registered. 


.1   iiii.I  -n..rti   t..  l>.f..r.-  ni.-  tills  dav  of  ,  A.  D.   10 — . 


iNeuI]  yotani     I'uhlir. 


l'I.ni:ll)\    STVTI  TKS.  i>')'i 

I'LOIMDA. 
CliaijtiT    4!)74— (No.    110). 

AN  ACT  to  authorize  any  pcrKon,  iiHuociution  or  uiiitm  of  workiiij^'iinii 
to  adopt  and  iihi'  a  lalxl  or  tradi-mark,  to  i)r<»t<'ct  tin-  Bantu?  Ky 
law,  to  provide  for  itH  n-cord,  to  pn-vi-nt  (•oiiritiTfcifm^'  tin-  Hami', 
or  un'infT  till'  ori^'iiial  or  any  packap-  containinf,'  tin-  Kami-;  and  to 
prevent  usinj^  tlic  name  or  wal  tliereof  without  aiitliurily,  and 
fixing   j)enaltie8    for    violationH   tlu-reof. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Legislature  of  tlir  Siair  of  Florida: 

Section  1.  Whenever  any  person  or  any  association  or  union 
of  \v()rkin{,'ni('n  has  herotolorc  adopted  (»r  usod,  or  shall  here- 
after a(loi»t  or  use.  and  lias  Hied  as  hereiiuifter  provided,  any 
label,  tradeniarU.  term,  wordiiif;,  desi^'n,  device,  color  or  fonn 
of  advertisement  for  the  purpose  of  desi^iating,  making  known, 
or  distinguishing  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  product 
of  lahor.  as  having  been  made,  manufactured,  produced,  pre- 
pared, ])acked  or  put  on  sale  by  such  person  or  association  or 
union  of  workingmen,  or  by  a  member  or  members  of  .':uch  asso- 
ciation or  union,  it  shall  be  unlawful  to  counterfeit  or  imitate 
such  label,  tradenuirk,  term,  wording,  design,  device,  color  or 
form  of  advertisements,  or  knowingly  to  use,  sell,  offer  for  sale, 
or  in  any  other  way  utter  or  circulate  any  counterfeit,  or  imita- 
tion of  any  such  label,  trademark,  term,  wording,  design,  device, 
color  or  form  of  advertisement. 

Section  2.  ^Yhoever  counterfeits  or  imitates  aiiy  such  label, 
trademark,  term,  wording,  design,  device,  color  or  form  of  adver- 
tisement, or  knowingly  sells,  offers  for  sale,  or  in  any  way  utters 
or  circulates  any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  such  label, 
trademark,  term,  wording,  design,  device,  color  or  form  of  adver- 
tisement:  or  knowingly  purchases  and  keeps  or  ha.s  in  his  posses- 
sion, with  intent  that  the  same  shall  Ik?  sold  or  disposed  of.  any 
goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  product  of  labor  to  which 
or  on  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  printed,  painted, 
stamped  or  impressed:  or  knowingly  purchases  with  intent  to 
sell  or  dispose  of  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  product 
of  labor  contained  in  any  box,  ca.se,  can  or  package  to  which  or 
on  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached,  affixed, 
printed,  painted,  stamped  or  impressed;  or  having  knomngly 


r..V4  APPENDIX    F. 

imrfhnscd.  koops  or  has  in  his  possession,  with  intent  that  the 
sanu'  shall  he  sold  or  tlisposetl  of.  any  jjoods.  wares,  merchandise 
or  other  product  of  labor  in  any  1h)X.  ease,  ean  or  |»ac'Ua^'e.  to 
which  or  on  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached, 
affixed,  printed,  painted,  stamped  or  impressed,  shall  he  pun- 
ished by  a  line  <»f  not  more  than  five  liuiidred  dollars,  or  by 
imprisonment  for  not  more  tlian  three  months. 

Section  'A.  Every  such  person.  as.sociation  or  union  that  has 
heretofore  adopted  or  u.sed.  or  shall  hereafter  adopt  or  use,  a 
lal>ol.  trademark,  term,  wordinp,  desipn,  device,  color  or  form 
of  advertisement  as  provided  in  section  1  of  this  net.  may  file  the 
same  for  record  in  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State  by  leaving 
two  coi>ics,  cuuntcrparts  or  fac-similcs  thereof,  with  said  Secre- 
tary, and  by  filing:  therewith  a  sworn  application  specifying  the 
name  or  names  of  the  person,  as.soeiation  or  union  on  whose 
behalf  such  laJ)el,  tradcTuark.  term,  wordinfr.  design,  device, 
color  or  form  of  advertisement  shidl  be  filed,  the  class  of  mer- 
chandise and  a  description  of  the  nroods  to  which  it  has  been  or 
is  intended  to  be  appropriated,  statin?  tliat  the  party  so  filing 
or  on  whose  behalf  such  label,  trndemnrk.  term,  wording,  design, 
de\'ice.  color  or  form  nf  ndvertisement  .sliall  he  filed,  has  the 
right  to  the  use  of  the  same,  th.it  no  other  person,  firm.  as.so- 
eiation.  union  or  corporation  ha«  the  riglit  to  use  either  in  the 
identical  form  or  in  any  such  near  resemhlance  thereto  as  may 
be  calcidated  to  deceive,  and  that  the  facsimile  or  counterparts 
filed  therewith  are  true  and  correct. 

There  shall  be  paid  for  such  filincr  and  recordintr  a  fee  of  two 
dollars.  Said  Secretary  shall  deliver  to  such  person,  associa- 
tion or  union  so  filing  or  causiuL'  to  he  filed  anv  such  label, 
trademark,  term,  wordincr.  desicm.  device,  color  or  form  of  adver- 
tisement so  many  duly  attested  certificates  of  the  recordinrr  of 
the  same  as  such  person,  association  or  union  may  applv  for, 
for  each  of  which  the  Secretar>'  shall  receive  a  fee  of  one  dollar. 
Any  such  certificate  of  record  shall,  in  all  suits  and  prosec\itions 
under  this  act.  be  sufficient  proof  of  the  adoption  of  such  label, 
trademark,  term,  wording,  design,  device,  color  or  form  of  adver- 
tisement. Said  Secretary  of  Stat^  shall  not  record  for  any 
person,  union  or  association  any  label,  trademark,  term,  wordincr, 
flesign,  device,  color  or  form  of  advertisement  that  would  prob- 


FI.OKIDA    STATl'TKS.  (>•>•) 

ably  1)0  mistaken  for  any  lalid.  tradoinark,  torm,  wording,  de-. 
sij^n,  device,  color  or  ioriii  of  ailvcrtiscinciit  heretofore  filed  hy 
or  on  Ix'half  of  any  other  person,  union  or  association. 

Section  \.  Any  jirrson  who  shall,  lor  liiinself  or  on  hi^half 
of  any  othei'  person,  association  or  union  |iiocuit  the  liini^'  ol 
any  label,  trademark,  term,  wordinfr,  design,  dcivice,  color  or 
form  of  advertisement  in  the  oflice  of  the  Secretary  of  State, 
under  the  provisions  of  this  act.  iiy  making  any  false  or  fraudu- 
lent representations  or  declaration,  verbally  or  in  writiufr.  or  by 
any  fraudulent  means,  shall  be  liable  to  pay  any  damages  sus- 
tained in  eon.sequenee  of  such  filing,  to  be  recovered  by  or  on 
behalf  of  thi>  party  injured  thereby,  'n  any  court  having  juris- 
diction, and  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  five  hun- 
dred dollars,  or  by  imprisonment  not  exceeding  three  months. 

Section  r>.  Every  such  person,  association  or  union  a(b)i)ting 
or  using  a  label,  trademark,  term,  wording,  design,  device,  color 
or  form  of  advertisement  as  aforesaid,  may  proceed  by  suit  to 
en.ioin  the  mainifacture.  use.  display,  or  sale  of  any  counterfeits 
or  imitations  thereof,  and  all  courts  of  competent  jurisdiction 
shall  grant  injunctions  to  restrain  such  manufacture,  use,  dis- 
play or  sale,  and  may  award  the  complainant  in  any  such  suit 
damages  resulting  from  any  such  manufacture,  use,  sale  or 
display,  as  may  be  by  the  said  court  deemed  just  and  reason- 
able, and  shall  require  the  defendants  to  pay  such  person,  asso- 
ciation or  union  nil  profits  derived  from  such  wrongful  manu- 
facture, use.  display  or  sale :  and  such  court  shall  also  order 
that  all  such  counterfeits  or  imitations  in  the  possession  or  under 
the  control  of  any  defendant  in  such  cause  he  delivered  to  an 
oflficer  of  the  court,  or  to  the  complainants,  to  he  destroyed. 

Septton  fi.  Every  person  who  shall  use  or  display  the  genuine 
label,  trademark,  term,  wording,  design,  device,  color  or  form 
of  advertisement  of  any  such  person,  association  or  union  in  any 
manner,  not  being  authorized  so  to  do  hy  such  person,  union  or 
as.sociation.  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor.  a"d  shall 
he  punished  by  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  three  months  or 
hy  a  fine  of  not  more  than  five  hundred  dollars. 

In  all  cases  where  such  association  or  union  is  not  incoi*po- 
rated,  suits  under  this  act  may  be  commenced  and  prasecuted 


656  Al'I'KNIHX    K. 

liy  an  oOlciT  or  nu'inluT  of  such  nssiH-iation  or  union  <m  Itdmlf 
of  ami  for  tin-  uso  of  sui-h  assoriatioii  or  union. 

Section  7.  Any  jiorson  or  persons  who  sh  ;ll.  in  ;iuy  way,  use 
the  name  or  seal  of  any  sueh  person,  assoeiation  or  union  or 
oftieer  thereof,  in  ami  al)out  the  sah'  of  ^'(;o(is  or  otlu'rwise.  not 
h"in>r  authorizetl  to  use  the  same,  shall  he  pnilty  of  a  misde- 
meanor, an'l  shall  he  pnnishahle  l»y  iniprisonmcnl  for  not  more 
than  three  months,  or  liy  a  fiin-  of  not  moi'f  lliau  one  huiulrcd 
dollars. 

Section  S.  Any  person  usintr  the  tratlemark  so  adopted  an<l 
filed  hy  any  other  person,  or  any  imitation  of  su<  h  trademark, 
or  any  counterfeit  thereof;  or  who  shall  in  any  maimer  mutilate, 
deface.  «lestroy  or  remove  such  traih'inark  from  any  Roods,  wares, 
merchandise,  article  or  articles,  or  from  any  package  or  pack- 
ages containing  the  sanie.  oi'  from  any  empty  or  second-hand 
packages.  whi<'h  has  contained  the  .same  or  hecn  used  therefor, 
with  the  intention  of  using  stich  empty  or  second-hand  package, 
or  of  the  same  heing  u.sed  to  contain  goods,  wares,  merchandise, 
article  or  articles  of  the  same  general  character  as  those  for 
which  they  were  first  used;  and  any  person  who  .shall  use  any 
such  empty  or  second-hand  jiackagc  for  the  purpose  aforesaid, 
without  tlic  consent  in  writiiii;  of  the  per<;on  whose  trach'mark 
was  first  ai)plicd  thereto  or  jdaced  thereon,  shall,  upon  coinii-tion 
thereof,  he  fined  in  any  sum  not  h'ss  than  (ive  hundred  dollars. 
or  hy  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  three  months,  and  the 
poods,  wares,  m.'rehandise,  article  or  articles  contained  in  any 
such  .second-hand  package  or  packages  shall  he  forfeited  to  the 
original  user  of  such  package  or  packages  whose  trademark 
was  first  applied  thereto  or  placed  thereon.  The  violation  of 
any  of  the  ahove  provisions  as  to  each  i)arlicular  articles  or  pack- 
apes  shall  he  held  to  he  a  separate  olTcnse. 

Section  0.  The  word  "person"  in  this  act  shall  he  construed 
to  include  n  person,  copartnership,  corponition,  as.so<-iation  or 
union  of  workingmen. 

Section   10.     'i'his  act  shall  take  efTect   immediately  upon  its 
passage  and  apf)roval  hy  the  (lovernor. 
Approved  May  20.  1001. 


CJKOltCI.V    ST.VTrTKS.  G57 

GEOKCIA. 

Code   ISO."),  and  Supp.,    l!i()l. 

Section  1730.  Wlicnover  any  porsnn.  association  or  union  of 
\vorkinj:in«'n  li;ivc  iidoptcd.  or  shall  licn-jiftfr  adopt  for  tlu'ir 
protection,  any  lalirl,  1  r;idi'iii;ir-l<,  nr  tunii  of  adxert isciiMMit  an- 
nouncing; that  <roods  to  wliidi  such  lahcl,  trademark,  and  forms 
or  advertisement  shal'  he  attached  were  manufactured  hy  such 
person  or  hy  a  meml)cr  or  mrmlicrs  of  such  association  or  union, 
it  shall  he  unlawful  for  any  person  or  corporation  to  cf)unterfeit 
or  imitate  such  lahcl.  trademark,  or  form  of  advertisement 
with  intcJit  to  use  the  same  for  the  i)urposc  of  deceiving'  the 
puhlic  in  the  sale  of  the  «;oods. 

Skction  17:^7.  Kvery  per.son  who  shall  use  any  counterfeit 
or  imitation  of  any  lalx'l,  trademark,  or  form  of  advertisement 
of  any  '^uch  person,  urjion,  or  association,  knowing;  the  same  to 
he  counterfeit  or  imitation.  sliaU  l»e  <ruilty  of  a  niisdemeanor. 

Section  17;]8,  Every  person,  association,  or  union  of  work- 
ingnien  tliat  has  adopted  or  shall  hereafter  adopt  a  lalx'l,  trade- 
mark, or  form  of  advertisement,  may  file  the  same  for  record  in 
the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  hy  leaving;  two  copies,  coun- 
terjiarts  or  fac  similes  thereof,  with  the  SecrL'tar.y  of  State.  Said 
Secretary  shall  deliver  to  such  person,  association,  or  union,  a 
duly  attested  certificate  of  the  record  of  the  same,  for  which  he 
shall  receive  the  fee  of  one  dollar;  such  certificate  of  record  shall, 
in  all  suits  under  this  chapter,  he  sufficient  proof  of  the  adoption 
of  such  lahel,  trademark,  or  form  of  advertisement,  and  of  the 
right  of  said  person,  association,  or  union  to  adopt  the  same.  Xo 
lahel  shall  he  recorded  that  probahly  would  he  mistaken  for  a 
lahel  already  of  record. 

Section  1730.  Every  such  person,  association,  or  union  adopt- 
ing a  lahel,  trademark  or  form  of  advertisement  as  aforesaid, 
may  proceed  hy  suit  to  enjoin  the  manufacture,  use,  display,  or 
sale  of  any  such  counterfeits  or  imitations,  and  all  courts  having 
jurisdiction  thereof  shall  grant  injunction  to  restrain  such  manu- 
facture, use.  display  or  .sale,  and  shall  award  the  complainant 
in  such  suits  such  damages  resulting  from  such  wrongful  manu- 
facture, use,  display,  or  sale  as  may  hy  said  courts  he  deemed  just 
and  reasonable,  and  shall   require  the  defendant   to  pay  such 


658  Ari'KNPix  K. 

person.  a.<wocintion.  or  union  tho  profit  derived  from  sneh  \\Tonpr- 
ful  nianufacture.  use.  display,  or  .sale,  and  such  court  shall  also 
ortler  that  all  counterfeits  or  imitations  in  the  possession  or 
uni!«'r  the  control  of  any  tlefcndant  in  such  ease  be  delivered  to 
an  officer  of  the  court,  or  to  the  i-oinplainant.  to  he  dcslroyed. 

Section  17-10.  In  all  cases  where  such  a.ssociations  or  unions 
are  not  incorporated,  suits  nuiy  he  coinnicnced  and  prosecuted 
by  anv  ofhcer  or  niciiilicr  of  such  association  or  union  on  behalf 
of  and  for  the  use  of  such  association  or  union. 

Skction  1741.  Any  person  or  persons  who  shall  in  any  way 
use  the  name  or  seal  of  any  such  person,  association  or  union, 
or  officer  thereof,  in  a)id  altout  the  sale  of  ^oods  or  otherwise, 
not  beinir  authorized  to  so  use  the  same,  knowiu};  that  such  use 
is  unauthorized,  with  the  intent  to  deceive  the  public  in  the  sale 
of  goods,  shall  l)e  ^'uilty  of  a  misdemeanor.^ 

Section  4035.  Any  attempt  to  encroach  upon  the  business  of 
a  trader,  or  other  person,  by  the  use  of  similar  trademarks,  names 
or  devices,  with  the  intention  of  deceivinj;  and  mi.sleading  the 
public,  is  a  fraud  for  which  (Mpiity  grants  relief. 

Section  0076.  Whenever  any  person,  firm,  corporation  or 
a.s.sociation  shall  adopt  and  use  in  their  business,  for  their  pro- 
tection, any  label,  trademark,  trade  name  or  form  of  advertise- 
ment, it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person,  firm,  corporation  or 
a.ssoeiation  to  counterfeit  or  imitate  such  labi'l.  trademark,  trade 
name  or  form  of  advertisement,  with  intent  to  use  the  same  for 
the  purpose  of  deceiving  the  public  in  the  .sale  of  goods.  Every 
person  violating  this  section  shall  be  guilty  of  a  mi.sdemeanor 
and  punished  therefor. 

Section  6G77.  Every  person,  firm,  corporation  or  association 
who  shall  use  any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  label,  trade- 
mark, trade  name  or  form  of  advertisement  of  any  person,  firm, 
corporation  or  association,  knowing  the  same  to  be  counterfeit 
or  imitation,  .shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  puni.shed 
therefor. 

Section  0678.  Every  person,  firm,  corporation  or  association 
who  shall  use  or  display  the  genuine  l:d>el.  trademark.  ti\i<ie  name 
or  form  of  advertisement  of  any  person,   firm,  corporation  or 


GEOROTA    FTATirTES.  OHO 

aRsnointlf)!!,  in  any  maiiiicr  not  aiithorizod  hy  law,  such  person, 
firm,  corporation  or  asscwiation,  knowing  that  such  use  is  not 
authori/od,  with  intent  to  dcccivr  the  public  in  the  sale  of  goods, 
shall  III-  ^Miilty  ol'  a  iiiisdciiicanor  and  lie  jiunishcd  thcn-for. 

Skction  (¥179.  Any  firm,  jicrson.  corporati(»n  or  association 
who  shall  use  the  name  or  seal  of  any  other  person,  firm,  cor- 
poration or  association  in  and  about  the  sale  of  t,'oods  or  other- 
wise, not  heinp  authorized  to  use  the  same,  knowing  that  such  use 
is  unauthorized,  with  intent  to  deceive  the  public  in  the  sal;.-  of 
goods,  shall  be  ^Miilty  of  a  mislltMneanor  and   punis'hed  therefor. 

Section  66S().  Any  person,  firm,  corporation  or  association 
that  shall  he  found  guilty  of  violating  the  provisions  of  this 
act,  or  any  of  them  as  aforesaid,  shall  be  punished  as  prescribed 
in  section  lOH!)  of  the  Penal  Code. 

UNION    TRADEMARKS,    ETC.,    PROTECTION    OF. 

No.    380. 

AX    ACT   for    tlic   protection    of    union    labels,   trademarks   and    forma   of 
advortisomcnt.  and  providinj,'  jifnalties  for  countcrfoitinK  the  same. 

Section  1.  Whenever  any  person,  association  or  union  of 
workingmen  have  adopted,  or  shall  hereafter  adopt  for  their 
protection,  any  label,  trademar1<  or  form  of  advertisement  an- 
nouncing that  goods  to  which  such  label,  trademark  and  form 
of  advertisement  shall  be  attached  were  manufactured  by  such 
person  or  by  a  member  or  members  of  su'ch  as.sociation  or  union, 
it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person  or  corporation  to  counterfeit 
or  imitate  such  label,  trademark  or  form  of  advertisement  with 
intent  to  use  the  same  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  the  public 
in  the  sale  of  the  goods.  Every  person  violating  this  section 
shall  be  punished  upon  conviction  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  one 
hundred  dollars  nor  more  than  two  hundred  dollars. 

Section  2.  Every  person  who  shall  use  any  counterfeit  or 
imitation  of  any  label,  trademark  or  form  of  advertisement  of 
any  such  person,  union  or  association,  knowing  the  same  to  he 
counterfeit  or  imitation,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  mi.sdemeanor.  and 
shall  be  punisluMl  i)y  a  fine  of  not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars 
nor  more  than  two  hundred  dollars. 


finO  aiti:ni>ix  k. 

Section  '^.  Kvijy  siifh  porson,  nssocintion  or  union  tlint  has 
horetoforo  iulopt«'«l  or  slmll  luToaftiT  adopt  a  lalu'l,  trademark 
or  form  of  advtTtisfmoiil  as  aforesaid,  may  file  the  same  for 
record  ill  the  »)fliee  of  the  Secretary  of  State  hy  leaving  three 
copies  eomiti-rpart  or  fiir-simih  thereof  with  tlie  Secretary  (tf 
State.  Said  Secretary  shall  deliver  to  such  person,  as.sociation 
or  union  so  tiling'  the  same  a  duly  attested  certificate  of  the 
reconi  of  the  same,  for  whicji  he  shall  receive  a  fee  of  one 
dollar:  such  certificate  of  record  shall  in  all  suits  and  i)rosecu- 
tions  under  this  act  he  suflicient  proof  of  the  adoption  of  such 
lahel.  trademark  or  foriu  of  advertisement,  and  of  the  right  of 
said  person,  association  or  union  to  ado|)t  the  same.  No  lahel 
shall  he  recorded  tliat  prohahly  would  he  mistaken  for  a  lahel 
already  of  record. 

SiX'TiDN  4.  Kvery  such  person,  association  or  union  adopting,' 
a  ]al>el.  trademark  or  form  of  advertisement  as  aforesaid,  nuiy 
proceed  by  suit  to  enjoin  the  nuinul'acture.  use,  display  or  sale 
of  any  such  counterfeits  or  imitations,  and  all  courts  having 
jurisdiction  thereof  shall  grant  injunction  to  restrain  such  manu- 
facture, use.  display  or  sal(\  and  shall  award  the  complainant 
in  such  suits  such  damages  resulting  from  such  wrongful  manu- 
facture, use,  display  or  sale  a.s  may  hy  said  court  he  deemed 
just  and  reasonable,  and  shall  rerpiire  the  defendant  to  pay  to 
such  person,  as.sociation  or  union  the  profit  derived  from  such 
wrongful  manufacture,  use,  dis|)lay  or  sale,  and  such  court  shall 
also  order  that  all  counterfeits  or  imitations  in  the  pos.se.ssion 
or  under  the  control  of  any  defendant  in  siich  case  he  delivered 
to  an  officer  of  the  court,  or  to  the  complainant,  to  be  destroyed. 

Section  5.  Every  person  who  shall  use  or  display  the  genuine 
label,  trademark  or  form  of  adverti.sement  of  any  such  person, 
as.sociation  or  union,  in  any  manner  not  authorized  by  .such 
person,  as.sociation  or  union,  knowing  that  such  use  or  display 
Ls  not  authorized,  with  intent  to  deceive  the  public  in  the  sale 
of  goods,  shall  he  decMned  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  shall  he 
punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars  nor 
more  than  two  hundred  dollars.  In  all  cases  when;  such  a.sso- 
ciations  or  unions  are  not  incorjiorated.  suit  under  this  act 
may  be  commenced  and  prosecuted  by  any  officer  or  member  of 
such  association  or  union  on  ])elialf  of  and  for  the  use  of  such 
a8.sociatiou  or  union. 


IDAHO    STATrTFS.  OGl 

Section-  G.  Br  i(  furlJu r  nunicl,  'I'li.il  .itiy  pcrsfui  or  porsous 
wlio  shall  ill  any  way  use  the  iiaiiic  or  seal  oi'  any  siicli  person, 
association  or  union,  or  olticcr  flifrcof,  in  and  alxjut  the  salo  of 
goods  ()!•  otiicruisc,  not  Ikmii^  uutliorizi-d  to  so  use  the  same, 
knowing'  that  such  use  i.s  unauthorized,  with  tin-  intent  to  deceive 
the  pnhlic  in  the  sale  of  <roods.  shall  he  jzuilly  of  a  iiiisdcincanor, 
punishahlf  Ity  a  fine  of  not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars  nor 
more  than   two  hiindrrd  dollars. 

Skctio.n  T.  liv  it  furtlirr  cnnctvd  hi/  anthuritij  aforesaid, 
That  all  laws  and  parts  of  laws  in  conflict  with  this  act  be,  and 
the  same  are.  hereby  repealed. 

Approved  Dt'ccinber  'JOtli,  IS!).']. 

As  to  prosecutions  uiuler  this  act  see  Comer  v.  State,  103  Ga. 

<iO.  21)  S.  IC.  Kep.  501;  Butler  v.  State,  Ga. ,  5G  S.  E. 

Kep.  1000. 

IDAHO. 

TO   PROTECT    r.AHKLS    AND    TKADEMARKS. 

Section  1.  Whenever  any  person,  or  any  association  or 
union  of  workingmen,  ha.s  heretofore  adopted  or  used,  or  shall 
hereafter  adopt  or  use  any  label,  trade  mark,  term,  desirrn, 
device  or  form  of  advertisement,  for  the  purpose  of  designating, 
making  known,  or  distinguishing  any  goods,  wares,  merchan- 
dise, or  other  products  of  labor,  as  having  been  made,  manu- 
factured, produced,  prepared,  packed  or  put  on  sale,  by  such 
person,  or  association,  or  union  of  workingmen  or  by  a  member 
or  meml)ers  of  such  association  or  union,  it  shall  be  unlawful 
to  counterfeit  or  imitate  such  lalx^l.  trade  mark,  term,  design, 
device  or  form  of  advertisement,  or  to  use,  sell,  offer  for  sale, 
or  in  any  way  utter  or  circulate  any  counterfeit,  or  imitation 
of  any  such  label,  trade  mark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of 
advertisement. 

Section  2.  Whoever  counterfeits  or  imitates  any  .such  label, 
trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement,  or 
sells,  offers  for  sale,  or  in  any  way  utters  or  circulates  any 
counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  sucji  label,  trade  mark.  term, 
design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement;  or  keeps  or  has  in  his 
possession,  with  intent  that  the  same  shall  be  sold  or  disposed 


662  ai'1'i:n'i>i.\  k. 

of,  nny  poods,  wares,  jiu>ri'hamliso  or  other  iiroduct  of  lal)or  to 
whii'h  or  on  whiili  any  sui'h  fonntcrfcit  or  imitation  is  printi'il, 
paintt'd,  stanipinl  or  inipri'ssod  ;  or  knowingly  sells  or  disposes 
of  any  L'oods.  wares,  increliantlisi'  or  otiier  proilnct  of  lal)or 
contaiiuMl  in  any  box.  ease,  can  or  paekaiie.  to  uliidi  or  on 
whieh,  any  sueli  counterfeit,  or  imitation  is  attached,  allixed, 
printeil,  painted,  stamped  or  im|)ressed;  or  keeps  or  lias  in  his 
possession,  with  intent  that  the  same  sli.dl  he  sold  or  disposed 
of,  any  poods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  product  of  lahor  in 
any  box,  case,  can  or  paekape  to  which  or  on  which  any  such 
counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached,  aflixed.  printed,  painted, 
stamped  or  impn'.ssed.  shall  he  puilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  he 
punished  hy  a  fine  of  not  more  than  one  huniiiVd  dollars,  or 
by  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  three  months. 

Sectio.v  'A.  lOvery  such  person,  assfx-iat ion,  or  union,  that  has 
heretofore  adopted  or  used,  or  shall  hereafter,  adopt  or  use,  a 
label,  trade  mark,  term,  desipn,  device  or  form  of  advertisement, 
as  provided  in  .section  1  of  this  act.  may  file  the  same  for  record 
in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  hy  leavinp  two  copies, 
counterparts  or  facsimiles  thereof,  with  said  Secretary  and  by 
filinp  therewith,  a  sworn  apjilienlion  specify inp  the  name  or 
names  of  the  person,  association  or  union  on  whose  behalf  sudi 
label,  trademark,  term,  desipn.  device  or  form  of  advertisement 
shall  be  filed;  the  class  of  merchandise  and  a  description  of  the 
poods  to  which  it  has  been  or  is  intended  to  be.  appropriated, 
statinp  that  the  j)arty  so  filinp  or  on  whose  behalf  such  label, 
trademark,  desipn,  device,  or  form  of  advertisement  shall  he 
filed,  ha.s  the  ripht  to  the  ii.«e  of  the  same;  that  no  other  person, 
firm,  association,  union  or  corporation,  has  a  ripht  to  such  use, 
either  in  the  identical  form  or  in  any  such  near  resend)lance 
thereto  jus  may  be  calculateil  to  deceive,  and  that  the  fnr-aimilc 
or  counterparts  filed  therewith  are  true  and  correct.  There  shalT 
be  paid  for  such  filinp  and  recordinp  a  fee  of  three  dollars.  Said 
Secretary  shall  deliver  to  such  person,  association,  or  union,  so 
filinp  or  eausinp  to  be  filed  any  such  label,  trade  mark,  term, 
desipn,  device  or  form  of  advertisement,  so  many  duly  attested 
certificates  of  the  recordinp  of  the  same  as  such  person,  a.ssocia- 
tion  or  union  may  apply  for,  for  each  of  which  certificates  said 
Secretarv  shall  receive  a  fer-  of  three  dollars.     Anv  such  ccrtifi- 


Ill  V  IK)    ST  ATI  'l' I '.S.  0G.{ 

calc  of  record  sli;ill.  in  iill  suits  ami  proM-ciit  ions  iiiidcr  tliis  act 
lif  suniciciit  prool'  of  till-  adoption  of  sin-li  lalicl,  trade  mark, 
term,  desi^iii.  deviee  or  form  of  advert iseiiient.  Saiil  Secretary 
of  State  sliall  not  record  for  any  person,  union,  or  association, 
any  lalx-l,  trademark,  term.  dcsi^Mi,  device  or  form  of  advertise- 
ment tliat  would  prol)al)ly  he  mistaken  for  any  lahei.  trade  mark, 
term.  desi<:n.  device,  or  form  of  advertisement  theretofore  filed 
hy,  or  on  l)ehalf  of  any  other  person,  union,  or  association. 

Section  4.  Any  person  who  shall  for  himself  or  on  hehalf 
of  any  otiier  person,  association  or  union  i)rocure  the  filing  of 
any  lahel.  trade  mark,  term,  desi^Mi  or  form  of  advertisement  in 
the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  under  the  provisions  of 
this  act,  hy  making  any  false  or  fraudulent  representations  or 
declarations,  verhally  or  in  writing?  or  hy  any  fraudulent  means, 
shall  he  liahle  to  pay  any  damages  sustained  in  consequence 
of  any  such  filing,  to  he  recovered  hy,  or  on  hehalf  of  the  party 
injured  thereby,  in  any  court  having  jurisdiction  and  shall  be 
guilty  of  misdemeanor,  and  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding 
one  hundred  dollar.s,  or  by  imprisonment  not  exceeding  three 
months. 

Section  r>.  Every  such  person,  association  or  union  adopting 
or  using  a  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of 
advertisement  as  aforesaid  may  proceed  by  suit,  to  enjoin  the 
manufacture,  use,  display  or  sale  of  any  counterfeits  or  imita- 
tions thereof,  and  all  courts  of  competent  jurisdiction  shall 
grant  injunctions  to  restrain  such  manufacture  and  may  award 
the  complainant  in  any  such  suit,  datnages  resulting  from  such 
manufacture,  use,  sale  or  display,  as  may  be  by  the  said  court, 
deemed  just  and  reasonable,  and  shall  require  the  defendants 
to  pay  to  such  persons,  association,  or  union,  all  profits  derived 
from  such  wrongful  manufacture,  use.  display  or  sale;  and  such 
court  shall  also  order  that  all  such  connterfeils  or  imitations  in 
the  possession  or  under  the  control  of  any  defendant  in  such 
cause  be  delivered  to  an  officer  of  the  court,  or  to  the  com- 
plainant to  be  destroyed. 

Section  G.  Every  person  who  shall  use  or  display  the  genu- 
ine label,  trade  mark.  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertise- 
ment of  any  such  person,  association  or  union,  in  any  manner, 


664  AIM'KNniX    K. 

not  hoiiifi  nuthorizctl  so  to  »1<»  l»y  siidi  ixtsom.  iiniou  or  assm-iii- 
tion.  shall  ho  (UtiiumI  nuilty  of  a  iiiisdtMin'anor  and  sliall  W  pun- 
isheil  l»y  iniprisoniiu'nt  for  not  inorr  ihan  tlirco  montlis  or  by  a 
Ihu'  of  not  m<»r.-  than  oiu-  luin.lr.Ml  dollars  (.tl(M).(Hh.  In  all  cases 
where  such  associatuni  or  union  is  not  incorporated,  suits  under 
this  act  may  l>c  commenced,  and  prosecuted  l)y  an  officer  or 
member  of  such  association  or  union  on  l)ehalf  of.  ami  for  the 
use  of  sueh  association  or  union. 

Section  7.  An\  person  or  persons  who  sliall  in  any  way  use 
the  nanu'  or  seal  of  any  such  jierson.  association,  or  union  or 
officer  thereof  in,  and  about  the  sale  of  floods  or  otherwise  not 
being  authorized  to  so  use  the  same,  shall  be  fjuilty  of  a  mis- 
th-meanor.  and  shall  be  punishable  l)y  imprisonment  for  iu)t  more 
than  three  months  or  l)y  a  line  of  not  more  than  oiu>  hundred 
dollars.  (Approveil  Mar.-h  12,  18!»7.  As  amended  .March  12. 
1907.) 

ILLINOIS. 

Starr  4  C.   St.    ISOC.  \i.l.   ."$.   rii;:i'rt  .lO'in-SOriT. 

AN     ACT    to    protect    associations,    unions    of    workinfrmm    and    persons 
in   their  labels,  trademarks   and   forms  of  advert isin;:. 

Par.vgrai'H  fi,  §  1.  Whenever  any  person  or  any  a.s.sociation 
or  union  of  workinpmen  has  heretofore  adopted  or  used  or  shall 
hereafter  adopt  or  use  any  label,  trademark,  term,  desiprn.  de\ice 
or  form  of  advertisement  for  the  purpo.se  of  desiptuitintr.  making 
known  or  distinguishing  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other 
|troduct  of  lalwr  as  having  Von  made,  manufactured,  produced, 
prepared,  packed  or  put  on  sale  by  such  person  or  association 
or  union  of  workingmen.  or  by  n  member  or  members  of  such 
aK.sociation  or  union,  it  shall  bo  unlawful  to  counterfeit  or  imitate 
such  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device,  or  form  of  advertise- 
ment, or  to  use,  sell,  offer  for  .sale,  or  in  any  way  utter  or  cir- 
culate any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  su<-h  label,  trademark, 
term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement. 

Paracjk.M'M  7.  §  2.  Whoever  counterfeits  or  imitates  any  stich 
label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement, 
or  sells,  offers  for  sale  or  in  any  way  utters,  or  circulates  any 
counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  such  label,  trndemark,  term,  de- 


ii-ijNois  sTvnTKS.  665 

sifjn,  (Icvici  or  form  of  ailvcrl  isciiiciit,  or  know'mtrly  iisfs  any 
such  (•((Uiilcrrtif  or  iinilalioii,  or  kiKJW  iii^ly  sells  or  disposes  of 
or  k('('|>s  or  has  in  his  possession,  willi  intent  that  tlie  same  shall 
he  sold  or  disposed  of.  any  ^'oods,  wares,  niorchaiidiso  or  other 
product  of  lahor  1o  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is 
attached  oi'  aflixccl,  or  on  w  hicli  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation 
is  printe<i.  painted,  stainpe<l  or  impressed,  or  knowiiifjly  sells,  or 
disposes  of  any  floods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  product  of 
lahor  contained  in  any  hox,  case,  can  or  paekafje  to  which  or 
on  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached,  affixed, 
printed,  painted,  slainpcd  or  impressed,  or  keeps  or  has  in  hi.s 
possession,  with  intent  tliat  the  same  shall  I)e  sold  or  disposed 
of,  any  floods,  wares,  merchandi.se  or  other  product  of  lal)or  in 
any  box.  case,  can  or  packajje  to  which  or  on  which  any  such 
counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached,  affixed,  printed,  painted, 
stamped  or  impressed,  shall  he  punished  l)y  a  fine  of  not  less 
than  oiu'  hundred  (100)  dollars,  nor  more  than  two  hundred 
(200)  dollars,  or  by  impri.sonment  for  not  less  than  three  (3) 
months  nor  more  than  one  (1)  year,  or  by  both  such  fine  and 
imprisonment. 

Paracrafmi  8,  §  3.  TjARf:i,.  trademark,  ktc.  to  be  filed  with 
SECRETARY  OF  STATE.  PiVery  such  person,  asso<^'iation.  or  union 
that  has  heretofore  adopted  or  used,  or  shall  hereafter  adopt 
or  use,  a  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  adver- 
tisement as  provi<h^d  in  s(>ction  one  (1)  of  this  act.  .shall  file  the 
same  for  record  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  by  leaving 
two  (2)  copies,  counterparts  or  fac-similes  thereof  with  said  Sec- 
retary, and  by  filing  therewith  a  sworn  statement  specifying  the 
name  or  names  of  the  person,  association  or  union  on  who.se 
behalf  such  description  of  the  goods  to  which  it  has  been  or  is 
intended  to  be  appropriated  ;  that  the  party  so  filing,  or  on  whose 
liehalf  such  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of 
advertisement  shall  be  filed,  has  the  right  to  use  the  same,  and 
that  no  oth(>r  person,  firm,  association,  union  or  corporation  has 
the  right  to  such  use  either  in  the  identical  form  or  in  any  such 
near  resemblance  thereto  as  may  be  calculated  to  deceive,  and 
that  the  fac-vsimile  copies  or  counterparts  filed  therewith  are  true 
.ind  correct.  There  shall  be  paid  for  such  filing  and  recording 
a  fee  of  one  (1)  dollar.     Any  person  who  shall  for  himself,  or 


CG6  Ai'PKNmx  r. 

on  l)ohnlf  of  any  nthcr  person,  nssofialioii  or  union,  procure  the 
filing  of  nny  lahel.  tradeinnrk,  terin,  design,  device  or  form  of 
advertisement  in  the  oOice  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  under  the 
provisions  of  this  act  hy  makinu  any  falsi*  or  frauiluU'iit  repre- 
sentations or  (U'chirations.  verhall\  or  in  writinjr.  or  l)y  any 
frajidident  means,  shall  ])e  liahle  to  pay  any  danuiges  sustained 
in  conse(|uence  of  any  such  filing'  to  he  recovered  hy  or  on  hehalf 
of  the  party  injured  thereliy  in  any  court  having;  jurisdiction, 
and  shall  he  puinshed  hy  a  fine  not  exceedinf;  two  hundred  (200) 
dollars  or  hy  imprisoniiKMd  not  exeeeditip:  one  year  or  hotli  sudi 
line  and  imprisonment.  The  Secretary  of  State  sliall  deliver  to 
such  person,  association  or  union  so  fdiiifx  or  causin<i  to  he  filed 
any  such  laliel.  tradeinr.rk.  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  ad- 
vertisement so  many  duly  attested  certificates  of  th(>  recordinj; 
of  the  same  as  such  person,  association  or  imion  may  ayiply  for, 
for  each  of  which  certificates  said  Secretary  shall  receive  a  fee 
of  one  (1)  dollar.  Any  such  certificates  of  record  shall  in  nil 
suits  and  prosecutions  under  tins  act  l)e  sufficient  proof  of  the 
adoption  of  such  lal)cl.  trademark,  term,  desifrn.  device  or  form 
of  advertisement.  Said  Secretaiy  of  the  State  sliall  not  record 
for  any  person,  union  or  association  any  lalx'I.  ti'ademark,  term, 
design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  that  would  reasonahly 
he  mistaken  for  any  lahcl.  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or 
form  of  advertisement  theretofore  filed  hy  or  on  hehalf  of  any 
other  person,  union  or  a.ssociation.  (As  amencknl  hy  Act  ap- 
|)roved  June  i:i,  lSf)5.  In  force  July  1,  lSi)5,  L.  1895,  p.  320; 
Legal  News  Ed.,  p.  2:V2.) 

I'AHA(;KAin  0,  §4.  Every  such  person,  association  or  nnion 
aviopting  a  label,  trademark,  or  form  of  advertisement,  as  afore- 
said, may  proceed  hy  suit  to  enjoin  the  manufacture,  use,  dis- 
{)lay  or  sale  of  any  such  counterfeits  or  imitations;  and  all  courts 
having  jiirisdiction  thereof  shall  grant  injunctions  to  restrain 
such  manufacture,  use.  display  or  sale,  atid  shall  award  the  com- 
plainant in  such  suit,  such  damag(>s,  resulting  from  such  wrong- 
ful manufacture,  use,  disi>lay  or  sale,  as  may  hy  said  court  he 
deemed  just  and  reas(tnahle,  and  shall  reipiire  the  defendants 
to  i)ay  to  such  person,  association  or  union  the  profits  derived 
from  such  wrongful  marnifacture.  use,  display  or  sale;  and  said 
court  shall  also  order  that  all  such  counterfeits  or  imitations  in 


ILIJNOIS   STATl'TES  667 

the  possession  or  under  the  coiitr')!  ol"  iiiiy  ilefondant  in  such 
case  he  delivered  to  an  oriiri-r-  of  thr  court,  oi-  to  the  cuMiphiinant 
to  he  destroyed. 

Paka(;i:ai'I1  10.  §  '>.  Every  i)erson  wlio  shall  use  or  dis[)lay  the 
^'enuine  lal»el.  trademark,  or  form  of  a«lvertisement  of  any  such 
|)erson.  association  or  union,  in  any  mainicr  not  aut  liori/,e(l  hy 
such  person,  union  or  association,  shall  he  <leemed  ^'uilty  of  a 
misdemeanor,  and  shall  he  punished  hy  imprisoiniient  in  the 
county  .jail  not  less  than  three  months  nor  more  than  one  year, 
or  hy  a  line  of  not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars  ncjr  more  than 
two  hundred  dollars,  or  hoth.  In  all  cases  where  such  association 
or  union  is  not  incorporated,  suits  under  this  act  may  he  com- 
menced and  prosecuted  hy  any  ofTieer  or  memher  of  such  asso- 
ciation or  union  on  hehalf  of  and  for  the  use  of  such  as.sociation 
or  union. 

rARA(iRAi'ii  n,  §6.  Any  person  or  persons  who  shall  in  any 
way  use  the  name  or  seal  of  any  such  person,  as.sociation  or 
union,  or  officer  thereof,  in  and  about  the  .sale  of  goods  or  other- 
wise, not  heing  authorized  to  use  the  same,  shall  be  guilty  of  a 
misdemeanor,  punishahle  hy  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  of 
not  less  than  three  months  nor  more  than  one  year,  or  hy  a  fine 
of  not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars  nor  more  than  two  hundred 
dollars,  or  hoth. 

SUPPLEMENT  1902    fvOI,.  4,  STARR  A-  C.  ST.) 

Paragraph  1,  §  7.  The  fines  provided  for  in  this  act  may  he 
enforced  before  a  justice  of  the  peace  in  all  cases  where  the  party 
complaining  shall  so  elect,  and  in  case  of  conviction  before  such 
justice  of  the  peace,  the  offender  shall  stand  committed  to  the 
county  jail  until  the  fine  and  costs  are  fully  paid,  under  the 
provisions  of  .section  8,  article  IX,  of  an  act  to  revise  the  law  in 
regard  to  criminal  jurisprudence,  in  force  July  1,  1874,  or  other- 
wise. The  first  process  under  this  section  in  all  prasecutions  for 
the  recovery  only  of  the  fines,  shall  he  a  summons:  provided, 
however,  that  a  warrant  for  the  arrest  of  the  offender,  as  in  other 
cases  when  justices  of  the  peace  have  original  criminal  jurisdic- 
tion, may  i.ssue  upon  the  affidavit  of  any  person  that  any  of  the 
provisions  of  this  act  have  been  violated,  and  that  the  person 


668  APPENPIN    F. 

innkiiifr  the  oornplnint  hns  just  and  ri'iisoimltlt'  grounds  to  lu'lieve 
thr  party  clmr^ril  is  guilty  tluTfof.  iSfction  as  aiiu-ndi'd  liy  Aft 
approvrtl  April  '22,  l!»(ij.  i 

An  Act  of  May  11.  l!'(M.  Iliird's  lir\  isrd  Stat..  I'.tol.  p  ITMM. 
rt'lntiiifT  to  tlu'  iiulawfid  Iniyinjr  and  sclliiij;  of  rocoptacica,  and 
for  tho  resist  rat  ion  of  marks  in  coiinci'tion  with  such  articles. 
This  act  has  been  held  to  In-  uuconstitutiorud,  as  hcinc:  beyond 
the  polii'c  power  of  the  state  and  in  contravention  of  section  22, 
article  IV  of  the  Illinois  Constitution  of  ISTO.  in  Ifnnrirh  r. 
Walkn-.n onion  Lnhointoni  Co..  20.')  111.  407.  HS  N.  K.  Rep.  {138. 
A  similar  statute  passed  in  1873  (Rev.  Stat.  1874.  p.  1084,  Ch. 
140)  was  held  unconstitulionni  in  TJpj))vnn  v.  I^roplr,  17:')  111. 
101..-,!  N.  K.  Rrp.  S72. 

That  union  lalicis  are  properly  within  the  protection  of  para- 
L'raph  (i.  scetions  1  to  <!.  ^ce  Colni  r.  I'rople,  14!'  111.  4S(I.  37  X.  Iv 
Rep.  fiO.  and  see  Voqt  r.  Prnplr,  ru  Til.  App.  <)84. 

Section  2.  Ch.  32.  Rev.  Stat.  1803.  forhiddint:  the  incorpo- 
ration of  two  companies  under  the  same  name,  does  not  prevent 
the  incorporation  of  separate  concerns  under  the  corporate 
names.  "I-'.I^mm  Creamery  ("oiiipany"  and  "  KI^mu  Butter  Com- 
pany;" the  word  'KIlmh"  hein^  ^reoiiraphical,  and  there  beinp^ 
no  proof  of  any  intent,  act  or  artifice  to  mislead  the  pul)lic  as 
to  the  identity  of  the  corporation.  KJgiu  liiittrr  Co.  r.  Sattds, 
155  111.  127.  40  X.  K.  Rei).  (ilT.. 

That  a  warrant  in  aid  of  a  suit  for  trademark  infriiifjemeift 
was  improperly  issued  under  the  general  search  warrant  act,  see 
WIntc  r.  Wnijar,  IS;")  111.  liC);  ^Vhite  r.  Wnr/ar,  S3  Til.  App.  502. 


AI'I'MCATION   FOR  REGISTRATION  OF  TRADEMAIJK. 


SUtc   of  - 
Count V  of 


Till-    iinderHi^'nod    hcin^;   <hily    Hworn    on   oalli,   pnys   that    

maki-H   ttiin   Htatrim-nt    in    liehalf,   in    pursuance   «)f   Chnptcr    I-IO   of 

"Ihird'H"    Ki-viwd    Statutes    of   tlie    Stat*-   of    Illinois. 

That    lu«    flics    iuTcwitli    two    oopii-s    which    arc    counterparts    or     far- 

Himili'H   of    a    certain    which    hns    adopted    and    intends    to 

appropriaU-  for  tht-  purpom-  of  dcHifinatin^',  making;  known  or  distin- 
(Hiishin;;  the  followin;;  dcscrilM-d  ;,'oo<ls,  wares.  tmrcliaiidiM-  nr  products 
of  laltor,  towit: 

That  h«*  has  the  ri^'ht  to  uw  the  said  and  that  no  other    person. 

flrm    ur    uMMociation    has    a    right    to    uw,    cither    in    the    identical    form 


INDIANA    STATUTKS.  669 

herein    set    fnitli    cir    ill    iiiiy    hikIi    near    reMiiiMuiiee    tl»T<t<)    as    may    l>e 
calculiileil     to    cleeeive.       And     tliat    the     facsiinili-    copien    or    (oiinlerjmrtM 
liled    lierewitli   ari'   true  and  correct. 
The    essential    part    of    said    . 

Suhscrihed    and    sworn    to    liefore    ine    hy    tlie    Haid    tliiM    

dav    of   ,    A.    1).    111—. 


I  Seal.  I 


\i)t)iri/    I'uhlii 


Fee  for  riliiij,'  is  ^\.0{)  iiiid  ^1.00  adilitioiial    for  a   crrtilicat*'. 
Tliroe  facsimiles  of  the  trademark  should  aceompauy  tlie  atHidavit. 


IXDIAXA. 

Burns    Annotated    JiKJiaiia    Statute-,,    l;e\  i-i..ii    ol    l!t(il. 

Skction  SG81.  That  any  lirm,  person,  corporation  or  volun- 
tary a.ssociation  that  are  citizens  of  the  state  of  Indiana,  except 
foreign  corporations,  and  who  arc  entitled  to  the  exclusive  use 
of  any  lawful  trademark,  label,  l)rand,  stamp  or  wrapper,  may 
oi)tain  protection  for  such  lawful  trademark,  label,  lirand,  stamp 
or  wrapper  by  complying'  with  the  following  requirements: 
First,  by  causing;  to  be  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State  a  state- 
ment specifying  the  names  of  the  parties,  and  the  residences 
and  places  of  business,  who  desire  the  protection  of  the  trade- 
mark, label,  brand,  stamp  or  wrai)per,  the  class  of  merchandise 
and  the  particular  description  of  goods  comprised  in  such  class, 
by  which  the  trademark,  lat)el,  brand,  stamj)  or  wrapper  has 
been,  or  is  intendetl  to  be  protected.  A  description  of  trade- 
mark, label,  brand,  stamp  or  wrapper,  with  foe-si milr  thereof, 
showing  the  mode  in  which  it  has  been  and  is  intended  to  be 
applied  and  used,  and  the  length  of  time,  if  any,  during  which 
the  trademark,  label,  hrand.  .«tamp  or  wrapper  has  heen  in  use. 
Second,  l)y  making  a  payment  of  a  fee  of  two  dollars  to  the 
Secretary  of  State,  whose  dut.v  it  will  be  to  file  and  record  said 
statement  in  a  book  kept  for  the  i)urpo.se  to  be  procured  by  him 
as  other  Iwoks  in  his  oflRce  of  like  nature  are  procured. 

Section  8fiS2.  Any  certificate  or  statement  prescribed  in  the 
preceding  section  nnist,  in  order  to  create  any  right  whatever 
in  favor  of  the  party  filing  it,  be  accompanied  by  a  written  decla- 
ration yerified  by  the  person,  or  some  member  of  the  firm  or 


670  Al'PKMMX    K. 

officer  of  tho  corporation  nr  Mtliiiilary  associatioii  by  wlioin  it 
is  filed,  to  tin*  rtTcft  tluit  tlu-  party  claimiiii,'  the  protcctifni  tor 
tlic  tradniiark.  lahrl,  Itraiul.  stamp  or  wrapper,  iuts  a  ri^ht  to 
tho  snnu>,  and  that  no  other  person,  lirni.  corporation  or  volun- 
tary assoeiaticn  has  the  ri^rht  to  sneh  use  either  in  the  iJentieal 
form  or  in  any  .such  near  reseinhlanee  as  niinlit  be  ealeuhited  to 
<h'eeive;  and  tliat  tlie  description  ami  t'nc-similr  presented  for 
record  are  true  eopie.s  of  the  tradrmark,  hiliel,  brand,  stam[)  or 
wrapper  sought  to  be  protected. 

Skctu»n  S()8:i.  The  time  of  the  re('ei|)t  of  any  tradcinnrks, 
label,  brand,  .stamp  or  wrapper  at  the  onice  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  for  registration  shall  be  noted  and  recorded.  Certified 
eopie.s  of  tlie  tradenuirk,  label,  l)rand,  stamp  or  wrapper.  an<l 
the  date  of  the  r«'eeipt  thereof,  and  of  the  statement  and  allidavit 
filed  therewith  shall  )>e  prinid  facie  evidence  of  the  facts  and 
.statements  and  aflidavit  record  in  any  suit  in  which  such  tratle- 
mark.  laliel,  brand,  stamp  or  wrapper  shall  be  brought  into 
controversy. 

Section  8fi84.  A  trademark.  lal)el.  bi;iiid.  stamp  or  wrapper 
shall  remain  in  force  so  louf?  as  it  is  used  continuously;  after  a 
disuse  of  six  months  it  sludl  be  deemed  out  of  existence.  Such 
tradenuirk.  hiliel.  brand,  stamp  or  wrapper  nuiy  be  sold  or  as- 
signed, or  pa.ss  to  jiersonal  representatives  by  will,  or  become 
assets  of  an  estate.  In  any  case  where  ownership  changes  of 
such  trademark,  label,  brand,  stamp  or  wrapper,  before  it  can 
be  used  by  the  successor  in  titl(\  a  statenu-nt  of  such  change  of 
ownership  shall  be  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  he 
shall  record  the  same  in  the  book  kept  for  the  purpose  of  record- 
ing trademarks,  labels,  brands,  stamps  and  wrappers,  and  such 
Secretary  shall  receive  two  dollars  for  recording  such  .statement; 
and  it  shall  be  unlawful  to  use  such  trademark,  label,  brand, 
stamj)  or  wraupcr  till  such  change  of  ownership  lias  lieen  filed 
as  aforesaid. 

Skction  Sds.").  Such  trademark,  label,  brand,  stamp  or  wrap- 
per shall  entitle  tli<'  person,  firm.  eori)oration,  or  voluntary  a.sso- 
eiation  registering  the  same  to  the  exclusive  use  thereof,  .so  far 
as  regards  the  descrii)tion  of  goods  to  which  it  is  appropriated 
in   the  statement    filed    under   oath   as   aforesaid,   and   no   other 


INDIANA    STATITKS.  671 

])(!i-soii,  linn,  (.•urjjorat  ion  oi'  volnntai'v  association  i-an  lawfully 
use  till!  sani(<  (radcnuirk,  iabi-l,  hrand,  stamp  or  uiapiMT,  or  sui)- 
stautially  llif  saiuc,  or  so  nearly  rfscnihlin};  it  as  to  !)••  calculated 
to  deceive  upon  substantially  the  same  descrifjlion  of  jroods. 

Skction  8080.  For  a  violation  of  any  rijzlds  created  hy  this 
act.  the  |)erson.  film,  corporal  ion  or  voluntary  association  a^- 
jrrieved.  shall  have;  all  coimiion  law  nMiiedies  and  actions  for 
daiiia<j:<>s,  and  shall  Im;  enlitled  to  an  injunction  to  jirevent  fur- 
ther use  of  any  Irach'iiiark.  label,  brand,  stamp  or  wrapper  by 
tliis  act  secured  to  the  injured  person,  linn.  cori)orat ion.  or  vol- 
untary association;  and.  if  an  injunction  is  made  iinal  and  per- 
j)(;lual,  th(^  injured  firm.  corj)orat  ion  or  voluntary  association 
•shall  recover  reasonable  attorney's  fees. 

Skction  8087.  Any  owner  of  a  trademark,  label,  brand,  stamp 
or  wrapper,  who  has  complied  with  the  provisions  of  this  act. 
shall  have  the  ri<rht  to  j^raiit  to  others  the  authority  to  use  such 
1rad(Miiai'k.  label,  brand,  stamp  or  wrajiper;  but  such  authority 
to  so  use  must  be  in  writin;^.  si<;ii(>d  by  the  owner  of  sueh  trade- 
mark, label,  brand,  stamp  or  wi'apper.  with  two  witiiess(^s  to  such 
signature,  and  no  oik^  but  tlu^  owner  shall  hav(i  the  riprlit  to  use 
such  trademark,  label,  brand,  stamp  or  wrapi)(n'.  unless  such 
wTittcn  authority  has  been  given. 

Section  8688.  If  it  becomes  necessary  for  any  voluntary  as- 
sociation to  assert  any  rifrlit  to  any  trademark,  label,  brand, 
stamp  or  wrapper,  it  shall  be  sufficient  to  use  th(^  name  of  presi- 
dent or  chief  officer  of  such  association  either  in  action  at  law. 
suit  in  equity,  or  indictment  for  the  violation  of  the  provisions 
of  thi.s  act. 

Section  8689.  This  act  shall  not  be  construed  to  lessen,  im- 
pair or  abridge  any  rights  or  remedies  that  have  heretofore 
existed  in  favor  of  any  one  ow'uing  or  rightfully  claiming  a 
trademark,  label,  brand,  stamp  or  wrapper. 

Section  8690.  That  any  person  or  persons,  who  ^hall  know- 
ingly or  wilfully  cast  or  engrave,  or  maiuifacture,  or  have  in 
his,  her  or  their  possession,  or  buy.  sell  or  ofVer  for  sale,  or  deal 
in  any  di(^  or  dies,  plate  or  plates,  brand  or  brands,  engraving 
or  engravings  on  wood,  stone,  metal  or  other  substances,  molds 
or  any  false  representations,  likeness,  copy  or  colorable  imita- 


f,72  APPENDIX    F. 

Hon  of  nnv  »lii',  pl;itt'.  liraiul  or  moM  ot"  any  private  traclornark, 
lal>ol.  hraiul,  stamp.  \vra|»|Mr.  t'li^'raviii^'  on  pupt-r  or  other  suh- 
stance.  rcjiisteri'd  and  n'l-orilfd  pursuant  to  this  act.  shall,  upon 
coiivic'tioii  thiTcof.  hf  punislu'tl  hy  iinprisoniiu-nt  in  the  pcnitcii- 
tiar>'  for  not  l«'.ss  than  one  year,  or  niort-  Hum  two  years,  or  he 
f'uu'il  in  n  sum  not  less  tlum  nni'  thnus.-iiul  dollars,  or  more  tiuui 
two  tliousand  dollars. 

Skction  SlV.U.  That  any  person  or  persons  (wlu)  shall)  know- 
ingly and  wilfully  nuikt-.  forcro  or  eounterl'eit.  or  have  in  his. 
Iier  or  their  possession,  or  huy.  sell,  offer  for  sale  or  deal  in  any 
representation,  likeness.  similittKle.  copy  or  eolorahle  imitation 
•)t'  any  private  label,  hrand.  stamp,  wrapper,  onfjravinc.  mold 
or  trademark,  retristered  and  recorded  pursuant  to  this  act, 
.shall,  upon  eonviction  thereof,  he  punished  hy  im|)risonnient  in 
the  |»enitentiary  for  a  period  of  years  not  more  than  two  nor 
less  than  one.  or  he  fiiu'd  in  any  sum  not  less  than  one  thou.sand 
<l«llar.s  nor  more  than  two  thousand  dollars. 

Section  8G02.  Tt  shall  be  utilawful  for  any  jiersoji.  firm,  cor- 
poration or  voluntary  association  doin<r  husinos.s  in  t)iis  state 
to  have  in  liis  or  its  possession,  or  to  sell,  or  offer  for  sale  or 
trade,  any  poods,  wares,  merchandi.se  or  other  article  upon  which 
he  or  it  knows  is  placed  or  affixed  a  false,  forced  or  spurious 
trademark,  label,  brand,  stamp,  or  wrapper  in  likeness  or  imita- 
tion of  some  trademark,  label,  hrand.  stamp,  or  wrapper  repris- 
tered  as  provided  for  in  this  act;  and  any  such  person,  firm,  cor- 
|)oration  or  voluntary  association  so  having  in  his  or  its  posses- 
sion or  sellinpr.  or  offerinp  for  sale  or  trade,  any  poods,  wares  or 
merchandise  upon  which  he  or  it  knows  is  placed  or  affixed  a 
false,  forped  or  spurious  trademark,  label,  brand,  stamp  or 
wrapper  in  likeness  or  imitation  of  some  trademark,  label,  hrand, 
stamp  or  wrapper  repistered  as  aforesaid  shall,  upon  conviction 
thereof,  be  punished  hy  fine  in  a  sum  of  not  le.ss  than  fifty 
dollars  (^r>().()0)  nor  more  than  two  hiindred  dollars  ($200.00), 
or  imi)risoned  in  the  county  jail  six  months,  or  both. 

SU'otionH  Hn78-8fi80c  n-latv  to  tli<-  |ir<)t.-iti..ii  <>f  inaMufa<turir.>*,  Imt- 
tltTH.  nnd  wlli-rH  <if  mitK-riil  wutrfB,  vUlt-r,  ali-,  ln-t-r.  ^inpr  jiop.  Boda 
«at«T,  diHtilh'd  \vat<T,  ^.'iiipT  ali-,  wlt/.cr  wat.-r.  fcrnn-nti-d  li(|vi()ra,  and 
othiT  boveragt'B   in  tht-  unauthurizcd  use  of  tlieir  bottliH  or   Hiphons. 


INDIANA    STATUTES.  Gl'i 

Sootionn    8(»J).'}-a7(>:{,    indnsivi-,    nliitf    to    tin-    lalx-In,    namcH    and    HtampH 

of    lalpor    iiiiioiM    iiiiil    a.-s(iciiit  iiiiiH. 

Under  sec.  SdSOh  ail  iMdictincnt  which  failed  to  ehargp  the 
defendant  tilled  or  caused  to  be  filliMJ  any  liottle  or  sipiioii  with 
i\ny  li(iiiid  mentioned  in  the  a<.'t,  was  held  to  he  fatally  defective. 
State  r.  Writjlit,  If)!)  hid.  :i'M,  C")  N.  H.  Hep.  IDO. 

When,  under  the  Act  of  lSf»l.  pa^je  '.Ul,  the  "(;it,'arinaker's 
International  Tnion  of  Anieriea,"  a  national  labor  union,  regw- 
tered  their  label,  the  benefit  of  the  act  beinj;  by  its  terms  limite<l 
to,  "any  firm,  person,  corporation,  or  voluntary  association  that 
is  a  citizen  of  the  state,"  it  was  lield  that  the  label  eould  not  be 
protected  by  a  criminal  prosecution,  notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  nieml)ers  of  the  association  were  citi/cens  of  the  state. 
Stat(  r.  Jlanen.  6  Ind.  App.  KiT,  M3  N.  K.  Rep.  22.3. 

The  sufficiency  of  an  indictment  under  .sec.  8680b  is  discussed 
in  State  v.  liarnctt,  15r»  Ind.  4:^2,  H5  N.  K.  Rep.  515. 

FolIM    F()K  AI'IM.K  AThtX    Vn\\    KKdI.STRATIOX. 

Certificate  accoinpanyiii';  a ,    [insert   label,   trndemnrlc,  stamp,   or 

form  of  adrertisenK  tit,  as  the  ease  may  he\  filed  in  accordance  with  , 

an  act  to  protect  manufacturers  from  tlie  use  of  counterfeit  lal)el8, 
stamps  and   trademari<s. 

Name  or  !iames  of  tlie  j)ersoii  or  association ,  [folloir  regulatiotis 

at    (I  J. 

Residence,  location  or  j)lace  of  business . 

Class  of  merchandise  and  the  particular  description  of  poods  com- 
prised in  sucli  class  to  which  tlie  ,   [insert   label,  trademark,  stamp, 

or  form  of  advertisement,  as  the  case  may  be\  has  been  or  is 
intended  to  he  a])propriated  ,   [folloir  regulations  at  b]. 

Length    of  time,   if  any,   during   which  the  ,    [insert    label,   trade- 

tnarlc,  stamp,  or  form  of  advertisement,  as  the  case  may  be]   has  been  in 

use.     Since  ,    [give  month,  day  of  month  and  year  tchen  adopted, 

or  give   date  since   trh^i   in  use]. 

KEGULATIOX?:. 

a.  If  a   corporation,   state   under   the  laws  of   what   state   incorporated. 

If  one  or  more  persons  are  doinp  business  under  a  proprietary  or 
company  name,  state  the  name  of  such  person  or  persons  and  add  the 
words  "doinp  business  under  the  name  and  style  of,"  then  give  the 
proprietary   or    company    name    under    which    the    business    is    conducted. 

h.  State,  first,  as  near  as  possible  in  one  or  two  words,  the  general 
Class  of  merchandise  to  which  the  label,  trademark,  stamp  or  form  of 
advertisement   has  been  or   is   intended   to  be  appropriated; 


674  Ai-rKNPix  K. 

Stcoml,  AA  near  as  possildo  in  oiu-  or  t\vi>  wuriU,  tlio  purtioiilur  tlo- 
sfription  or  ilosipnntion  in  x»i<-li  >;''"«''"al  class  of  morchnndise.  Dn  not 
tli'scribo  the  i-iunposltion,  or  nanio  tlio  parts  wliicli  loniprisf  i\w  forniula 
of  wliich   the  nuriliamiise  iii  coiuposoil; 

Third,  by  uxint;  tlie  followinf^  words:  "Tlie  eBsential  feature  of  the 
(lalH'l.  trademark,  utamp  or  form  of  advertisement)  in."  f^'ivin;,'  wliat  is 
considered  to  he  t!ie  eHHential  feature  or  ftuturcs  tiiereof.  If  an  illustra- 
tion or  pictorial  representatiim  in  used  for  ii  trademark,  it  is  very  desir- 
able that  a  word  or  words  shall  also  form  a  part  of  the  "essential  features" 
of  such    trademark; 

Fourth,  by  usinjj  the  foilowin;^  "ords,  tluit :  "Tlie  style  and  size  of 
type  and  the  color  of  ink  and  j)ai)er  may  be  varied  at  pleasure." 

•  I,  ,  do  hereby  declare,  in  accordance  with  tlie  provisions  

has  a   rifiht  to   the  use  of   the  \insrrt   label,   tradcmarh,   stamp   or 

form  of  advcrtiacmvnt,  as  the  case  may  be]  referred  to  in  the  foregoing 
certificate,  and  that  no  other  person,  firm,  association,  union  or  corpora- 
tion has  the  right  to  such  use,  either  in  the  identical  form  or  in  any 
such    near    resemblance   thereto   as  may    be   calculated   to   deceive,  and 

I  furtiier  declare  tliat  tlie  fac-similes,  copies  or  counterparts  fib-d  with 
the   foregoing  certificate  are  true  and  correct. 

In     witness    whereof,    I    have    hereunto    signed    my    iiaiiic    tliia    

day  of  ,  in  the  year  one  thousand  . 


I«S'i^n   here]. 


County   of  , 

State  of  ,   88 :  ,    19—. 

Then  personally  appeared  the  above-named  and   niadi-  oath  that 

the   foregoing   declaration   by   him  subscribed  is   true. 

Before  me,  


IOWA. 
Code   1807.  Ch.   1.3,  Tit.   24. 

Section  5049.  Falsely  using  l.vbel  of  l.vbor  itnion.  Every 
person,  or  association  or  union  of  workingmen  or  others,  thdt 
has  adopted  or  shall  adopt  for  their  i)roteetion  any  label,  trade- 
mark or  form  of  advertisement  may  tile  the  same  for  record  in 
the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  by  leaving  two  copies,  coun- 
terparts or  fac-similes  thereof  with  the  Secretary  of  State.  Said 
Secretary  shall  thereupon  deliver  to  such  person,  association  or 

•  If  a  person,  insert  name;  if  an  ofTicer  of  an  association,  union  or 
corporation,  insert  name,  title  of  ollice,  and  name  of  the  association, 
union   or   corporation. 


IOWA    STATt    IKR.  675 

tuiioii  so  filing'  tlic  same  a  (liil\'  atlcstcd  ci-cf  iliratc  oi"  tlif  rccortl 
of  the  sanip.  for  which  he  sliall  receive  a  tec  ol'  om-  (hjlhir.  Such 
eertifieate  of  record  shall  in  all  actions  and  prosi-cutions  under 
the  following'  six  sections  he  snITicient  i)roof  of  the  a<lo[)tion  of 
such  lalicl,  trademark  or  form  of  advertisement,  and  the  right 
of  said  pci-soii    ass(. elation  oi-  union  to  adopt  the  same. 

Skction  r)!).")!).  Ix.iiNCTioN.  Kvery  person,  association  or 
union  adopting'  a  iaix'l,  trademark  or  form  of  advertisement,  as 
specified  in  the  preceding  section,  may  proceed  t)y  action  to 
enjoin  the  manufacture,  use,  display  or  sale  of  any  counterfeits 
or  imitations  thereof;  and  all  courts  havinj;  jurisdiction  of  such 
actions  shall  grant  injunctions  to  restrain  sudi  manufacture, 
n.se,  display  or  sale,  and  shall  award  tlie  complainant  therein 
such  damages  resulting  from  such  wrongful  manufacture,  use, 
display  or  sale,  and  a  reasonable  attorney's  fee  to  he  fixed  by 
the  court,  and  shall  require  the  defendant  to  pay  to  such  person, 
association  or  union  the  profits  derived  from  such  wrongful 
manufacture,  use,  display  or  sale,  and  a  rea.sonable  attorney's 
fee  to  be  fixed  by  the  court,  and  said  court  shall  also  order  tha^ 
all  suali  counterfeits  or  imitations  in  the  possession  or  under  the 
control  of  any  defendant  in  such  ease  be  delivered  to  an  officer 
of  the  court  to  be  destroyed.  Such  actions  may  be  prasecuted 
for  the  benefit  of  any  association  or  union  by  any  officer  or 
member  thereof. 

Section  5051.  Imitation  op  such  label.  Tt  shall  bt  unlaw- 
ful for  any  person  or  corporation  to  imitate  any  label,  trade- 
mark or  form  of  advertisement  adopted  as  provided  in  the  sec- 
ond preceding  section,  or  to  knowingly  use  any  counterfeit  or 
imitation  thereof,  or  to  use  or  display  such  genuine  laVl,  trade- 
mark or  form  of  advertisement,  or  the  name  or  seal  of  such 
person,  union  or  association,  or  of  any  officer  thereof,  unless 
authorized  so  to  do.  or  in  any  manner  not  authorized  by  him  or 
it.  Any  per.son  violating  any  provision  of  this  section  shall  be 
imprisoned  in  the  county  jail  not  more  than  thirty  days,  or  be 
fined  not  less  than  twenty-five  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars. 


676  AIM'KNDIX    ;'. 

RILES    (JOVFRN'INC.    KKOISTRATION    OF    I-VBEU*?,    TRADEMARKS    OR 

FORMS  or  \nvi:KTi-:i\(;. 

A  lalicl.  tradi'iiiarU.  oi-  fttrni  uf  advert isin^',  may  In-  i-ciristcreil 
in  oitlior  or  scvcM'al  nf  tin-  aljovc  forms,  hiil  if  in  more  tliaii  one 
form,  a  soparatt-  ri'^i.stration  must  l»i'  liad  for  oacli  of  th»  forms 
for  which  rrjristration  is  (h'sircd.  Duplicate  fac-simiU-s  or  coun- 
li'rparts  for  each  form  nuist  he  furnished  and  a  fee  of  $1.00 
paid  for  each  retristration  certificate  issued. 

Applicant  nnist  desiprnate  in  enclosed  l)lank  ai)plicati()n  the 
form  in  which  rejiistration  is  desired,  whether  as  a  label,  trade- 
mark, or  form  of  advertising. 

No  certificate  will  he  issued  eoveriiifr  more  than  one  of  ahove 
forms. 

If  application  is  made  i)\  a  corporation,  union,  or  association, 
the  application  should  he  si<;»UMl  hy  the  proj)er  officer  thereof, 
with  oflicial  title,  nivin<;  the  fidl  name  of  the  firm,  cor|)()ration, 
union  or  association. 

If  hy  a  firm,  the  firm  name  shoidd  he  LMven.  si).Mied  l)y  a  mem- 
her  of  the  firm,  or  all  the  members  of  such  firm. 

Kennt  $1.00  in  pavmeiit  for  each  certificate. 

All  remittances  should  be  made  l>y  draft,  express  or  money 
orders. 

Please  do  not  send  jxTsonal  checks. 

Ai'iM.icAi  ION  Foil  i;i;(;i.'<Ti;.\TioN'. 

OK   .\ 

bv    of filed    ill    til.-    nlli.r    of    till'    Socrotary    of 

State,  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  in  nccordaiuf  w  itli  sections  504!),  'lO'M,  Mitl, 
<  o<lc  of  18!»7. 

Tlie    Kiiiii lias    Imtii    <>r    i.s    iiitemUd    ti>    Im-    a|)|ir(iiiriated    for    usl- 

ill   eoiineetion   with . 

The  htyle  and  Hize  of  type  and  tlie  eolor  of  ink  jiiid  paptT  may  he 
\aried   at   jileaHurc. 

If  uued  aH  a  hihel,  or  trademark,  it  is  usually  a|>i)lied  hy  paititiiif; 
or  stenciling,  l>y  lahels,  or  liy  formin^j  on  tlie  material  of  whieli  tlie 
jiroduct    iH   madi-. 

If,  a»  a  form  of  advertising',  it  is  used  in  advertisements,  in  news- 
papers, circulars,  on  Ittter-lieads,  on  invoici-s,  and  otiier  printed  mat- 
ter   . 

The    Miid    has    l)e<Mi     in    usi-    since and    eonsists    of    the 

arliitrarily  wlected  word,  mark,  symliol  «»r  character  lierewiHi    illustrated. 

Jhe  cHHential    featur<«  "f  «!>.• consists  of  . 


KANSAS    STATT'I-KS.  677 

III  witiU'SH   wlHTcof,    1   Iiavi!   liticinito   hi;;iu(l   iiiv    iiaiiif   tliiH  day 

of  A.  1).  1!»— . 

Xlllllc . 

Uy  . 

Statf  iif  , 

County  of ,  ss: 

SubHcrilii'd    imd    sworn    to  licforf  iiic   fliiH diiy    of  ,   A.   D. 

19—. 


STATE  OF  KANSAS. 

OFFICE  OP  SECRKTAKV  OK  STATK. 

Topcka,  January  11,  1915. 
Dear  Sir: 

Tluiro  are  two  provisions  of  law  under  wliich  IradcMnarks  may 
be  registered  in  Kansas,  (^xtraets  from  wliicli  follow: 

First.  Section  9670,  Chapter  119,  Geiun-al  Statutes  of  1909, 
provides  that 

"any  and  all  persons  or  corporations  who  may  be  the  owners  of 
cans,  tubs,  firkins,  boxes,  bottlers,  casks,  barrels,  kegs,  siphons, 
cartons,  tanks,  fountains,  vessels,  or  containers,  with  his,  her, 
its  or  their  names,  brands,  designs,  trade-marks,  devices  or  other 
marks  of  ownei-ship  stamped,  impressed,  labehul,  blown  in  or  oth- 
erwise marked  thereon,  may  file  with  the  Secretary  of  State  a 
written  statement  or  description  verified  by  affidavit  of  such 
owner,  or  his,  her  or  its  agent,  of  the  names,  designs,  brands, 
trade-marks,  devices  or  other  marks  of  ownership  so  used  l)y  iiim, 
her,  it  or  them,  and  of  the  said  articles  upon  which  the  same; 
are  used. 

"Said  statement  shall  be  ]iublished  once  a  week  for  three  suc- 
cessive weeks  in  a  newspaper  printed  in  the  English  language 
and  of  general  circulation  in  the  county  where  such  persons  shall 
have  their  principal  place  of  business,  and  the  publication  be 
paid  for  by  the  party  applying  for  registration,  a  copy  of  which 
publication,  proved  in  the  same  manner  as  proof  of  publication 
is  now  required  to  be  made  by  law.  shall  also  be  tiled  with  the 
Secretary  of  State,     *     *     *"  " 

The  above  section  applies  only  to  such  cans,  boxes  and  otlier 
containers  as  are  specifically  mentioned  therein,  and  no  other 
articles  can  he  registered  under  its  provisions. 

Persons  wishing  to  register  trademarks  und(M'  the  above  sec- 
tion should  carefully  prepare  a  written  description  of  the  same, 


(178  APPKNMMX    K. 

verified  hy  afj'ulavit.  have  .su«li  (li'sc-ription  pu1)lisli."(l  as  provided 
thorcin.  and  forward  tin-  oriijinnl  initten  description  with  proof 
i.f  publication  to  this  oiVut.  with  a  f«'«'  of  our  dollr.r.  upo!i  receipt 
of  which  sucli  traih'inark  will  !»<•  ri'^'istcrt'd  and  ccrtifioate  of 
ri'^ristration  furnished. 

Sdond.  Section  Wu'},  ('lui|)tcr  11!).  CcihthI  Statutes  of  IDUl), 
provides  that 

'' whenever  any  association  or  union  of  \\tukin<,Miicn  liavc  adopted 
or  shall  hereafter  adopt  for  tli<ir  protection  any  lahel.  trade- 
nuirk.  or  form  of  advert iseuient.  announcing'  that  j;oods  to  which 
(such)  lahel,  trade-mark  or  form  of  advertisement  shall  he  at- 
tache<l  were  numufactured  hy  a  mem!)er  or  meml)ers  of  such 
association  or  union,  it  shall  Im-  uidawful  for  any  person  or  cor- 
poration to  counterfeit  or  imitate  sucii  lahel.  trade-mark  or  form 
of  advertisement.     *      *     * 

Section  0677  of  the  same  chapter  provides  that 

"every  such  association  or  union  that  has  heretofore  adopted  or 
shall  hereafter  adopt  a  label,  trade-nmrk  or  form  of  advertise- 
ment as  aforesaid,  may  file  the  same  for  record  in  the  office  of 
the  Secretary  of  State  hy  Iravitifi  tiro  copies,  counterparts  or 
fac-.simHes  thereof  with  the  Secretary  of  State.     •     •     •      " 

Sections  0675  and  0677  apply  only  to  such  «:oods  a.s  have  been 
manufactured  by  a  member  or  members  of  an  as.sociation  or 
union  of  workin.irmen,  and  no  other  (/oo'ls  or  merchandise  can  he 
registered  under  their  provisions. 

Persons  wishinir  <<>  reirister  labels,  trademarks  or  fonns  of  ad- 
vertisement under  section  'Mu^)  have  only  to  file  two  copies,  coun- 
terparts or  fac-simdes  with  the  S.-cretary  of  State  with  a  fee  of 
one  dollar,  upon  receipt  of  wbidi  smb  label,  trade-mark  or  form 
of  advertisement  will  be  registered  and  certificate  of  repristration 

furnished. 

1'nle.s.s  articles  of  merchandis.-  on  wbieli  trad. -marks  are  sought 
to  be  registered  come  inuh-r  the  provisions  of  one  or  the  other 
of  the  above  .sections  no  protection  would  be  ^'ivi-n  the  owner 
by  their  registration.  No  blank  ap|>Iieations  for  registration  of 
trademark  will  be  furnished,  as  none  are  nee(le<l. 

J.  T.   BOTKIN, 

Secretary  of  State. 


KKNTUCKY    STATI'TES.  OTH 

KENTUCKY. 

\()    <,'ciicral    tradrinark    law.      (Icinral    StatutcM,    lH!l{t. 

Skctiox  4741*.  I'vcry  union  or  assoc-iiition  of  workiiiffiiion  or 
women  adopting  a  lahd,  mark,  name,  hrand  or  device  iritendinf^ 
to  desi^'nate  tlic  products  of  tlie  lalior  of  mcmhers  of  such  union 
or  association  of  workintimen  or  women  shall,  in  order  to  obtain 
the  benefits  of  this  act,  fib'  (hiplicate  copies  of  smrh  hi))el,  mark, 
name,  ])rand  oi-  (b'vicc  in  flu-  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State, 
who  shall,  uikUt  bis  band  and  seal,  deliver  to  tlw;  i)arty  filirif? 
or  ref;isterin<;  the  same,  a  cerlified  copy  and  a  certificate  of  the 
filing  thereof. 

It  has  been  b.'ld  l)y  the  Court  of  Ai)pealK  of  Kentucky  that 
union  lal)els  will  be  protected  ajyainst  infriiifjement  in  the  ab- 
sence of  a  statute.  Jlcttcrman  v.  Powcrx,  102  Ky.  133,  43  S.  W. 
Rep.  180. 

Sections  127!)  and  127r)a  relate  to  the  protection  of  {)ackap;es 
of  manufacturers  and  bottlers  of  soda  water,  etc. 

The  following  form  has  been  prescribed  for  ai)plication  for 
registration  under  section  -1741): 

lie  it  rcmcmlicrcd. 

That   tilt'   lias   adopti'd    tlif    following,'   lalxl,    mark,   nami',   hrand 

or    device,    wliieh    is   intended    to   desi^^nati;    tlie   products   of    the    lahor   of 

memhers  of  said  to-wit:   ;   and  herel)V  files  duplicate  copies 

thereof  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  pursuant  to  the  provisions 
of  Section  4740,  Chapter  l.'JO,  Kentucky  Statutes,  title  "Union  and 
Labor  Associations." 

Witness  the  si<;natures  of  the  President.  Secretary  and  Treasurer,  and 
the  corporate   seal  of  the  said  ,  this  day  of  ,    10 — . 


LOUISIANA. 

Act   No.   40  of   1808. 
AX  ACT  to  protect  labels,  trademarks,  terms,  desi;,'ns,   devices  or   forms 
of   advertisement,   and  to    provide   a   penalty   for  violation    thereof. 

Section  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
State  of  Louisiann:  Whenever  any  person,  or  any  association  or 
union  of  workmen,  has  heretofore  adopted  or  used  or  shall  here- 
after adopt  or  use  any  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  de\ice 
or  form  of  advertisement  for  the  purpose  of  designating,  making 


fiSO  APPr.N'nix  K. 

known,  or  (Iistin(;uishinp  any  jjoods,  wares,  nicnliaiulisc  (tr  dther 
protluft  of  lahor.  iis  liaviiin  been  macU*.  maiuiractun'd.  prodiicctl. 
prfparotl.  packed  or  put  on  sale  l)y  sueli  person  or  association  or 
union  of  workinjjnien  or  l)y  a  n>einl)e'r  or  inciubers  of  such  asso- 
eiation  or  union,  it  shall  he  unlawful  to  counterfeit  or  iinitJite 
.such  Inhel,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertise- 
ment, or  to  use,  sell.  ofTer  for  sale  or  in  any  way  \itter  or  cir- 
culate any  count«'rfeit  or  imitation  of  any  such  liil)cl.  trademark. 
term,  desipu,  device  or  form  of  advertisement. 

Skction  2.  lie  H  furihrr  cuariefl,  ric.  Whoever  counterfeits 
or  imitates  any  such  label,  trademark,  term,  desipn.  device  or 
form  of  advertisement ;  or  s«'lls.  ofTers  for  sale  or  in  any  way 
utters  or  circidates  any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  such 
label,  trademark,  term,  desipn.  device  or  fonn  of  advertisement; 
or  keeps  or  has  in  his  possession  with  intent  that  the  same  shall 
be  sold  or  disposed  of,  any  poods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other 
product  of  labor  to  which  or  on  which  any  sjich  coiniterfeit  or 
iiidtation  is  printed,  painted,  stamped  or  impressed;  or  know- 
inply  sells  or  disposes  of  any  poods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other 
products  of  labor  contained  in  any  box,  case,  can  or  packape,  to 
which  or  on  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached, 
affixed,  printed,  painted,  st^imped  or  impressed;  or  keeps  or 
has  in  his  pos.session  with  intent  tliat  the  same  shall  be  sold  or 
disposed  of,  any  poods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  product^of 
labor  in  any  hox,  case,  can  or  packape  to  which  or  on  which  any 
such  counterfeit  or  imitatiofi  is  attached,  allixcd.  printed,  painted, 
stamped  or  impr&s.sed.  shall  be  punished  \\\  a  fine  of  not  more 
than  one  hundred  dollars  or  l)y  im|»risonmt'nt  for  not  more  than 
three  months. 

Skction  3.  Every  such  person,  association  or  union  that  has 
heretofore  ado|)ted  or  used,  or  shall  hereafter  adopt  or  use,  a 
lai)el,  trademark,  term,  desipn.  device  or  form  of  adverti.sement  a.i 
provide*!  in  section  1  of  this  act.  may  file  the  same  for  record  in 
the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  by  leavinp  two  copies,  coun- 
terparts or  fac-similes  thereof,  with  said  Secretan'  and  ])y  filinp 
therewith  a  sworn  afiplication  s|i(»cifyinp  tin*  name  or  names 
of  the  person,  a.ssociation  or  union  on  whose  behalf  such  label, 
trademark,  term,  desipn.  device,  or  form  of  advertisement  sliall 
be  filed;  the  class  of  merchandise  and  a  description  of  the  poods. 


LOUISTANA    STATl'IKS.  081 

to  wliicli  it  liiis  lifcii  or  is  iiitnitliMl  to  Im-  iipproprialfd.  statint? 
that  lilt'  paify  so  liliiij;  or  on  whose  bcliall'  such  hilx'l,  Iradr-mark, 
term,  dcsi^ni.  dt'vicc  or  form  of  advertisement  shall  he  filed,  has 

the  rij^'hl    to   flie  use  of  the  sa ;   that    no  other   person,   (inn, 

association,  union  or  corporation  has  the  rii^ht  to  su<'h  use,  either 
in  the  identical  lorm  or  in  any  such  near  reseud)lancc  thereto 
as  may  Iw  calculalecl  to  diceive.  and  that  the  fac-simile  or  coun- 
terparts filed  Iherewitli  are  true  and  correct.  There  sliall  1)0 
paid  for  such  filing'  and  recording'  a  fee  of  one  dollar.  Said  Sec- 
retary shall  delM-er  to  such  person,  association  or  union  so  filing 
or  causing;  to  h'  filed  any  siirh  lai.el.  trademark,  term,  (h'si^Mi, 
deviee  or  form  of  advertisement  so  many  didy  attested  certificates 
of  the  recordiii;,'  of  the  .same  as  sucli  person,  as-social if)n  or  union 
may  ai)|)ly  foi-,  for  ea(  h  of  wliidi  .-■:•{ ificates  said  Secretary  shall 
receive  a  fee  of  one  uoliar.  Any  such  certifieate  of  record  shall 
in  all  suits  and  prosecutions  under  this  act  be  sufficient  proof 
of  the  adoption  of  such  lal)el,  trademark,  term,  desi«rn.  device  or 
form  of  advertisement.  Said  Secretary  of  State  shall  not  record 
for  any  person,  union  or  a.ssoeiation  any  label,  trademark,  term, 
design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  that  would  probably  be 
mistaken  for  any  label,  tradenuirk,  term,  desi«rn.  device  or  form 
of  advertisement  heretofore  filed  by  or  on  behalf  of  any  other 
person,  union  or  association. 

Section  4.  Any  person  who  shall  for  himself  or  on  behalf  of 
any  other  pei-son,  association  or  union  procure  the  filin?  of  any 
label,  trademark,  term,  desi^jn,  device  or  form  of  advertisement 
in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  under  the  provisions  of 
this  act.  by  making  any  false  or^  fraudulent  representations  or 
declarations,  verbally  or  in  writing  or  by  any  fraudulent  means, 
shall  be  liable  to  pay  any  damage  sustained  in  consequence  of 
any  such  filing  to  be  recovered  hy  or  on  behalf  of  the  party 
injured  thereby  in  any  court  having  jurisdiction  and  shall  be 
punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars  or  by  im- 
prisonment not  exceeding  three  months. 

Section  5.  Every  such  person,  association  or  union  adopting 
or  using  a  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of 
advertisement  as  aforesaid  may  proceed  by  suit  to  enjoin  the 
manufacture,  use,  display  or  sale  of  any  such  counterfeits  or 
imitations  thereof,  and  all  coui-ts  of  competent  jurisdiction  shall 


682  .vri'KNDix  F, 

Krant  injuiu'tions  to  ri'strain  such  m.'niiif;i<tiirt\  n^o.  display  or 
sal«'  ami  may  aw  aril  tin*  fomplaiuant  in  any  such  suit  dainau'cs 
resulting  from  sudi  manufacture,  use.  sah'  or  disphiy  jus  may 
be  by  said  court  (hcmcd  ju^t  and  rcasoiialih'.  and  shall  rccpiire 
the  defeuilauts  to  pay  to  such  person,  association  f)r  union  all 
profits  derived  from  such  \vron}rf\d  immufacture.  use,  display 
or  sale;  and  sueh  court  shall  also  order  that  all  such  eounterfeits 
or  imitations  in  the  possession  or  under  the  control  of  an.v  de- 
fendant in  such  cause  hv  delivered  In  ;iii  ofiiicr  of  the  court,  or 
to  the  eomplaimuit.  to  he  destroyed. 

Section  fi.  Every  person  who  shall  use  or  display  the  genuine 
label,  trademark,  term,  desipn.  device  or  form  of  advertisement 
of  any  such  person,  association  or  union  in  any  manner,  not 
heinp  authorized  so  to  do  by  such  person  or  association,  shall 
be  deemed  pniilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall  he  punished  by 
imprisonment  for  not  more  tlian  three  montl's  or  ])y  a  fine  of 
not  more  than  one  hiindred  dollars.  Tn  all  cases  where  such 
association  or  union  is  not  incorporated,  suits  under  this  act 
may  be  commenced  and  prosecuted  by  an  officer  or  member  of 
such  association  or  union  on  behalf  of  and  for  the  use  of  such 
association  or  union. 

Section  7.  Any  person  or  persons  who  shall  in  any  way  use 
the  name  or  seal  of  any  such  person,  association  or  union,  or 
officer  thereof,  in  and  about  the  sale  of  eroods  or  otherwise,  not 
beinp  authorized  to  use  the  same,  shall  he  fruilty  of  a  misde- 
meanor, and  shall  be  punishable  by  imprisonment  for  not  more 
than  three  months,  or  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  one  hundred 
dollars. 

Section  S.  This  act  shall  take  elTect  and  be  in  force  from  and 
after  it.s  [lassafre. 

A[.i)roved  duly  H.  lHi)8. 


^ORM   ini;  AI'I'MCATIOX  Foil  RKOISTRATION. 

To  all  trhom   it  mnjt  conrcm: 

Be    it    known.    That    ,   a    corporatinn    «ir^anizcil    uiuIit    tlio    laws 

of  tlip  Stat*"  of  ,  dnmirilcd  in  tin*  City  of  ,  County  of  , 

and  doint;    liUHinenH    in    Haid   city   and   c-ouiity,  liax   adopted    for    itH  tim>    a 
tradtinurk   for of   wliicli    tlin-i*  copies,  couiittrparts   or    fac-similcK, 


MAINK   STATUTI-S.  683 

arc  licnw  itli  (ilfd  for  rccorfl  in  tin'  ollii.'  <if  tin-  Si't-n-tary  of  Stutc,  to- 
wit  : 

Thin    application     Ih     tilid    on     lulialf    of     tlic    aforrwiid.       'I'Im; 

c'lasH    of    iiitrcliaiKiiw,    and    (l('scri|)lioM    of    ;.'()odH    to   ■which    Huid    trodc- 

maik  lias  hccn  ap|iroi)riatc(l  and   Ih  intended  to  h*-  appropriated  in , 

tin'    Httid    lias    tlic    Hole    rif^ht    to    tli<'    uhc    of    tiie    Hame.      No    other 

perHon.  lirm.  association,  union  or  corporation  luiH  tlic  ri>.'lit  to  siicli 
U8P,  «'itlicr  in  the  identical  form  herein  ahovc  dcscrilicd,  or  in  any  such 
rcacMihlanci'  tiicrcto  as  may  Ik-  calculated  to  deceive,  and  the  fac-winiiles 
or  count<'r|)arts  herewith   filed  are  true  and  correct. 

Thus    done    and    Bi<,'ned    at    tin;    City    of    this    day    of 

,  19-. 


AFFID.W  IT. 


State  of  , 

County  of  ,  ss: 

hcinf^  duly    sworn,    di-po.scH   and    says   that    lie  is    the    I'rcsidcnt 

of    the   ,    the   applicant   named    iu    the    foregoing  instrument,    and 

that  the  facts  alleged   in   said    instrument  are  true. 

Sworn  to   and   buhscribed   before   me,   this  day  of  ,    l!l — . 


]\otary   Public 

STATE  OF  .MAINE. 

TBADE-MARKR. 
Extracts  from  Chap.  40.  Revised  Statutes,  ln03. 
Section  22.  Any  person,  entitled  to  the  exclusive  use  of  any 
trade-mark,  or  who  intends  to  adopt  and  use  any  trade-mark  not 
previously  adopted  or  used  by  another,  may  file  for  record  in 
the  ofifice  of  the  Secretary  of  State  a  certificate  setting?  forth  his 
name,  residence  and  i)Iace  of  bu.siness ;  the  cla.ss  of  merchandise 
and  the  particular  description  of  jj^oods  comprised  in  such  class 
to  which  such  ti'ade-mark  ha.s  been  or  is  to  l)e  appropriated  ;  a 
description  thereof,  and  of  the  mode  in  which  it  is  to  be  applied 
and  used;  tlie  date  when  it  was  first  used  oi-  adopted;  that  he 
has  a  rigrht  to  the  use  of  it,  and  that  no  other  person,  firm  or 
corporation  has  the  rijrht  to  such  use,  either  in  tlie  identical 
form,  or  havino;  such  near  resemblance  thereto  as  i.s  calculated 
to  deceive.  A  fac-simile  of  such  trade-mark  shall  be  incorporated 
in  or  annexed  to.  said  certificate,  and  a  duplicate  shall  be  filed 
therewith,  to  be  pasted  or  boujid  into  the  record  book,  if  practic- 
able. Such  certificate  shall  be  si^ied  and  sworn  to  by  sucii 
person,  or  his  a»ent. 


C84  APPEKPIX    V. 

SfxTIOn  2.'^  WlMK'Vcr  wilfully  swears  or  affiniis  fnlsoly  to 
any  such  ctM-tif'u'alr,  is  yuilty  of  pcTJury,  ant!  shall  pay  treble 
liainagt's  to  cvt-ry  party  injured  thcrehy.  If  the  Secretary 
of  State  has  reason  to  apprehenil.  on  the  lilinj,'  of  suth  eertifi- 
eat< .  that  any  .statement  therein  contained  is  untrue,  he  may 
decline  to  rec(»rd  the  same  uides.s  the  party  lilinf;  it  obtains  a 
writ  of  mandamus  to  compel  him.  Such  writ  may  he  fjraiited 
by  any  proper  court,  hut  without  cost  to  the  Secretary,  on 
proof  that  all  the  statements  in  .such  certificate  are  true,  but 
no  tiiuil  hearinj;  on  the  application  therefor,  .shall  lie  had  until 
sueh  notice  thereof  ji.s  .said  court  orders  has  been  advertised  in 
one  or  more  newspapers  published  in  the  country  where  the 
party  filinj;  .said  certificate  resides;  and  any  persons  who  desire 
may  app(>ar  and  intervene  as  parties  defendant,  am]  opi)ose  the 
;;rantinp:  of  such  writ,  and  shall  be  liable  to  jud<,Mnent  for  any 
costs  occasioned  by  such  intervention. 

Skctio.v  '24.  lOvery  |)arty  entitled  to  make  and  file  such 
c;ertifieate  and  aflidavit.  upon  recording:  the  same  in  said  office, 
becomes  entitled  to  the  exclusive  use  of  the  trade-nuirk  therein 
described,  so  lontr  as  he  or  his  assi«;ns  continue  to  be  enfjaped 
in  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  the  merchandise  or  description  of 
floods  to  which  it  is  approprir.ted  ;  and  such  riplit  is  assignable 
in  writing';  but  all  assignments  tli(>reof  are  {jood  oidy  auainst 
the  assiprnor  and  his  personal  representatives,  until  lodiieil  for 
record  in  said  office. 

Skction  U.").  The  Secretary  of  State  shall  retain  all  such 
certificates  on  file,  and  cause  the  saim>  and  all  assi^Miments  of 
trade-mark  rip:ht.s  to  be  recorded  at  length  in  his  oftiee.  Copies 
of  the  record  of  any  sueh  certificate,  attested  by  him  under  the 
seal  of  the  .state,  are  prinui  facie  evidence  of  the  riirbt  of  the 
party  filinp:  such  certificate  to  the  exclusive  use  of  the  trade- 
mark therein  described  for  the  periods  limiteil  in  the  preceding 
section. 

Skction  20.  Whoever  knowingly  and  wilfully  counterfeits, 
'»r  causes  to  be  counterfeited,  any  private  stamps,  labels  or  trade- 
mark.s.  u.sed  by  a  mechanic  or  manufacturer  al)out  the  sale  of 
his  poods,  with  intent  to  defraud  the  purchaser  or  numufaeturer; 
or   Hells    such   4;oods    wfth    such    counterfeit    stamps     labels    or 


maim:    KTATl?TKK.     .  085 

trademarks  thereon,  knowinfr  them  to  l)e  counterfeit,  without 
diselosiiif,'  the  tact  to  the  purchaser,  shall  he  punished  hy 
imi)ris()iim(iit  for  not  less  tluiii  one  year,  or  l)y  a  tine  not  exceed- 
in|^  f  w <i  hiindr'ed  dollars. 

Section  27.  Whoever  reproduces,  copies,  counterfeits  or 
imitates  any  such  recorded  trademark,  knowlnf]^  the  same  to 
imitates  any  such  recorded  trade-mark,  knouinf?  the  saiiK!  to 
feit  or  indtation  to  floods  resemhling,  or  designed  to  resemble, 
those  to  which  such  trade-mark  is  so  a[)propriated,  shall  pay 
the  owner  of  such  trade-mark  doul)le  damages,  besides  such 
sum,  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars,  as  the  court,  before 
which  the  action  is  brought,  orders  to  be  added  to  the  damages 
found  by  the  verdict  or  judgment. 

Section  28.  Whoever  fraudulently  and  with  intent  to  deceive, 
affixes  any  trade-mark  recorded  under  section  twenty-five  or 
any  such  imitation  tJiereof  as  is  calculated  to  deceive,  to  any 
goods,  receptacle  or  i)ackage  similar  in  descriptive  properties 
to  those  to  which  such  trade-mark  is  appropriated,  or  who 
fraudulently  and  with  intent  to  deceive,  places  in  any  receptacle 
or  package  to  which  is  lawfully  affixed  a  recorded  trade-mark, 
goods  other  than  those  which  said  trade-mark  is  designed  and 
appropriated  to  protect ;  or  who  fraudulently  and  with  intent 
to  deceive,  deals  in  or  keeps  for  sale  any  goods  with  a  trade- 
mark fraudulently  affixed,  as  above  described,  or  any  goods 
contained  in  any  j^ackage  or  receptacle  having  a  lawful  trade- 
mark, ])ut  not  being  such  goods  as  said  trade-mark  was  designed 
and  appropriated  to  protect,  shall  be  fined  not  more  than  five 
hundred  dollars,  or  imprisoned  not  more  than  thirty  days. 

Section  20.  This  chapter  does  not  abridge  rights  to  any 
existing  trade-marks,  whether  the  same  are  hereafter  recorded 
or  not,  nor  any  remedies  or  rights  of  action  otherwise  or  hereto- 
fore existing  in  favor  of  owners  of  trade-marks. 

Sec.    17,    Chap.    117,    R.    S.    100.3. 

The  Secretary  of  State  shall  receive  for  filing  and  recording 
a  certificate  of  trade-mark,  three  dollars;  for  recording  assigii- 
ment  of  trade-mark  rights,  one  dollar. 

Elaine  also  lias  an  act  for  the  protection  of  the  bottles  u.sed 
in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  mineral  water,  soda  water,  and 


686  APPENnix  K. 

similar  packages;  socs.  ^a-Iit],  c.  ;{*.),  H«>viso(l  Statutes  of  1S83, 
as  anu'iuh'il  with  an  additional  section  in  Chap.  125.  General 
Laws  185)1. 

KOKM  OF  Ari'I.U  Al  ION    Foil    KKGISTRATIoN. 

Sworn    Stati-nn-nt    ucctunpniiyinj;    ft    ,    filtd    in    lu-ODrdanou    witli 

the   laws  of  tlic   Stato  of  : 

I,  ,  do  hen'bv  ct-rtify  that  tho  ,  ci.unttrparts  or  fac-HimilfK 

of  which  are   filfd   lu'rcwitli,   i»   Hh'd  on   hfliuif   of — ,  doin;;   l>UHini'HH 

in  ,  »n  tin'  Stato  oi  .     That   tlu'  particnhtr  claHS  of  mprolian- 

ditk'  and  tlio  parti-.-uhir  d«'scripti«)n  of  tin-  ;ioods  t<i  which  it  lia.n  hccn  or 
18  intvnilfil   to    l>o   appropriatfd    iH  . 

That  th»'  I'sst'ntial  fi-atun-  of  the  said  consistH  of  . 

That   Raid   haH   ln't-n    in   \isi'   hv   tlif   ahovc*    named   ,  aince 


That   thf  8aid  has   tin-   ri;,'lit   to   tlic   use   of    thi-    sanu-,   and   Uuik 

no  otluT  person,  firm,  ass«»ciation  or  cori)oration  has  tlie  ri^ht  to  such 
us«',  I'ithrr  in  tlic  identical  form,  or  in  any  sueli  near  resemlilance  thereto 
as  may  he  calculated  to  ('eceive.  and  that  tlie  fae-siniilc  co|»ies  or  counter- 
parts filed   lurevvith    are   true  and   corrt-ct. 

(Signature)    . 

State  of  , 

County  of  ,  88: 

On  this  day  of  A.   D.   10 — ,  personally  appeared 

the  ahove  named  and  made  oath   that  the  forej,'oing  statement  by 

him  suiiserilied   is  true. 

Heforc   me. 

M.VKVLAND. 

AN  ACT  to  protect  associations  and  unions  of  workin;nnen  and  per- 
sons in  their  lahels.  tradenuirks  and  forni-<  of  ailvi-rtisin;,'  and  to 
punish    «tirenders    for    a    viidation    of    the    same. 

Skction  1.  Br  it  enacted  bjf  the  Cenrrnl  Assonhhj  of  Mary- 
land, That  whenever  any  person,  assoeiation  or  union  of  workinp- 
inen  have  adopted,  or  shall  hereafter  adopt  for  thfir  protection 
any  lal)el.  trademark  or  form  of  advertisement  announein«?  and 
denotint;  that  floods  to  which  sudi  lahel,  trademark  or  form 
of  advertisement  shall  or  may  he  attached,  were  mainifacturcd 
by  such  person  or  hy  a  memher  or  members  of  such  association 
or  union,  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  any  person  or  corporation 
to  counterfeit  or  imitate  sueh  label,  trademark  oi-  form  of 
advertisement,  ev«'ry  i)erson  violating'  this  section  shall  be  deemed 
ffijilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  shall  ii|)on  conviction  by  any 
court   having:   criminal    jurisdiction    be    punished    l)y    imprison- 


MMni-ANI)    STVTI'TKS  687 

iiiciit  ill  till'  i-ity  or  rniiiity  jail  i'nv  not  l('s.s  than  three  months 
nor  more  tlian  one  year  or  liy  a  line  of  not  h'ss  than  om-  hundred 
dolhirs  nor  niore  than  live  hundrcil  dolhirs.  or  l)otli,  in  the 
discretion  of  tin-  court. 

Section'  2.  And  he  it  (Hudcd,  'I'hat  every  |)erson.  ('or[)ora- 
tion  or  association  who  shall  use  any  counterfeit  or  imitation 
of  any  lahel,  trademark  or  form  of  advertisement  of  any  such 
person,  union  or  association,  knowing,'  the  same  to  he  counterfeit 
or  imitation,  (he)  shall  he  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  shall 
on  conviction  hy  any  court  having'  criminal  juris<liction  he 
punished  hy  imprisonment  in  the  city  or  county  jail  for  a  term 
of  not  less  tlian  one  month  nor  more  tlian  one  year,  or  hy  a 
fine  of  not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars  nor  more  than  two 
hundred  dollars,  or  hoth,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court,  and  the 
burden  of  i)rovin^'  that  the  defendant  did  not  know  the  true 
character  of  the  s^iid  lahel.  trademark  or  form  of  advertisement, 
and  that  he  used  the  same  in  izood  faith  shall  he  on  the  defendant. 

Section  3.  And  he  it  enacted.  That  every  such  person, 
association  or  union  that  has  heretofore  adopted,  or  shall  here- 
after adopt,  a  lahel.  trademark  or  form  of  advertisement  as 
aforesaid,  may  file  the  same  for  record,  in  the  office  of  the 
Secretary  of  State  hy  leaving  two  copies,  counterparts  or 
fac-similes  thereof,  with  the  Secretary  of  State  and  said  Secretary 
shall  deliver  to  such  person,  association  or  union  so  filing  the 
same  a  duly  attested  certificate  of  the  record  of  the  same  for 
which  he  shall  receive  a  fee  of  one  dollar,  such  certificate  of 
record  shall  he  in  all  suits  and  prosecutions  under  this  act 
sufficient  proof  of  the  adoption  of  such  lahel.  trademark  or 
form  of  advertisement,  and  of  the  right  of  said  person,  associa- 
tion or  union  to  adopt  the  same,  no  lahel  shall  he  recorded, 
that  prohahly  would  he  mistaken  for  a  lahel  already  of  record, 
of  which  question  the  said  Secretary  shall  h<>  the  judge. 

Section  4.  And  he  it  enacted.  That  every  such  person, 
association  or  union  adopting  a  lahel.  trademark  or  form  of 
advertisement  as  afoi-esaid.  may  proceed  hy  suit  to  enjoin  the 
manufacture,  use.  display  or  sale  of  any  such  counterfeit  or 
imitation,  and  all  courts  having  jurisdiction  thereof  shall  grant 
injunctions  to  restrain  such  manufacture,  use,  display  or  sale, 


f)8S  ArPKNDIX    V. 

nml  shall  nwnrd  the  complainant  in  such  suit  such  damage 
resulting  froni  such  wrongful  inaiujfacturc,  use.  display  »)r  sale, 
ns  may  by  said  court  he  deenicd  just  and  reasonable,  according 
to  the  evidence  in  the  cjise,  and  shall  rc<piiri'  the  di'fendant.s  to 
jiay  such  persons,  associations  or  unions,  the  profits  derived  from 
such  wrongful  manufacture,  use,  disfilay  or  sale,  ami  in  adtlition 
to  court  costs,  such  reasonable  attorney's  fees  as  the  coiirt  may 
allow,  and  said  court  shall  also  order  that  all  such  counterfeits 
or  imitations  in  the  possession  or  umler  the  control  of  any 
defendant  in  such  case  be  delivered  to  an  officer  of  the  court,  or 
to  the  coniplainnnt  to  be  destroyed. 

Section  T).  And  he  If  omctrd.  That  every  person  who  .shall 
use  or  display  the  genuine  label,  trademark  of  form  of  adver- 
tisement, of  any  such  person,  association  or  union,  in  any 
manner  not  authorized  by  such  person,  union  or  association, 
shall  be  (U-emed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  shall,  on  conviction 
be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  city  or  county  jail  not  less 
than  one  month  nor  more  than  one  year,  or  by  a  fine  of  not 
less  than  fifty  dollars  or  more  than  two  hundred  dollars,  or 
both,  in  the  discretion  of  tlie  court. 

Section  fi.  Ayid  he  it  mac  fed.  That  any  person  or  persons 
who  shall  in  any  way  use  the  name  or  seal  of  any  such  person, 
association  or  union,  or  officer  thereof,  in  and  about  tlie  sale 
of  goods  or  otherwise,  not  being  authorized  to  so  use  the  same, 
shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  punishable  on  conviction  by 
imprisonment  in  the  city  or  county  jail  for  a  term  of  not  ies.s 
than  one  month  nor  more  than  one  year,  or  by  a  fine  of  jiot 
less  than  fifty  dollars  nor  more  than  three  huiidr(>d  dollars,  or 
l)oth,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

Section  7.  ^\)id  Itc  It  nui'trd,  Tliat  all  tlie  acts  and  parts 
of  acts  inconsistent  with  this  act  arc  licrchy  rcpcalcil. 

Section  8.     And  hr  it  cnn(t((I,  That  tliis  ad  shall  take  cfTect 
from  the  date  of  its  passage. 
Af)i)roved  April  4th.  lSf»2. 

Maryland  also  has  an  act  for  the  i)rotection  of  the  bottles, 
jugs.  kegs,  etc.,  of  maniifacturers  and  dealers  in  mineral  water 
and  other  beverages;  sees.  'JOl-'JOfi.  Article  27.  ricncral  Laws, 
amended  by  Acts  ot  1HML>,  Chapter  JCJ. 


MASSALl I  LSIOTTS    STATUTES. 


689 


As  to  the  it"(|uisites  of  a  hill  in  <M"ity  founded  on  registra- 
tion under  tlie  Act  of  1892,  s.-c  Stnilh-Di.ron  Co.  v.  Stevens,  ')[) 
Atl.  Hep.  401. 

AlM'I.K'AriO.N    I'OK    rilK   KKCISTitATlON   OF   A  TKAliK-MARK, 
LAHKL,   OK   KOUM   OK   ADN'KK'IISKMKNT. 
To  the  tictrrtarif  of  titatv,  / 

Xl,c    whose    ad(lri'88    ih    ,    in    tin-    Stutc    of    ,    and 

whose  business  or  trade  is ,  has  adopted  a  trade-mark,  label  or  form 

of  advertisenn-nt  and  hereby  makes  application  to  the-  Secretary  of 
State  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  for  the  re{,'iHtration  of  the  same,  in 
eom|)liaiiec  with  tlie  provisions  of  Chapter  '.\'u  of  thi'  Laws  of  Mary- 
land  of    1S!)2. 

The  said  applicant  iierewitli  files  two  fac-similes  of  said  trade-mark, 
label  or  form  of  advertisement  and  announces  that  the  same  is  to  be 
attached   to ,  which  ^oods  are  manufactured  by  the  said  applicant. 

In   witness    whereof,   I,  Vice-Presidrnt    (or   other   proper   officer] 

of  said  corporation,  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  aflixed  the  seal  of 
said  corporation,  this  day  of  ,    !!• — . 

[Seal.  J 

State  of  , 

Countv  of  ,  ss: 


Personally    appeared    before    m-,    the    undersi^med,    a    Notary    Public    in 

and   for   the  State   and   county   aforesaid,   the   above   named    ,   who 

has  signed  the  aforegoing  ajjplication,  and  made  oath  in  due  form  of  law 
that  he  is  the  proper  officer  to  sign  the  same,  and  that  the  matters 
and   facts   stated   in    said  ai)plication.   are  true. 

Witness,  my  hand  and  Notarial  Seal,  this  day   of  ,  10 — . 

[Seal.]  Notary    Public. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

Chapter  72,  Revised  Laws. 
DEFINITIONS. 

Section  1.  The  following  words  shall,  in  addition  to  their 
ordinary  meaning,  haA'e  the  meaning  herein  given : 

The  word  "name"  or  ''nauK^s"  in  sections  two.  three,  six. 
ten,  twelve,  fourteen,  fifteen,  sixteen,  eighteen,  nineteen  and 
twenty-one  of  this  chapter  includes  "letters,"  "marks," 
"devices"  and  "figures." 

The  word  "person"  or  "pcrsitiis"  in  sections  two,  seven,  nine, 
fourteen  to  twenty,  inclusive,  and  twenty-three,  includes  "firm," 
"association,"  "union,"  and  "corporation." 


690  Ai'iMNnix  F. 

The  woril  "hoots"  in  svi-tion  four  iiu-hulos  "linlf  boots." 
"slioos."  "pumps."  "saiulals."  "slippers"  and  "overshoes." 

The  word  "hihel"  or  "hrhels"  in  sections  six  to  twelve, 
inelusive.  iMclutle><  " tradfinark,"  "stiiiii|i"'  or  '•form  of  adver- 
tisement.'" 

The  word  "Ixveraire  "  or  "  lii'Vera^es"  in  M'etions  fifteen  to 
eighteen,  inehisive.  inehnh-s  also  "milk."  "cream."  "soda 
water,"  "nnneral"  or  "aerated  waters,"  "ale."  "hcer," 
"llinjjer  ale"  or  "similar  heverapes. " 

The  word  "ve.s.sel"  or  "vessels"  in  sections  fifteen  to  eigrliteen, 
inclusive,  includes  "cans."  "bottles."  "siphons."  "fountains" 
and  "boxes." 

The  word  "i*an"  or  "cans"  in  secti(tns  nineteen  to  twenty- 
three,  inclusive.  in<-lu(lfs  ".iu^rs."  "bottles"  and  "jars." 

LABELS    AND   TI^^nK^^\UKS. 

Skction  "2.  When  a  person  ust>s  any  peculiar  name  upon 
or  connectetl  with  an  article  niainifactured  or  sold  by  him  to 
desipnate  it  as  an  article  of  a  peculiar  kind  or  (piality.  or  as 
manufactured  by  him,  no  other  per.son  shall  without  his  consent 
use  the  same  or  any  similar  name  for  the  purpose  of  falsely 
representinp  an  article  to  have  been  nmnufaetured  by  or  to  be 
of  the  same  kind  or  (piality  as  those  niainifactured  or  sold  by 
the  person  ri«rht fully  usinpr  such  name. 

Section  3.  "Wlioever  violates  the  provisions  of  the  preceding 
section,  and  whoever  knowingly  sells  or  exposes  for  sale  an 
article  havinp  a  name  upon  or  connected  with  it  in  violation 
of  the  provisions  of  the  preceding  section,  .shall  be  liable  in  an 
action  of  tort  to  any  party  aggrieved  thereby  for  all  damages 
actually  incurred. 

Section  4.  Kvery  manufacturer  of  leather  or  boots  shall 
liave  the  exclusive  ri^'lit  of  stamping  the  articles  manufactured 
by  him  with  his  name  and  the  name  of  the  place  of  manufacture; 
and  such  stamping  shall  be  considered  as  a  warranty  that  the 
article  stampetl  is  merchantable,  made  of  good  materials  and 
well  manufactured;  and  such  article  shall  not  be  considered 
merchantable  unless  .so  stamped. 

Section  o.  A  person  who  carries  on  busine.s.s  in  this  common- 
wealth shall  not  assume  or  continue  to  use  in  his  business  the 


MASSACHUSETTS   STATUTES.  GKl 

name  of  a  person  foi-mcrly  coimcclcd  with  him  in  partnerKhip 
or  the  name  of  any  otlier  person,  either  alone  or  in  conneetion 
vvitli  his  own  or  with  any  other  name  or  desif^nation,  without 
the  eonst'iit  in   writing  of  sueh  person  or  of  his  legal  rei)reseu- 

talivt's. 

Section  (».  The  supreme  judicial  court  oc  the  superior  court 
•sliall  have  jurisdiction  in  ecjuity  to  restrain  the  use  of  names 
or  lal)c'ls  in  viohition  of  the  ])rovision.s  of  this  cha[)t('r. 

Section  7.  Any  pci-sou  may  adojjt  a  label,  not  previously 
owned  or  adojjtcd  hy  any  other  person,  and  file  sueh  label  for 
record,  by  depositing  two  coj)ies  or  fac-simiie.s  tiiereof  in  the  office 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  ( 'ommonwealth,  one  of  which  copies  or 
fac-similes  sludl  be  att.iched  by  the  Secretary  of  tlie  Common- 
wealth to  the  certificate  of  record  hereinafter  referred  to.  The 
api)licant  shall  file  with  the  label  a  certificate  specifying  the 
name  of  the  person  so  filing  sucli  label,  his  residence,  situation 
or  place  of  business,  the  kind  of  merchandise  to  which  such 
label  has  been  or  is  intended  to  be  appropriated,  and  the  length 
of  time,  if  any,  during  which  it  has  been  in  u.se.  If  such  label 
has  not  been  and  is  not  intended  to  be  used  in  connection  with 
merchandise,  the  particular  purpose  or  use  for  which  it  has  been 
or  is  intended  shall  be  stated  in  the  certificate.  Such  certificate 
shall  be  accompanied  l)y  a  written  declaration,  verified  under 
oath  by  the  person,  or  by  a  member  of  the  firm  or  by  an  officer 
of  the  a.s.sociation,  union  or  corporation,  by  which  it  is  filed, 
tiiat  the  party  so  filing  such  label  has  a  right  to  use  the  same,  and 
that  no  other  person  has  the  right  to  such  use,  either  in  the 
identical  form  or  in  any  such  near  resemblance  thereto  as  may 
be  calculated  to  deceive,  and  that  flu-  copies  or  fac-similes  filed 
therewith  are  true.  The  Secretary  of  tlio  Tommonwealth  .shall 
issue  to  the  person  depositing  such  label  a  certificate  of  record, 
under  the  seal  of  the  commonwealth,  and  the  Secretary  shall 
cause  the  certificate  to  be  recorded  in  his  office.  Such  certificate 
of  record  or  a  certified  copy  of  its  record  in  the  office  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  roinmonwealth.  shall  in  all  suit.>:  and  prose- 
cutions under  the  provisions  of  this  section  and  of  sections  eight 
to  fourteen,  inclusive,  be  sufficient  proof  of  the  recortling  of 
such   label  and    of   the   existence   of   the   person   named   in   the 


602  Ari'KNDIX    K. 

oortificate.  The  fro  for  liliii^r  llu"  «'ortifu'atf  aii«l  ilcclaratioii 
ami  issuing  th«-  irrlitiratr  of  ivcord  sliall  lu-  two  ilollars.  No 
lulu'l  shall  lu'  ri'c-ordotl  wliirh  i-oulil  n-asonably  be  iiiistakiii  for 
H  lalK'I  alnatly  on  riTcinl. 

Section  i<.  'riu-  Sccrrtary  of  tho  Cominonwcaltli  is  authori/.t-il 
to  make  rejfulatioiis.  and  pri'si-rihi'  forms  for  the  tiling'  of  labels, 
umler  tlu'  provisions  of  thi-  jircccdin};  sertion. 

Section  !•.  Tlu'  supn-nu'  judicial  I'ourt  or  tlir  superior  eourt 
shall  have  jurisdietion  in  equity  to  restrain  the  inanufaeture. 
use  or  sale  of  eoiniterfeits  or  imitations  of  a  lat>cl.  n-fordrd  as 
providetl  in  scetion  s«'Vcn.  sluiU  award  dania^'fs  resulting  from 
sueh  wronirful  nuinufaeture.  use  or  sale  and  shall  require  the 
defendant  to  pay  the  owner  of  such  lalid  tlie  profits  derived 
from  sueh  wron^'ful  nunnifaeture.  use  or  sale;  and  nuiy  also 
order  that  all  sueh  counterfeits  or  imitations  in  his  possession 
or  control  be  delivered  to  an  oHiccr  of  tlie  eourt.  or  to  the 
complainant  to  be  tle.stroyed.  If  the  eom|)lainant  is  m)t  incor- 
porated, suits  under  the  provisions  of  sections  .s«'Vfn.  cijjht  and 
ten  to  fourteen,  inclusive,  may  be  connnenced  and  pro.secuted 
by  an  officer  thereof,  on  behalf  of  and  for  the  use  of  the  com- 
plainant. Every  member  of  a  comjilainant  lirm.  association 
or  union  shall   lie  liable   for  costs  in  any  siirli   |)roc('c(linp. 

Section  1<>.  Whoever  i<iiowin^'!y  makes  or  uses  any  counter- 
feit or  imitation  of  any  lawful  name  or  lalicl  or  causes  the  same 
to  be  made  or  u.sed,  or  .sells,  offers  for  sale,  deals  in  or  has  in 
his  possession  with  intent  to  use,  sell,  offer  for  sale  or  deal  in 
the  same,  or  aflixes.  impresses  or  uses  such  counterfeit  or  imitation 
upon  any  ^'oods.  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than 
two  hundred  dollars  or  by  im[»risonment  for  not  more  than 
one  year,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment. 

Section  11.  Wlioexcr.  with  intenf  to  defraud,  knowinirly 
casts,  engraves  or  manufactures,  or  has  in  his  |tosse.ssi(m,  or 
buvs,  sells,  offers  for  sale,  or  deals  in.  a  die.  plate,  brand,  nmld. 
or  en^ravinjr  on  wood,  stone,  metal  or  other  substance,  of  a 
label  recorded  pursimnt  to  the  statutes  of  this  eonnnonw(>alth, 
or  a  printing'  press,  or  types  or  other  tools,  machines  or  materials 
provide(l  or  prepared   for  makinj?  a  counterfeit  or  imitation  of 


MASSAciiisKTTs  sTATi  ri>;.  003 

siicli  lal)oI,  sliall  l)f'  [tniiisli('(l  l)y  a  liiir  of  iiof  moi-f  lliari  two 
limidrctl  tlollacs  oi*  \)\  iiii[icisniiirM'iif  tor  not  iiiorr  tli;iii  (Uir 
year,  <ti"  li\'  Ixitli  such  liiii-  ;iii(l  iiii|iris<)iiiiH-iit. 

Skctidn  ]'2.  Wlidixcr  knouin^Hy  sells  or  (•X|k)sos  for  sale 
floods  upon  wliiili  any  lawful  iiaiix'  or  ialx-l  or  any  counterfeit 
()!•  iiiiilatioii  tlicrcof  is  unlawfully  atlixcri.  impresscfj.  or  used 
shall  he  punishcij  li\'  a  line  of  not  more  than  two  hundred  dollars 
or  hy  iniprisonineiit  for  not  more  than  one  year,  or  1)\'  lioth  such 
fine  and  inipi-isoninenl. 

Skctiok  1:^  Whoever,  with  intent  to  (lefr-aiKl,  knowiuf^ly 
aids  or  ahots  in  the  violation  of  any  of  the  provisions  of  the 
seven  proeediiifj:  sections  shall  he  punished  l)y  a  fine  of  not  more 
than  one  liundred  dollars  or  hy  imprisonment  for  not  more 
than  six  months,  or*  hy  hoth  sucli  tine  and  imprisonment. 

Skctiox  14.  In  any  suit  or  iirosecution  under  the  provi- 
sions of  the  tive  preeedinjr  sections,  the  defendant  may  show 
that  he  was  the  owner  of  such  name  or  la])el  prior  to  its  heing 
tiled  under  the  |)ro\isions  of  section  seven,  and  that  it  has  heen 
wrongfully  nie<l  hy  some  othei*  person. 

Note. — In  a  prosecution  under  this  act,  the  reeital  in  the 
certificate  of  adoption  that  the  mark  had  l)een  in  use  "since 
about  the  vear  1888,"  was  held  sufficient.  ConniwuiccaJtJi  v. 
Rozru,  17(i"Mass.  129,  57  X.  K.  Rep.  223. 

Sections  15-23  relate  to  the  protection  of  vessels  used  in  the 
sale  of  beverages,  and  milk  cans.  Held  to  be  a  proper  police 
regulation  in  ('ominonu'iolth  v.  Auselvich,  186  ]\Iass.  376,  71 
N.  E.  Rep.  790. 

AN  ACT  to  provide  for  registration  of  tho  insiprnia  of  sociotios.  asso- 
ciations and  labor  unions,  and  to  prohil)it  the  unauthorized  use 
thereof. 

Be  it  enacied,  etc.,  as  foUoirs: 

Section  1.  The  insignia,  ribbons.  badee«,  ro.settes.  buttons 
and  emblems  of  an.v  societ.v.  association  or  labor  union  may  be 
registered  in  the  office  of  the  Secretarv  of  the  Commonwealth 
in  the  manner  and  subject  to  the  provisions,  so  far  as  they  are 
applicable,  set  forth  in  section  seven  of  chapter  seventy-two  of 
the  Revised  Laws  in  regard   to  labels;   and   the   Secretary  is 


694  APPENDIX    P. 

hereby  aiithori/rtl  to  iiutkf  n-j^ulatioiis  antl  prescribe  (onus  for 
such  registration. 

Skction  *J.  Wlioovor.  not  boinp  n  niombor  of  n  society,  nsRO- 
ciation  or  labor  union,  for  tbe  pnrp(v<e  of  representing'  that  he 
is  a  nienilH»r  thereof,  wilfully  wears  or  uses  thr  insijrnia,  ribbon, 
hadue.  rosette,  button  or  emblem  thereof,  if  the  same  lias  been 
repistered  in  tbe  ofbee  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Cominonwealth, 
shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more  tlu'tj  twenty  dollars,  or 
by  imprisonment  for  not  more  tliaii  thirty  days,  or  by  lioth  such 
fine  and  imprisonment. 

Section  -i.  Chapter  four  hundred  ;iiid  thii-ty  of  the  Acts  of 
the  year  nineteen  hundred  and  two  and  chapter  two  hundred 
and  seventy-five  of  the  Acts  of  tiie  year  nineteen  liuiidred  an<i 
three  are  hereby  reappealed. 

Approved  May  l:^  1H04. 

Section  4  of  Chapter  l«i2.  Statutes  189;'),  is  a  penal  section  for 
using  counterfeit  trademarks  upon  cigars.  rnd(>r  this  section 
when  tbe  (h'fendant.s  were  shown  to  have  a  |dace  of  busine.«« 
within  the  state,  a  conviction  was  sustained  in  the  absence  of 
any  proof  as  to  where  the  defendants  intended  to  sell  the  cigars 
bearing  the  counterfeit  mark.  Conttnouircalth  v.  Bozcu.  170 
M'.uis.   l'J!».  :u    X.    K.   Rep.   l2*J:i 

Pub.  Stat.  Ch;ip  "•!.  sei-.  1.  providin-^'  that  trademarks  can 
not  be  used  without  the  consent  of  the  owner,  does  not  apply 
to  a  mark  that  is  the  name  of  a  nuichinc  upon  which  there  has 
been  a  patent,  after  the  expiration  of  the  patent.  Dover  Stamp- 
ing Co.  V.  Fclhus,  K;:?  Mass.  1!)1.  U)  N.  K.  Kep.  U).'). 

Section  fi.  Chapter  7fi.  Pub.  Stat.,  forbidding  any  person  to 
"a.s.sume  or  continue  to  use"  in  his  business  the  name  of  a 
person  formerly  connected  with  him  in  partnership,  or  the 
name  of  any  other  person  "without  written  consent."  does  not 
apply  to  a  person  advertising  himself  as  "formerly  with"  or 
"successor  to"  anotlier.     Martin   r.  Iloirlcr,  ir.:5  .Mass.  4fil,  40 

N.  E.  Rep.  7nn. 

In  a  bill  in  e<piity  brought  ])y  a  labor  union,  under  sec.  3. 
ehn|..  402.  Stat.  IHiJf),  it  has  been  held  immaterial  that  the 
defendant's  use  of  tbe  spurious  label  antedated  the  passage  of 
the  act.    Tracy  v.  Hanker,  170  Mass.  2(iG,  41)  N.  K.  lt<'p.  :U)8. 


MASSACHUSETTS   sfATUTES.  695 

tkai)i:.\iai;k  ueoistkation  instructions. 

TllK   COMMONWKAI.TII    Of    MAHHACIIU8KTTH. 

Office   of    the    Secretary. 

The  accompanying'  lilank  form  of  application  is  to  \h'  used  for  the 
registration  of  a  laln-l,  trade-mark,  etanip  or  form  of  advertiHcment  in 
tliia  ollice  un<hT   tiie   hiwH  oi  thiH  Commonwealth. 

The  r«'^'ulations  printed  in  nmall  type  ii])o|i  Huid  a])|ilieation  are  to 
he    carefully    followed    and    ol)Herv<(l. 

Two  fac-HiniilcH  of  the  lahel,  trademark,  stamp  or  form  of  advertiae- 
mcnt,  either  in  the  press-printed  form  as  used,  or  hand-print<-d  in  India 
ink  after  the  manner  of  press  printin},'  upon  bond  or  other  suhstantial 
paper  (not  cardboard),  and  the  statutory  fee  of  two  dollars  for  registra- 
tion are  to  accompany  the  application. 

Do   not  gum   or    fasten   the    facsimiles    in    any    way    to    the    application. 


Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth. 

THE  COMMON'WEALTH  OF  -MASSACHUSETTS. 

Certificate  accompanying'  a- [insert  the  designation,  label,  trade- 
mark, stamp  or  form  of  advertisement,  as  the  case  may  he]  filed  for 
record  in  accordiince  with  section  7  of  chapter  72  of  the  Revised  Laws, 
relative  to  the  adoption  and  registration  of  labels,  trade-marks,  stamps, 
and  forma  of  advertisement. 

Name  or    names   of   the   pTson.   firm,   association,   union   or  corporation, 

\Jf  a   firm,   state  the  fait,  give   the  firm   name  and   the  names  of 

the  persons  comprising  it.  If  an  association,  union  or  corporation,  name 
the  state  under  the  laus  of  irhich  it  is  organized  or  incorporated.  If 
one  or  more  persons  arc  doing  business  under  a  proprietary  or  company 
name,  give  the  name  of  such  person  or  persons  and  add  the  words  "doing 
business  under  the  name  and  style  of,"  then  give  such  proprietary  or 
company    name]    residence,    situation    or    place    of    !)usines8,   . 

Kind  of  merchandise  to  which,  or,  if  not  used  in  connection  with 
merchandise,  then  the  particular  purpose  or  use  for  which  the  [insert 
the  designation,  label,  trade-mark,  stamp  or  form  of  edrertisement,  as  the 
ease  may  be]  has  been  or  is  intended  to  be  ajipropriated,  [if  the  label, 
trade-mark,  stajnp  or  form  of  advertisement  is  applicable  to  merchan- 
dise, give,  as  nearly  as  possible,  in  one  or  tico  words,  the  kind  of 
merchandise.  Do  not  describe  the  composition  or  name  the  parts,  nor 
give  the  chetnical  formula  of  which  the  merchandise  is  constituted.  If 
the  label,  trade-mark,  stamp  or  form  of  advertisement  is  not  applieablc 
to  merchandise,  then  give,  as  nearly  as  possible,  in  one  or  tiro  rrords, 
the  particular  jnirpose  or  use  for  which  it  has  been  or  is  intended  to 
be   utilized]. 

The  essentia!  feature  of  the  [in.'^rrt  the  designation,  hihcl.  trademark, 
stamp  or  form  of  advertisement,  as  the  case  may  be]  consists  of  [give 
Khat  is  considered  to  be  the  essential  feature  or  features  thereof]. 


696  MMT.NniX    K. 

The  Stylo  and  i»«fo  of  tyi>o.  nn<l  color  of  ink  nml  pnpor \*o  vnr'uKl 

itt  ph'Rmirc  [uftr  thr  iron/  "mnti"  ..r  (lit-  iror</«  "iri7/  not"  as  thr  cane 
mat/  hf). 

l^-U'/ih  «»f  timf.  if  nny,  during'  whirli  tin-  \iiiHrrl  thr  (IcHtgualion, 
labrl.  Inult'  mark,  nlamp  »r  form  of  ailirrtiMttnrut,  an  thr  rniir  ntittf  bv] 
linn  iHvn  in  uh«'.  Sinn*  I«7<«''  month,  «/«»i/  '</  mmxth  nml  umr  uhm  adopted. 
or  give  date  KiMcr  trhm  in  tinr]. 

I, ,  [if  a  prrHon.  insrrt  name ;  if  a  mrmUrr  of  n  firm,  itttirrt  metn- 

Itcr'a  name  and  name  ,>f  firm  :  if  an  officer  of  au  asmiriation,  union  or 
rtirporalion,  innrrt  thr  name  of  offirer,  title  of  office,  and  name  of  the 
aaBoriat»on.  union  or  corporation.  Outnidr  of  M'lH.sachuHcttH,  oath  ia 
to  be  adminiittcrcd  hi/  a  CommiHsioner  for  MaHsachnscttH  or  a  yotary 
rublir]   do   1i«T«-1.y   jl.oliin'    in   ncctinlano'  witli    thf   piovisinnn  of   R4'ition   7 

of  cluiitt«T    72    «>f    tin-    lJ«viw«l    l.HWrt    tlint   ,   lui —    [have    or  haa]    a 

rijfht  U»  uw  tin-  [innrrt  the  designation,  Inhct.  trademark,  ntamp  or 
form  of  advertisement,  ait  the  cane  mail  be]  rcfi-rri'd  to  in  the  fon-^oinjj 
ctTtififntf.  Hud  that  no  i>thfr  pi-rwin,  firm,  aHuociation,  uiiiun  or  corpora- 
tion hai*  tlic  rijjlit  to  huiIi  u-*f,  ritlur  in  thi-  identical  form  or  in  any  such 
near  rrwmhiancc  tln-n-to  as  may  he  calculated  to  deceive,  and 

I  furtiier  «leclare  that  the  copicH  or  facsimiles  filed  with  the  for<'- 
j;oinjj  certiti«at«'  are  tru*'. 

In    witncsH   whereof,    I    have   heretti    Hi<rned    my    name    tliis    day 

,if  in   the  year  nineteen   hundred  and . 

[l^iffn  here]. 


-,   8«. 


Till-:    I OMMoNW  KAI.ril    nj'   MASSACIU'SHTT^. 

.  1!)—. 


Then  •iM-r»onaliy    appear,  li    the    almve  named ,    and     made    oath 

that  the  foregoing  dwlaration   l.y    liim  suhserilied    is  true. 
Before  me, 


Justice  of  the  Peace. 

MICH  Id  AX. 

8§  IK.Sl  Sti,   C.    L     1S!»7. 

AN  At  1  to  pmvide  for  tlie  pndeetiori  of  associations  and  unions  of 
workini-men  and  artisans,  or  oth<-r  persons  in  their  I.,ahcls,  Trade- 
nuirks.  and  forms  of  Advertim-ment.  and  to  punish  the  counter- 
feitin;;  anil  fraudulent  use  of  hucIi  lahels,  trademarks  and  forms 
uf  advertiMin;;. 

(11081  I  Skction  1.  Tliat  wJM'ncvtT  any  itrrsoii  or  any  asso- 
riatioM  or  union  of  workin^'nit'ii  lias  licn'toforc  adopted  or  used, 
or  Khali  ImrcafttT  ado|)l  or  use.  any  lalifl,  ti-adfniark.  term. 
<leHifrn,  device  r)r  form  of  advertisement  for  the  purpose  of 
ih'Hipnnliiif.  makinir  known  or  dislinguiHiiing  any  goods,  wares, 


miciik;  \n   srvTiTKS. 


Cy'.\: 


mercliaMdisr  or  othn-  i.iodiicl  of  laltor  as  having'  Ix-cii  made, 
iiiaimractiiird,  produced,  prepared,  packed  or  juit  on  sale  by 
siK'li  person  or  itssoeiation  or  union  of  \voikinj,'iMen  or  l)y  a 
nifiiilier  or  nieinhers  of  such  association  or  union,  it  shall  he 
uidawful  to  countcrrcit  or  imitate  such  laliel.  t  radeiiiarU.  term. 
desi^Mi,  device,  or  form  of  adveiiisement.  or  to  use,  sell.  ofTer 
for  sale,  or  in  any  way  utter  or  circuhite  any  counterfeit  or 
imitation  of  any  such  hdiels.  trademark,  term,  design,  device 
or  form  of  ad\frtisemciit. 

(11682)  SixrnoN  2.  Whoever  counterfeits  or  imitates  any 
such  lal)eK  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertise- 
ment, or  .sells,  offers  for  sale,  or  in  any  way  utters  or  circulates 
any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  such  label,  trademark,  term, 
design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement;  or  knowingly  uses  any 
such  counterfeit  or  imitation,  or  knowingly  sells  or  dispo.ses  of, 
or  keeps  or  has  in  his  possession,  with  intent  that  the  same  shall 
be  sold  or  disjiosed  of,  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other 
product  of  labor  to  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is 
attached  or  affixed,  or  on  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imita- 
tion is  printed,  painted,  .stamped  or  impressed;  or  knowingly 
.sells  or  disposes  of  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  product 
of  labor  contained  in  any  box.  case,  can  or  jiackage.  to  which  or 
on  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached,  aflfixed, 
printed,  painted,  stamped  or  impressed;  or  keeps  or  has  in  his 
possession,  with  intent  tliat  the  same  .shall  be  sold  or  disposed 
of,  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  product  of  labor 
in  any  box.  case,  can  or  package  to  which  or  on  which  any  such 
counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached,  affixed,  printed,  painted, 
st.amped  or  impressed;  or  shall  use  or  display  the  genuine  label, 
trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  of 
any  such  person,  as.sociation  or  union  in  any  manner,  not  being 
authorized  .so  to  do  by  such  person,  union  or  association  ;  or  who 
shall  in  any  way  use  the  name  or  seal  of  any  such  person,  associa- 
tion or  union  or  officer  thereof,  in  and  about  the  sale  of  goods 
or  otherwise,  not  being  authorized  to  so  use  the  same,  shall  he 
deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall  be  punished  as  here- 
inafter provided.  In  suits  or  proceedings  for  damage,  or  for 
equitable  relief  by  or  on  behalf  of  any  such  person,  a.ssociation 
or  union,  on  account  of  the  violation  of  any  provision  of  this 


698  APPENDIX    F. 

net,  it  shall  not  W  lu'i'fssary  to  prove  that  sm-h  violation  was 
knowingly  or  wilfully  foiumittctl. 

(11683)  Section  A.  Any  person,  wht'tlicr  a  incmhcr  of  a  firm 
or  corporation,  or  otluM*wisi>.  who  shall  violate  any  of  the  pro- 
visions of  MH'tion  one  of  this  a«'t,  or  who  shall  knowingly  or 
wilfully  violate  any  provision  of  section  two  of  this  act,  shall 
he  (leenunl  to  have  eonunitted  a  misdemeanor  therehy,  and  on 
eonvietion  thereof  shall  he  punished  hy  a  fine  of  not  less  than 
ton  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  or  hy  imprisonment  in 
the  eounty  jail  for  a  period  not  ('xeeedinp:  ninety  days,  or  hy 
hoth  sueh  fine  and  imprisonment,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

(lir)S41  Skctidn  4.  In  action  at  law  or  procecdinirs  in  equity 
hrotight  on  l)ehalf  of  any  such  association  or  union  which  is  not 
incorporated,  tlu'  same  may  l)e  hrou<rht  in  the  nam(>  of  any 
niemher  of  sueli  association  or  union,  who  has  Ixh'u  duly  author- 
ized so  to  do  hy  .such  association  or  union,  hut  for  the  use  and 
henefit  of  all  of  the  members  of  such  association  or  union: 
f>roriiIt(l,  that  before  conunenciiiLr  sucli  action  or  proceeding;  the 
member  so  authorized  shall  file  with  the  justice  or  clerk  of  such 
court  a  certificate  of  the  president  and  secretary  of  such  asso- 
ciation or  union,  showing'  that  such  authority  has  been  granted. 
Any  criminal  proceeding;  brought  for  a  violation  of  any  pro- 
vision of  this  act.  may  he  prasecuted  by  the  authorized  attorney 
of  such  association  or  union,  in  the  court  where  originally  com- 
menced, but  in  sucli  case  the  fe(>s  and  compensation  of  such 
attorney  shall  be  liornc  and  paid  exclusively  by  such  a.ssocia- 
tion  or  union:  provUl(<L  that  nothing  herein  shall  he  deemed 
to  prevent  the  prosecuting  attorney  from  conducting  any  such 
jirosecution.  or  the  said  authorized  attorney  of  such  a.ssociation 
or  union  from  de[)utizing  a  duly  (|ualified  attorney  at  l.nw  to 
ai>pear  in  his  stead. 

(llGSf))  Skction  T).  10 very  such  person,  association  or  union 
that  lijLs  heretofore  adopted  or  used,  or  shall  hereafter  adopt 
or  use,  a  label,  tradenuirk.  term,  design,  ilevice  or  form  of 
advertisement,  as  (trovided  in  section  one  of  this  act.  shall  file  the 
same  for  record  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  hy  leav- 
inir  twt)  copies,  counterparts  or  fac-similes  thereof,  with  said 
Secretary    .ind  by  flliiiL'  therewith  a  sworn  statement  specifying 


■Mlf;iII<;\V    STATUTKS.  OOO 

tlio  iiaino  or  Tiamos  of  the  person,  assorintion  or  union  on  wliose 
behalf    such    lal)rl.    t  radcin.-ifk.    t.riii,    drsi^Mi,    dcvicf    or    t'onii 
of  ailviM-tiscinent  shall  he  filed,  the  class  of  mcrchaiidisii  and  a 
particular  description  of  the  poods  to  which   it   has  been  or  in 
intended  to  he  ajjpropriated ;  that  the  parly  so  lilint:,  or  on  whost; 
hehalf  such  lahel.   tradeiiuirk,  term,  (h'sipii,   device  or   form   of 
advcrtiseiiieni  shall  he  filed  has  the  ri^ht  to  the  use  of  the  same, 
and  that  no  other  person,  firm,  association,  union  or  corporation 
has  the  rij^ht  to  such    use,  either   in   the  identical    form   or   in 
any   .such    near    resemhlance    thereto    as   may    he    calculated    to 
deceive,  and  tliat  ihe  rac-similc  copies  or  counterparts  filed  there- 
with are  true  and  correct.     There  shall  he  paid  for  such  filing? 
and  recording?  a  fee  of  one  dollar.     Any  person  who  .shall  for 
himvself,  or  on  behalf  of  any  other  person,  association  or  union, 
procure  the  filing  of  any  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device 
or  form  of  advertisement  in  the  ofTfice  of  the  Secretary  of  State, 
under  the  provisions  of  this  act.  l)y  making  any  false  or  fraudu- 
lent  rei)resentations  or  declaration,   verbally   or   in   writing,   or 
by  any   fraudulent  means,  shall  be  liable  to  pay  any  damages 
sustained  in  consequence  of  any  such  filing,  to  be  recovered  by 
or  on  ])ehalf  of  the  party  injured  Ihereliy  in  any  court  having 
jurisdiction,  and  shall  be  i)unishod  by  a  fine  not  exceedincr  one 
hundred  dollars  or  by  imprisonment  not  exceeding  three  months, 
or  by  lioth  such  fine  and   imprisonment.     Said   Secretary  shall 
deliver  to  such  person,  association  or  union  so  filing  or  causing 
to  be  filed  any  such   label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or 
form  of  advertisement  so  many  duly  attested  certificates  of  the 
recording  of  the  same  as  such  person,  association  or  union  may 
apply   for,    for  each   of   which   certificates  said   Secretary   shall 
receive  a  fee  of  one  dollar.     Any  such  certificate  of  record  shall 
in  all  suits  and  prosecutions  under  this  act  be  prima  facie  proof 
of  the  adoption  of  such  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device 
or  form  of  advertisement.     Said  Secretary  of  State  shall   not 
record   for  any   person,  union  or  association,  any  label,   trade- 
mark, term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  that  would 
reasonably  be  mistaken  for  any  label,  trademark,  term,  design, 
device  or  form  of  advertisement  theretofore  filed  by  or  on  ])ehalf 
of  any  other  person,  union  or  association. 

(11686)  Section  6.     Tn  no  case  shall  the  certificate  from  the 
Secretary  of  State,  obtained  in  conformity  with  the  fifth  section 


700  .M*I'KNI>IX    K. 

of  this  art,  Im-  a«iMt'niilil«>  li\  tlif  party  to  wlioiii  tliv'  saiiu'  is 
iissueii. 

(N.  H. —  If  a  i<ii iiuair  is  \\;iiiii-l.  Mtnl  i\s()  (Idllais  ••ii»l  tlirt'i" 
fao-si  miles.) 

Al'I'l.li  Al  ln\     I-(t|:    ItliClsriJATluN. 

Sworn  KtiitciiH-nt  n<-c<)in|ian,>  iii^  ii  [inMiit  thr  tmnl  lalnl,  truth- 
mark,  t<rm,  lirsujM,  liiiisr  i>r  form  nf  adrrrtisrnif  fil ,  hh  Ihr  casr  mai/  br\ 
nietl  in  acfordanor  witli  Ait  NO.  Joii  of  the  Public  Acts  i.f  IH't:..  of 
Michi)n>n. 

I,  ,   [if  a  prrHiiu,  iiisrri  nomf  :  if  <i   vn  nihir  <»/  ii   nnnjxitiii  or  prni, 

intirrt  namr  nml  titld  Ihr  ir<>rr/«  "a  mrtnhrr  >tf  thr  firm  or  copnrtnrr- 
ahip  doing  husinrsK  undrr  thr  nomr  ami  Htt/lr  of,"  thrn  give  the  rum- 
;>any  nnmr,  and  add  "romimsrd  of"  giving  namra  of  thr  members;  if 
an  officer  of  an  aimoriation,  eorporation,  or  uiiiott,  iiiHrrt  namr,  title  of 
«i/^fv  and  name  of  the  asHoeiatinn,  eorporation  or  union]  do  hervhy 
declare  that  tin*  [insert  the  trord  label,  trademark,  term,  drsign,  device 
or  form  of  advertisement,  as  the  ease  mag  be]   counterparts  or   fac-Bimilea 

of    wliiih     an-    fili'd     lu-n-with     is    filed    «»n     lulialf    of    ,    tliut    tlie 

|iarticular  tiass  of  mrrc-liandiHc  and  u  particular  dcHcription  of  the  ;,'ood« 

to   which    it    has    lK?en    or    is    intended    to    he    appropriated    is   tliat 

the  aaid  has  tlu*  ri};lit  to  tlie  use  of  the  same  and  that  no  other 

jx-rson,  firm,  ass<»eiation,  union  or  corporation  has  tlie  ri^^lit  to  such  use, 
eitlier  in  the  i(h-ntieHl  form,  or  in  any  such  near  resemhlance  tliereto  as 
may  he  calcuhitod  to  deceive,  and  tliat  the  fac-simile  copies  or  counter- 
parts   filed    herewith    are    true    and    correct. 

I  .S'l;; u    h ere  j . 

State  of  , 

County  of  ,  Hs: 

On    this   day    of  ,   A.    D.    10 — ,   hefore    me    a    ,   per- 

tMiUally    appean-d    the  altove-named   .   ami    made   oath    that   the   fore- 

jjoinp  statement   by    him   8ub8cril)ed    is  true.  

My   commission  exjiires  ,    10 — . 

MINNESOTA. 

Chapt.r     UJ,    Ceneral    Laws.    ISO.'i. 

TUADII.M  ARKS. 
AN  ACT  to  amend  an  A<1  entitled  an  .\ct  Relatin;;  to  Lahids,  Trade- 
marks and  Advertiw-ments,  and  to  I'rovi<le  for  Their  I'rotection 
and  the  Punishment  for  Counterfeiting  the  Same  or  for  I'sin;; 
Counterfeits  of  the  Same.  Ajiproved  .\pril  Seventeenth  (17th  I 
Ix-in;:  Chapti-r  Twenty-four  (24 1  of  Ceneral  Laws  of  Minnesota 
of    IHO.'J. 

He  t.s'  ninrtrd  Ini  {he  fjrffislntiirr  of  thr  State  of  .)fi>nif^ota: 

Skctiov  1.  That  Kcctioii  1  of  an  act  n-latin^  to  lalids.  tradc- 
inark.s  and  aflvertisemcnts,  and  to  provide?  for  their  protection 


MINNKSOTV    STXTITKS.  70] 

iiiid  tlie  piiiiisliiiiciit.  lor  couiittTtfit  iii^^  tlic  suiiic,  or  tor  usint? 
fomitcrfcits  of  flic  saiin-  hciii^  chapter  twenty-four  (24)  of 
the  (ieiiei-al  Jiaws  of  MiiiiicsotJi  of  one  thousand  ci{;ht  hundred 
ninety-three  (iSiKT, ,  he,  and  the  saiix-  is  lierehy  amended  to 
read  as  foUows,  namely  : 

"Seetion  1.  Pkotkction.  Whenever  any  jxTson,  or  any 
association  or  lunon  of  working-men  has  heretofore  adoi)ted  or 
used  or  shall  hereaftei'  adopt  or  use  any  laltei,  trademark,  term, 
design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  r<»r  the  purpose  of 
desif^natinjr,  nud<iiiLr  known,  or  disf injruishin;:  any  ^'oods,  wares, 
inerehamlise  or  other  iir()(hicl  of  lahor,  as  having'  heeii  made, 
maiuifactured,  produced,  pre[)ared.  paeketl  or  put  on  sale  by 
.siu'h  person  or  association  or  indon  of  working-men  or  by  a 
member  or  mend)ers  of  such  association  or  union,  it  shall  be 
unlawful  to  counterfeit  or  imitate  such  label,  trademark,  term, 
design,  device  or  !"orm  of  advertisement  or  to  use,  sell,  offer 
for  sale  or  in  any  way  uttci*  oi-  circulate  any  counterfeit  or 
imitation  of  eny  such  lalx'l,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or 
form  of  advertisement." 

Skction  L'.  'riiat  section  two  (2)  of  the  act  al)ove  named  be, 
and  is  herel)y  amended,  to  read  as  follows   namely: 

"Section     2.       PeX.VLTY     for     COrNTERFEITING    OR     DE.VLING     IN 

I'orNTERFEiTs.  Whocvcr  counterfeits  or  imitates  any  such 
label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement, 
or  sells,  offers  for  sale,  or  in  any  way  utters  or  circulates  any 
counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  such  label,  trademark,  term, 
design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement,  or  keeps  or  has  in 
his  possession  with  intent  that  the  same  shall  be  sold  or  disposed 
of,  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  products  of  labor  to 
which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  printed,  painted, 
stamped  or  impressed ;  or  knowingly  sells  or  disposes  of  any 
goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  product  of  labor  contained 
in  any  hox,  case,  can  or  package,  to  which  or  on  which  any  such 
counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached,  aflfixed,  printed,  painted, 
stamped,  or  impressed ;  or  keeps  or  has  in  his  po.sse.ssion  with 
intent  that  the  same  shall  be  sold  or  disposed  of,  any  goods, 
ware.s,  merchandise,  or  other  product  of  labor  in  any  box.  ciise, 
can  or  package,  to  which  or  on  which  any  such  counterfeit  or 
imitation    is    attached,    aSBxed.    printed,    painted,    stamped    or 


702  Ai'PKNnix  K. 

impresstnl ;  .sliall  Ik-  puiiislu'il  Ity  a  fiiu'  of  mil  morf  than  luu' 
hiiiulrpil  (.*l(K)i  dollars  or  1>\  iiiiprisomm-nt  lor  not  more  tlian 
thrt'f  months." 

Skction  a.  That  sti-tion  thr»'t'  (il'  of  said  act  he  ami  the  sijuin' 
is  horehy  anirndiMl  so  as  to  read  as  follows,  namely: 

"Section  '{.  Kiuisticy.  i^vny  sudi  person,  association  or 
union  that  has  heretofore  ado|>tfd  or  used,  or  shall  hereafter 
adopt  or  use  a  lahrl,  trademark,  term,  desi^jn.  device,  or  form 
of  advertisement,  as  j^rovidcd  in  s(M-tion  one  (1  ^  of  this  act,  may 
file  the  same  for  record  in  the  oflice  of  the  Secretary  of  State 
by  leavinj;  two  copies,  counterparts  or  fa<'-similes  ther"of  with 
said  Secretary,  and  hy  tiling'  therewith  a  sworn  application 
spccifyinjr  the  lumie  or  names  of  the  person,  association  or  union 
on  whose  behalf  such  label,  tradenuirk.  term,  desi<:n,  device  or 
form  of  advertisement  shall  be  filed:  the  class  of  merchandise 
and  a  description  of  the  jroods  to  which  it  has  been  or  is  intended 
to  be  api)ropriated :  «tatinp  that  the  party  so  filing  or  on  who.se 
behalf  such  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of 
advertisement  shall  be  filed  has  the  right  to  the  use  of  the  same; 
that  no  other  person,  firm,  association,  union  or  corporation 
has  the  right  to  such  use  either  in  the  identical  form  or  in  any 
such  nenr  resemblance  thereto  as  may  be  calculated  to  deceive, 
and  that  the  facsimile  or  counterparts  filed  therewith  are  true 
and  correct.  There  shall  be  paid  for  such  filing  and  recording 
a  fee  of  one  (1)  dollar.  Any  person  who  shall  for  himself  or  on 
behalf  of  any  other  person,  association  or  union  procure  the 
filing  of  any  label,  trademark,  term,  design  or  form  of  adver- 
ti.sement  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  under  the 
provisions  of  this  act,  by  making  any  false  or  fraudulent  repre- 
sentations or  declaration,  verbally  or  in  writing,  or  by  any 
fraudulent  means,  shall  be  liable  to  pay  any  damages  .sustained 
in  consefpienee  of  any  such  filing,  to  l)e  recovered  by  or  on 
behalf  of  the  party  injured  thereby  in  any  court  having  juris- 
diction and  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  one 
hundred  r*lfK)i  dollars  or  by  imprisonment  not  exceeding  three 
(3)  mf)ntlis.  Said  Secretary  shall  deliver  to  such  person,  asso- 
ciation or  uni<in  so  filing  or  causing  to  be  filed  .my  such  label, 
trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  so 
many  duly  atteste<l  certificates  of  the  recording  of  the  .same  as 


.MIN.SK.SOT.V    STATl/TiCS.  TO.] 

sucli  jxTsoii,  iissociatioii  <ir  union  may  ajt|)ly  for.  for  each  ol 
wliich  certilicates  said  Secretary  shall  roceivL'  a  fee  of  one  ($1.00) 
dollar.  Any  such  certificate  of  record  .shall  in  all  suits  and 
prosecutions  under  this  act  he  sufficient  i)roof  to  the  adoption 
of  such  lahel,  trademark,  term,  desi^ni.  device;  or  fonn  of  adver 
liseinent.  Said  Secretary  of  State  shall  not  n-rord  for  any 
person,  union  or  as-sociation  any  lahel,  trade-mark,  term,  (lesi[,ni, 
device  or  form  of  advertisement  that  would  re;i.sonahly  he 
mistaken  for  any  lahel,  trademark,  term,  desi^ni.  device  or  form 
of  advertisement  theretofore  filed  hy  or  in  hehalf  of  any  other 
jM-rson.  union  or  association," 

Section  4.  That  scctioi'  I'our  C4)  of  said  act  Ix'  and  is  here)\v 
amended  to  read  as  follows: 

"Section  4.  Proiiiijiting  infkixgements.  Every  such  person, 
association  or  union  adopting  or  using  a  lahel,  trademark  term, 
design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  as  aforesaid,  may  proceed 
hy  suit  to  enjoin  the  manufacture,  use.  display  or  sale  of  any 
counterfeits  or  imitations  thereof  and  all  courts  of  competent 
jurisdiction  shall  grant  injunctions  to  r&strain  such  manufac- 
ture, use,  display  or  sale  as  may  he  hy  the  said  court  deemed 
just  and  reasonal)]e.  and  shall  rerpiire  the  defendants  to  pay 
to  such  person,  association  or  union,  all  profits  derived  from 
such  wrongful  manufacture,  use,  display  or  sale,  and  such  court 
shall  also  order  that  all  such  counterfeits  or  imitations  in  the 
possession  or  under  the  control  of  any  defendant  in  such  cause, 
he  delivered  to  an  officer  of  the  court,  or  to  the  complainant  to 
he  destroyed.'" 

Section'  5.  That  section  five  (5)  of  said  act  be  and  the  same 
is  hereby  amended  to  read  as  follows : 

"Section  5.  Pex.vlty  for  .vpproppiatixg.  Every  person  who 
shall  use  or  display  the  genuine  label,  trademark,  term,  design, 
device  or  fonn  of  advertisement  of  any  such  person,  association 
or  union  in  any  manner  not  authorized  by  such  person,  union 
or  association,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  shall 
be  punished  by  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  three  (3) 
months  or  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  one  hundred  ($100)  dollars. 
In  all  cases  where  such  as.sociation  or  union  is  not  incorporated, 
suits  under  this  act  may  be  commenced  and  prosecuted  by  any 


704  Ai'PKNnix  K. 

officer  or  member  of  sucli  association  or  union  on  htlialf  of  and 
for  the  nso  of  smcIi  dissociation  or  union." 

SkctU)N  T).  Tiuit  section  six  (»ii  of  this  ju-t  may  ho  and  is 
luTcby  amended  to  reati  as  follows: 

Sfxtion  6.  Pknaltv  kok  i  naitiiorizki)  rsK.  Any  person 
who  shall  in  any  way  use  the  name  or  seal  of  any  such  person, 
association  or  union  or  oflicer  tluTcof  in  and  about  the  sale  of 
poods  or  otherwise,  not  beinp  authorized  to  so  use  the  same, 
shall  be  pruilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall  be  punishalde  by 
imprisonment  for  not  more  than  three  (3)  months,  or  for  a  fine 
of  not  more  than  one  hundred  (100)  dollars." 

Section  7.  This  act  shall  take  elTect  and  l»c  in  force  from 
and  after  its  passage. 

Approvetl  ?\'bruary  l?:^rd.  1805. 

(i.'ii.Tal   Statut.s.    1S04. 

Section  G908.  Any  person  or  persons  ^vho  shall  knowingly 
and  wilfully  forge  or  counterfeit,  procure  to  be  forged  or 
counterfeited,  any  representation,  likeness,  similitude,  copy  or 
imitation  of  the  private  stamps,  })rands.  wrapper,  label  or  trade- 
mark, usually  affixed  by  any  mechanic,  manufacturer,  druggist, 
merchant  or  tradesman,  to  and  upon  the  goods,  wares,  merchan- 
dise or  preparation  of  said  mechanic,  manufacturer,  druggist, 
merchant  or  tradesman,  with  intent  to  pass  ofT  any  work,  goods, 
manufacture,  compound  or  preparation,  to  which  such  forged  or 
counterfeited  representation,  likeness,  similitude,  copy,  or  imita- 
tion is  affixed,  or  intended  to  be  affixed,  as  the  work,  goods, 
manufacture,  compound  or  preparation  of  such  mechanic  manu- 
facturer, druggist,  merchant  or  tradesman,  shall,  upon  con- 
viction thereof,  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall 
be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  .jail  for  a  period 
[of]  not  less  than  six  months,  nor  more  than  twelve  months, 
or  fined  not  more  than  five  thousand  <l()ll;irs. 

Sfc'Tion  nriOO.  Any  [)erson  or  persons  who  shall,  with  intent 
to  defraud  any  jx-rson  or  p"rsons.  body  corporate  or  politic. 
have  in  his  or  their  possession  any  die  or  dies,  plate  or  plates, 
brand    or   brands,    enirraving   or   engraving's   rtr    printed    labels, 


MIN.VHSOTA    STATUTES.  705 

stamps,  inipriiits.  \\raj)p('r,  or  trademarks,  or  any  representation, 
likeness,  siiiiilitiule,  copy  or  imitation  of  the  private  stamps, 
imprint,  hraml,  wrapper,  label,  or  trademark  usually  affixed  by 
any  ineelianie,  mainifaeturer,  druggist,  merchant  or  tradesman, 
to  or  upon  articles  made,  manufactured,  prejtared  or  compounded 
by  him  or  them,  for  tlie  purpose  of  making  impressions  or 
selling  the  same  when  made,  or  using  the  .«ame  upon  any 
other  article  made,  manufactured,  prepared  or  compounded,  and 
pa.>*sing  the  same  off  upon  the  community  as  the  original  goods, 
manufactures,  preparations  or  compounds  of  any  other  person 
or  persons,  body  corporate  or  politic,  or  who  shall  wrongfully 
and  fraudulently  sell  or  use  the  genuine  stamp,  brand,  imprint, 
wrapper,  label  or  trademark,  with  intent  to  pass  off  any  goods, 
wares,  merchandise,  mixtures,  compounds  or  other  articles  not 
the  manufacture  of  the  person  or  persons,  body  corporate  or 
politic,  to  whom  such  stamp,  brand,  imprint,  wrappei-s.  label 
or  trademark  properly  belongs,  as  genuine  and  original,  shall, 
upon  convection  thereof,  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor, 
and  shall  be  puiiished  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not 
less  than  six  months,  nor  more  than  twelve  months,  or  be  fined 
not  more  than  five  thousand  dollars. 

Section  6910.  Any  person  who  shall  vend  or  keep  for  sale 
any  goods,  ware.s.  merchandise,  mixture  or  preparation,  upon 
which  any  forged  or  counterfeit  stamps,  brands,  imprints, 
wrappers,  labels  or  trademarks  shall  be  placed  or  aflRxed.  and 
intended  to  represent  the  said  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  mixture 
or  preparation  as  the  genuine  goods,  wares,  merchandise, 
mixture  or  preparation  of  any  other  person  or  persons,  know- 
ing the  same  to  be  counterfeit,  shall,  upon  conviction  thereof, 
be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall  be  punished  by  a 
fine  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars  in  each  case  so  offending, 
and  shall  also  be  liable  in  a  civil  action  to  the  person  or  persons 
whose  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  mixture  or  preparation  is 
counterfeited  or  imitated,  or  whose  stamps,  brands,  imprints, 
wrappers,  labels,  or  trademarks  are  forged,  counterfeited,  placed 
or  affixed,  for  all  damages  such  person  or  persons  may  or  sliall 
sustain  by  reason  of  any  of  the  acts  in  this  section  mentioned, 
and  may  be  restrained  or  enjoined  by  any  court  of  competent 


70G  APPKMMX    K. 

jurisdiction    from   lioinj^'  or  jiirforiiiint.'  any   of   tlu'   acts  above 
inentionod. 

Skction  ()J)11.  Any  person  or  persons  who  sluill.  witli  intent 
to  defniud  any  pers4)n  or  pei-sons.  Itody  cttriiorate  or  |)olitit', 
knowinjrly  aflix  or  ean.se  to  he  atVixed  to  m-  upon  any  hotth-. 
case.  l»ox  or  paekajre  containing'  any  ^oods.  nianufacture  nux- 
tnrc.  preparation  or  compound,  any  stamp,  l>rand,  hd»el,  wrapper, 
imprint  or  trailenuirk.  which  shall  desi^rnatc  such  poods,  manu- 
facture, mixture,  preparation  or  compound,  either  wholly  or 
in  part,  the  same  to  tin*  eye  or  in  sound  t»»  the  ear,  as  the 
won!  or  words,  or  .some  of  the  words,  used  hy  any  other  person 
or  persons  for  desiniuitiiifr  any  jjoods,  maiuifai-ture.  nuxture. 
preparation  or  compound  manufactured  or  j)repareil  hy  or  for 
such  other  person  or  persons,  or  who  shall  knowinply  sell  or 
expase,  or  offer  for  side,  any  such  hottlc,  case,  l)ox  or  i)ackatre, 
with  any  such  stamp,  ])rand,  label,  wrapper,  imprint  or  nuirk 
affixed  to  or  upon  it  shall,  provided  such  person  or  persons  so 
aflRxinp  or  causinfi:  to  he  affixed  any  such  .stamp,  l)rand,  label, 
wrapper,  inijjrint  or  mark,  or  to  sellinp:  or  exposing,  or  offering 
for  sale,  any  such  bottle,  case,  box  or  packapre,  shall  not  have 
been  the  first  to  employ  or  use  such  words,  to  tle.siprnate,  wholly 
or  in  part,  any  poods,  manufacture,  nuxture,  preparations  or 
compound,  upon  conviction  thereof.  ])e  deemed  ^Miilty  of  a 
misdemeanor,  ami  shall  be  i)unished  by  imprisonment  in  the 
county  jail  not  less  than  six  nor  more  than  twelve  months,  or  be 
fined  not  more  than  five  thousand  dollars,  and  shall  also  be  liable 
to  the  party  atrprieved  in  the  penal  sum  of  one  hundred  (h)llars 
for  each  and  every  otTense,  to  be  recovered  l>y  him  in  a  civil 
action. 

Section'  0012.  Any  person  or  persons  who,  with  intent  to 
defraud,  or  to  enable  another  to  di-frauil.  any  person,  shall 
manufacture  or  knowinply  .sell,  or  cause  to  be  mainifactured  or 
sold,  any  article  or  articles,  marked,  stamped  or  branded,  or 
Incased  or  itido-sed  in  any  box,  bottle  or  wrapper  having  thereon 
any  enpraving  or  enpravinps.  or  printed  labels,  stamps,  imprints, 
marks,  or  trademarks,  which  article  or  articles  are  not  the 
manufacture,  workmanship  or  production  <if  the  person  named, 
iridicated  or  (h-noted  by  such  markinp.  stampinp  or  brandinp, 
or   l>y   or   upon   such  engraving  or  engravings,   j)rintcd    labels, 


MINNKSOTA    ST  ATI  'IKS.  T<>7 

stamps,  imprints,  ni.iiks  or  t  i;i(lriii;ii-l<s,  sliiill,  upon  forivift  if)ii 
thereol",  he  dtHMiicd  ^riiilty  of  a  inisdrinraiiof.  ;iml  fm-  siidi  oirmsc 
shall  forfeit  and  pay  a  line  of  two  hiiiidrcd  dollars,  to  be 
recovered,  with  costs,  in  a  civil  action  to  l)c  prosecuted  hy  tlie 
county  attorney,  of  any  c((Uiit\-  in  tlie  state,  in  the  name  of  the 
county  in  which  said  action  shall  he  comnienced,  and  tlie  one- 
half  of  such  recovery  shall  he  i>aid  to  the  informer,  and  the 
residue  shall  lie  applied  tathe  sujiport  of  tin-  poor  in  the  county 
where  such  recovery  is  had. 

Section  f)f)i:^.  A  "trademark"  is  a  mark  used  to  indicate 
the  maker,  owiier  or  seller  of  any  jroods,  wares,  merchandise, 
mixture,  preparation  or  coini)ound.  ami  includes,  among  other 
things,  any  name  of  a  person  or  corporation,  or  any  letter,  word, 
device,  emhleiu,  fi^nire.  seal,  stamp,  diagram,  brand,  wrapper, 
ticket,  stopper,  la})el,  or  other  mark  lawfully  adopted  hy  him 
and  usually  affixed  to  any  goods,  merchandise,  mixture,  prepara- 
tion or  compound  to  denote  the  same  was  imported,  manu- 
factured, produced,  sold,  compounded,  bottled,  packed  or  other- 
wise prepared  hy  him. 

Section  GO  14.  A  trademark  is  deemed  to  he  affixed  to  any 
goods,  wares,  merchandise,  mixture,  preparation  or  compound 
when  it  is  placed  in  any  manner  in  or  upon  either — 

(1)  The  article  itself;  or 

(2)  A  box,  hale,  harrel,  bottle,  case,  cask,  or  other  vessel 
or  package,  or  a  cover,  wrapper,  stopper,  l)rand.  label,  or  other 
thing,  in,  by,  or  with  which  the  goods  are  packed,  inclosed  or 
otherwise  prei)ared  for  sale  or  disposition. 

Section  6915.  An  imitation  of  a  trademark,  stamp,  brand, 
wrapper,  or  label  is  that  which  so  far  resembles  the  genuine 
trademark,  stamp,  hrand,  wrapper  or  label  as  to  be  likely  to 
induce  the  belief  that  it  is  genuine,  either  by  the  use  of  words 
or  letters  similar  in  appearance  or  in  sound,  or  by  any  sign, 
device,  or  the  names  whatsoever. 

Section  6916.  No  testimony  or  evidence  given  by  any  person 
in  any  civil  action  to  which  such  person  may  be  a  party,  or  by 
any  other  witness  in  such  action,  or  on  any  reference  or  pro- 
ceeding which  may  be  had  in  such  action,  nor  any  e^^dence  or 


70s  MM'KM>1.\    1". 

« 

tt'stimoiiy  tU'rivrd  from  tlif  hooks  or  iiiip.-rs  of  sii.-h  i-arty  or 
witm-.ss,  protliifcd  In  liiiii  as  witness,  or  otlnTwis.'.  in  siuh  action, 
or  on  any  ivft'ivncf  or  other  proeeedinjrs  wliicli  may  l)e  liad 
therein,  ean  or  shall  he  used  in  iiny  eriminal  prosecution  a-rainst 
siu'h  party  or  witness,  under  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  act; 
nor  shall  any  party  or  witness  refuse  to  testify  or  furnish 
evitlenee  in  any  civil  action  hy  reason  (d"  any  of  the  provisions 
of  this  ai't. 

Minnesota  also  has  an  art  .•ntille.l  "An  act  to  protect  the 
owners  of  receptacles  used  in  tlu'  sale  of  .soda  waters,  nnneral  or 
aerated  water,  porter,  ale,  eider,  K'inger  ale.  small  heer,  laj^er 
heiT,  Weiss  heer,  heer,  white  heer,  malt  extraets.  other  l)everat2:es, 
nulk.  cream,  ice  cream  and  hutter,"  approved  April  V.h  1905. 

The  statutory  penalty  for  tiie  infringement  of  a  trademark 
can  only  he  recovered  where  the  fraudulent  intent  of  the 
defendant  is  shown.  \\'<itl,iiis  r.  Laiulon.  Wl  Minn.  i^S'K  54  N. 
W.  Kei).  VXl. 

AVPLUATlnN    Foi:    ItKC  ISTKATloX  OK  TltADKMAKK. 
( I'lioHicial  I 
To    (ill    irhotn    it    ntni/   toiiccni  : 

Be    it    kiK.wii,    tliat    .    a    corporation    or^'animl    hiuUt    the    laws 

of   the   State    of   .    and    located    and    doinj:    business    in    the    

and    State  of   .    liiis   adopted    for    it-    us.-   as    tiaijcniaik    for    

of   which    the    following:    is    a    description. 

The   trademark    consists    of    the    word . 

The  followin;:  is  a  enj.y.  fae-simih'  or  ((.iinterpart  of  tlie  said  trade- 
mark,   to  wit: 

Th.-  class  and  partie.ihir  descrijitinn  ni  j^oods  to  wliich  the  said  trade- 
mark   1         :.'•.•   and    is   intended  to   \n-   ap|)ropriated    is.   tlie  clasB,   , 

the    particular    descriptitm    of    froods,   . 

The  said  trademark  has  heen  continuously  \ised  .  in  the  l>\isin.-ss  of 
«aid   corporation   since  ahout   tlie  day  ()f  .    l" 


The    Baid    tradtinark    is    usually    applied    l-y    means    of 


[Sign  here]. 


State  of 
County  of 

,  licin;:   duly    sworn,   says   that  he    is  the .  of    the  corpora- 
tion,    ,    the   applicant    named    in    the    fore^joinj:   statement;    that    he 

verily  believes  that  the  fore^'oin-  statem.nt  is  true;  that  the  said  corpora- 
tion "at  thin  time  has  the  ri^dit  t<.  the  use  of  the  trademark  therein  pre- 
-.•ril..-.l      that    no    other    jierson.    firm,   asHociation    or    cc.rporation    has    the 


MlSSISSIl'l'I    STATl  TES.  709 

rifilit    to   suc'li    use,    citlicr    in    tli<'    identical    furm    (ir    in    any    hiidi    riciir    it- 
HcinliluiK'c  llnT('t()  as  may  la-  caliulattd   to  dcccivf;   und   tliut  tin*   dcHorij) 
tioii    and    copy,    facsiniilf    or    coiintciiiart    filed    tlicr«'\vitli    truly    rfii)rcH«'nt 
tin'    trademark    soiij^dit    to    lie    rej^istered. 

I  »S'  i<j  n    h  rrr  \ . 


Swiiberiiied   and    sworn    to  iiefore    mi-   tliin   day    of   ,    lit — . 


Xotary   Public. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Ann.    Code    18!)2. 

Sectiont  130G.  Evory  ix'i-soii  wlio  shall  know  iiifrly  and  wil- 
fully t'orfio  or  counterfeit,  or  cause  or  procure  to  he  forjjcd  or 
countorrcited,  any  representation,  likeness,  similitude,  copy,  or 
imitation  of  tlie  privat(>  stamp,  wrappc^rs,  or  labels,  usually 
affixed  l)y  any  mechanic  oi-  manufacturer  to.  and  used  by  such 
mechanic  or  mainifacturer  on,  in,  or  about  the  sale  of  any 
goods,  wares,  or  merchandise  whatsoever,  shall  be  guilty  of  a 
misdemeanoi*,  and.  upon  conviction,  shall  be  punished  by  a 
fine  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars,  or  imprisonment  in  the 
county  jail  not  less  than  three  months  nor  more  than  one  year. 

Section  l;}07.  Every  person  who  shall  have  in  his  posses- 
sion any  die,  ])late,  engraving,  or  printed  label,  stamp,  or 
wrapper,  or  any  representation,  likeness,  similitude,  copj',  or 
imitation  of  the  private  stamp,  wrapper,  or  label  usually  affixed 
by  any  mechanic  or  manufacturer  to  and  used  by  such  mechanic 
or  manufacturer  on,  in,  or  about  the  sale  of  any  goods,  wares 
or  merchandise,  with  intent  to  use  or  sell  the  said  die,  plate,  or 
engraving,  or  printed  stamp,  label,  or  wrapper,  for  the  purpose 
of  aiding  or  assisting  in  any  way  whatever  in  vending  any 
goods,  wares,  or  merchandise  in  imitation  of,  or  intended  to 
resemble  and  be  sold  for  the  goods,  wares,  or  merchandise  of 
such  mechanic  or  manufacturer,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor, 
and,  upon  conviction,  be  punished  by  fine  not  exceeding  five 
hundred  dollars,  or  impri.sonment  in  the  county  jail  not  less  than 
three  months  nor  more  than  one  year. 

Sectiox  1308.  Every  person  wlio  shall  vend  any  goods, 
wares,  or  merchandise,  having  thereon  any  forged  or  counter- 
feit stamp  or  label,  imitating,  resembling,  or  purporting  to  be 


710  Al'l'KNIMX    r. 

tho  stamp  or  laln-l  of  any  iiifcliaiiic  or  inamifiifiurcr,  knowiiij^ 
tlu'  sanu'  tc  !>"  fortit'il  or  i'ouiit«'rt"i'it<'<l.  and  n'sniihliii^  or 
|)urportill^r  1<>  !)«•  imitations  of  tin*  stamps  or  laltfls  of  such 
nu'flianif  or  maiuiracturt'r.  \\itli(»ut  disclosinj,'  llir  fact  to  the 
purcliast'r  tluTrctf,  shall  In-  guilty  of  a  misjlciiiranor.  aiiil.  upon 
ronviftion,  sliall  lu'  puiiislu'd  hy  imprisonment  in  tlw  loiinty 
jail  not  exiHvdin^j  throe  months,  or  In  a  line  not  less  than  fifty 
nor  more  than  live  hundred  dollars,  or  l>oth. 

MISSOl  KI. 

Ri'viwd  Stalnt.s.    l!Mi«». 

MARKS    ANn   ISKANHS   OK    FI.OIH.    KTC. 

Section  fifilS.  Hkani>s  not  to  w.  ai.tkhko.  No -fierson  shall 
deface,  remove.  o])literate  or  destroy,  or  cause  the  same  to  l)e 
done,  any  hrand  or  mark  placed  upon  any  paekajre  or  harrel  of 
flour,  meal,  {rrits  or  hominy  by  the  manufacturer  thereof,  with 
intent  to  replace  the  hrand  so  erased  and  removed  hy  another 
and  difTerent  hrand  from  that  of  the  manufacturer;  and  it 
shall  not  he  lawful  for  any  person  to  rehrand  any  such  package 
or  harrel.  so  lon<r  as  the  contents  thereof  remain  the  .same. 

Section  GGl!).  To  m:  KKCORPKn.  Xo  person  shall  numu- 
facture  any  flour,  «:rits,  hominy  or  meal  until  he  shall  have  filed 
with  the  Recorder  of  Deeds  of  the  county  in  which  his  business 
is  conducted,  and  acknowledged  the  same  as  deeds  to  lands  are 
recpiired  to  he  acknowledged,  a  fac-simile  of  each  of  the  brands 
he  intends  to  use,  which  shall  contain  the  colors  to  be  used  in 
applying  the  same,  the  weight  and  quality  of  the  flour,  grits, 
liominy  or  nu'al,  and  tlu'  name  of  the  manufacturer  thereof,  or 
of  some  person  in  his  employ,  and  the  state  or  town  or  place 
and  the  mill  where  manufactured.  Shouhl  any  manufacturer 
«-laim  any  of  his  brands,  or  any  part  of  the  .same,  as  a  trademark, 
the  Hiud  recorder  shall  re<*()i-(I  his  claim,  and  liiciciftei-,  it  shall 
not  be  lawful  for  any  pei-son  to  use  suc!i  brand  :  I'ronded, 
always,  that  this  section  shall  not  be  construed  to  interfere  with 
the  right  to  any  brand  or  trademark  copyrighted  or  [)atented 
irj  pursuance  of  an  act  of  congress. 

Section  GfV2().  Tin:  rsiNc;  ok  nuAND.s  ok  otiiek.s  i-roimbited. 
Xo  person  within  this  state  shall  use  the  name  of  a  mill  or  a 


MISSOIUI    STATITKS.  711 

brand  upon  any  harrcl  or  package  contain ing  flour  made  frorii 
•grains,  or  the  admixture  of  t^rains,  unlesH  tlie  sjime  shall  belong, 
bona  fide,  to  the  jtersoii  using  the  same,  nor  unlexs  the  flour 
upon  whieli  the  same  may  !»«■  used  was  manufactured  l)y  the 
owner  ot"  such  mill   or-  lu'and. 

SiX'TioN  (j&2\.  Kkcouokk's  (iMrniirATKs.  i:vini:Nri;.  It  shall 
he  the  duty  of  each  Recorder  of  Deeds  within  the;  state  to  keep 
a  book  in  his  office,  in  which  to  i-ecord  the  Hour  brands  provided 
for  in  section  <)(!!!),  and  a  certilied  cojjy  of  any  such  record,  by 
the  Hecorder.  shall  be  evideiu'e  in  all  courts  of  the  making 
and  Jiliiij:  ;ind  contents  thereof. 

Section  iU\2'2.  I'kn  \i/iv.  Any  i>erson  doing  any  of  the  acts 
in  this  article  prohibited,  or  omitting  to  do  any  of  the  acts 
hereby  conuuanded,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  for 
each  and  every  offense  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less 
than  twenty  nor  more  than  two  hundred  dollars,  one-half  of 
which  shall  be  paid  to  the  person  who  shall  be  named  as  prose- 
cuting witness. 

TRADEMARKS. 
Section-. 

11780.  \\\tQ  may  adopt  a  trademark  and  liow. 

11790.  Penalty  for  counterfeiting  trademarks. 

11701.  Penalty   for    using   false    die,   brand,   etc. 

11702.  Penalty   for   keeping  or   selling  goods   with   false   brand. 

11703.  Penalty  for  affixing  false  labels,  etc..  witli  intent  to  defraud. 
11794.  What    courts    liave    jurisdiction. 

1170.").     Articles  bearing  false  trademarks  to  be  destroyed. 

1170(5.     What   evidence    shall    not    be    used    in    criminal    prosecutions. 

Section  11789.  Wfio  may  adopt  a  trademark  and  now. 
If  any  mechanic,  manufacturer,  association  oi-  union  of  working- 
men,  or  other  person,  .shall  wi.sh  to  adopt  any  particular  name, 
term,  design  oi'  device  as  his  or  their  tradciiuirk,  to  desigiuite, 
make  known  or  distinguish  any  article  of  good.s,  wares  or 
irierchandise  by  him  or  them  manufactured  or  prepared,  or 
any  union  of  workingmen  desiring  to  designate  or  make  known 
the  place  in  which  union  lahor  is  employed,  he  or  they  may 
write  out  a  description  of  such  name,  term,  design  or  device, 


712  APPENDIX    V. 

ilest'rihinp  tlie  sninc-  accurately,  ami  sipn  ami  acknowlcdfio  the 
same  before  some  oflfiecr  competent  to  take  the  acknowledtj^ment 
of  ileeils.  ami  file  tlu'  sjiiiie.  to^ri'ther  witli  a  fac-simiK'  of  the  iiaiiu". 
term,  design  or  (lc\  ice  for  registration  in  tlie  office  of  the 
SiHTi'tarv  of  State;  said  Scrretarv  sliall  deliver  to  such  mechanic, 
manufacturer,  association  or  union  of  workin^'nuMi  or  other 
persons  so  filing  the  same,  a  dul\-  attested  certificate  of  the  filing 
of  the  sjune.  for  which  he  shall  receive  a  fee  of  one  dollnr;  such 
certilieate  shall  in  all  suits  and  prosecutions  under  this  chapter. 
Ih*  sufficient  proof  of  the  adoption  of  such  lat)el,  tradenuirk  or 
form  of  advertisement,  and  of  the  right  of  such  mechanic,  manu- 
facturer, association  or  union  (»f  workingmen  or  other  persons 
to  adopt  the  same.  Xn  lalul.  ti*;ideiiiark  or  form  (»r  advertisement 
shall  he  registered  that  in  any  way  rcsemliles.  oi-  would  prob- 
ably be  mistaken  for  a  label  or  tra<l(Mnark  already  registcretl ; 
and  no  trademark  duly  registered  in  the  office  of  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents  of  the  United  Stat<'s  shall  be  registered  under 
this  section  by  any  person  other  than  the  owner  thereof.  As 
amended  March  27,  1013  (Laws,  191M.  p.  764),  and  March  22, 
1915  (Laws.  inif).  p.  404 1. 

Xote. — The  amendment  of  sec.  11789  by  the  Act  of  March 
IS.  WWl  sulwstituted  .+r).0{)  as  the  registration  fee  (Laws.  liU.'i. 
p.  76.SV  That  amendment  was  repealed,  though  not  in  expres«» 
terms,  by  the  Act  of  March  27.  1913  (Laws,  1913.  p.  764). 
whicji  restored  the  fee  of  $1.00,  and  that  fee  is  now  charged  by 
the  Secretary  of  State. 

SkCTIOX    11790.       Pr:N'A[.TV    for    COrXTKUFKITlNd    TR ADKM  AUKS. 

Any  |)ei"son  or  persons,  association  or  union  of  workiniimen. 
who  shall  knowingly  and  wilfully  nu>ke.  f<M-ge  or  counterfeit 
any  representation,  likeness,  similitude,  copy  or  imitation  of 
the  jirivate  label,  stamj).  brand.  wrapp<>r.  engraving,  mold  or 
trademark  usuallv  affixi-d  by  any  niaunracturer.  mecjianic. 
merchant,  tradesman,  druggist,  person  or  body  corporate, 
association  or  union  of  workingmen.  or  body  politic  to,  upon  or 
used  in  connection  with  the  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  com- 
pound or  preparation  of  such  manufacturer,  mechanic,  mrrchant, 
tra<lesman.  druggist,  person,  association  or  union  of  workin£'- 
men,  body  corporate  or  politii'.  with  intent  to  pass  off  any  croods. 
wares,    merc-handise,    comi)ound    or   [)rei)aration,   to    which    said 


MISSOl'HI   STVTl'TKS,  7Ki 

forgod  or  (•ouiitcrfeit  reprosontation,  likeness,  siiiiilitu<lf.  r(>\>y 
or  iiiiit.itioii  is  alfixtMl,  oi-  in  coinicftion  willi  wliii-li  llic  same 
may  lie  used  or  intended  to  !»e  so  al'lixcd  or  nscd.  as  tin-  work, 
jjoods,  wares,  implements,  niereliandise,  compound  or  prejiara- 
tion  of  snrli  niaiuiractnrcr,  MU'dianir.  nicreliant,  druitrjjist,  trades- 
man, person  association  or  niiion  of  workinKiiien.  or  l)ody  eor- 
porate  or  politic,  shall.  n|)on  conviction  tliereol'.  It"  deemed 
j^uilty  ol"  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall  he  [uinished  hy  imprisonment 
in  the  county  jail  for  a  period  of  not  less  than  three  months  nor 
more  than  twelve  months,  or  fined  not  less  than  one  hundred 
dollars  nor  more  than  five  thousand  dollars,  or  hoth  such  fine 
and  imprisonment.      ( R.  S.  ISOf),  sec.  10:5GG.) 

Section  1171)1.  Pen.vlty  for  ising  f.vi.se  die.  brand,  etc. 
Any  person  or  i)ersons.  association  or  union  of  vvorkingrmen, 
who  shall,  with  intent  to  defraud  any  person  or  persons,  or  body 
corporate  or  politic,  have  in  his,  her  or  their  possession  any  die 
or  dies,  plate  or  plates,  brand  or  brands,  engraving  or  engravings, 
printed  labels,  stamps,  imprints,  molds,  wrappers  or  trade- 
marks, or  any  representation,  likeness,  similitude,  copy  or  imita- 
tion of  the  private  label,  brand,  stamp  or  wrapper,  engraving, 
mold  or  trademark  usually  affixed  by  any  manufacturer, 
mechanic,  merchant,  tradesman,  druggist,  association  or  union 
of  workingnien,  person  or  body  corporate  or  politic,  to,  upon 
or  u.sed  in  connection  with  articles  made,  manufactured,  pre- 
pared or  compounded  by  him,  her  or  them,  for  the  purpose  of 
making  impressions,  or  selling  the  same  when  made,  or  using 
the  same  ujion  or  in  connection  with  any  other  article  made, 
manufactured,  prepared  or  compounded,  and  passing  the  same 
off  upon  the  community  as  the  original  goods,  wares,  imple- 
ments, merchandi.se,  compound  or  preparation  of  any  other 
|)erson  or  jiersons.  association  or  union  of  workingmen,  or  body 
corporate  or  politic,  or  who  .shall  in  fact  sell  or  use  the  same,  or 
for  the  purpose  of  secreting  the  same  from  the  rightful  owner 
oi-  owners,  or  who  shall  wrongfully  or  fraudulently  use  the 
genuine  label,  brand,  stamp,  wrapper,  imprint,  engraving,  mold 
or  trademark,  with  intent  to  pass  ofT  any  goods,  wares,  imple- 
ments, merchandise,  compound  or  preparation,  or  other  article 
not  the  manufacture  of  the  person,  persons,  association  or 
union  of  workingmen.   or  body  corporate  or  politic,   to  whon\ 


714  M'IMNhix   k. 

suoh  Inhel,  l>raiul,  stamp,  wrapiu-r.  tMinrnvinp.  imprint,  mold 
or  trailomark  properly  heloiif^s,  as  jjeiiuiiio  and  original,  shall, 
upon  convii'tioM  tlu-ri-of,  he  dccmod  ^juilty  of  a  mistlcmcaiior, 
ami  shall  he  punislu'tl  liy  imprisoinni'iit  in  the  county  jail  not 
less  than  three  months  nor  more  than  twelve  months,  or  fined 
not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars  nor  more  than  five  thousand 
ilollars,  or  hoth  sueh  fine  and  imj)risonment.  (R.  S.  1S!)9,  sec. 
10367.) 

Section-  117'.i2.  Pknai.tv  fou  kf.epinc  ok  sellino  goods  with 
k.\i>:k  bhanos.  Any  person,  persons,  a.ssociation  or  union  of  work- 
injrmen,  or  hody  eorporale  or  politit,  who  shall  vend  or  keep  for 
sale  any  jroods.  wares,  iiierehandi.se,  eompounds  or  preparations  ^ 
upon  whieh  or  in  eonnection  with  whieh  any  forced,  imitation 
or  fountert'eit  lahi'l,  brand,  .stamp,  wrapper,  imprint,  cnjjraving, 
bottle  or  trademark  shall  be  placed,  affixed  or  used,  and  intended 
to  re|)resent  the  said  <roods,  wares,  implements,  merchandise, 
eompounds  or  prejiarations  as  the  genuine  goods,  wares,  imple- 
ments. merchandi.se,  compountl  or  preparation  of  any  other  per- 
.son  or  persons,  association  or  union  of  workingmen,  or  hody 
corporate  or  politic,  knowing  the  same  to  be  imitation  or  coun- 
terfeit, shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and,  upon  con- 
viction thereof,  shall  be  i)unisheil  by  a  fine  or  not  les.s  than  one 
hundred  dollars  nor  more  than  five  thousand  dollars,  or  by  im- 
prisonment in  the  county  jail  not  less  than  one  month  nor  more 
than  tw«'lve  months,  or  both,  and  shall  also  be  liable  tu  a  civil 
action  to  the  person  or  persons,  association  or  union  of  working- 
men,  or  body  corporate  or  politic,  who.se  goods,  wares,  imple- 
ments, merchandise,  compounds  or  preparations  is  imitated  or 
counterfeited,  or  whose  label,  stamp,  wrapper,  engraving,  im- 
print, bottle,  or  trademark  is  imitated,  forged  or  counterfeited, 
place<l,  affixed  or  used,  for  all  damages  such  person  or  persons, 
association  or  union  of  w(»rkingmen,  or  body  corporate  or  politic, 
may  or  shall  sustain,  both  by  virtue  of  the  loss  of  profits  and  the 
damage  dr)ne  to  the  reputation  of  llic  said  genuine  article,  goods, 
wares,  implements,  merchnndise,  compound  or  preparation,  by 
reason  of  any  of  the  acts  in  any  section  of  this  cha[)ter  men- 
tioned, and  may  be  restrained  or  enjoined  by  any  court  of  com- 
petent jurisdiction  from  doing  or  performing  any  of  the  acts 
herein  mentioned.     (R.  S.  181)0,  sec.  10368.) 


•missoiki  stati  tks.  715 

Section  1171).'^.  I'knai-tv  fou  akfixinc  kai^sk  labei^s,  etc., 
WITH  INTKNT  TO  DKi'KAii).  Aiiy  pcTsoM  OP  persoiis  wlio  sliall, 
with  intent  to  (Icl'rnud  ;my  person  or  i)ers()ns,  association  or 
union  of  workin^Mmn.  or-  liody  corpoi-iifc  oi-  politie,  knowin(^ly 
affix  or  cause  to  l)e  aiTixed  to  or  upon  any  cjise,  box,  wel),  pack- 
ap:o  or  l)ottle  containiiif?  any  ^oods,  wares,  nierc'iandiso,  com- 
I)ound  or  prei)aration,  any  label,  brand,  stanij),  wrapfx-r,  engrav- 
ing, imprint  or  mark  wliidi  shall  designate  such  goods,  wares, 
merchandise,  compound  or  preparation,  either  wholly  or  in  part 
by  a  word  or  words,  or  by  general  design,  which  shall  be  wholly 
or  in  part  the  same  to  the  eye.  or  in  .sound  to  the  ear.  as  tlu* 
word  or  words  or  tlie  general  design  used  by  any  person  or  per- 
sons, association  or  union  of  workingmen,  or  body  corporate  or 
I)olitic,  for  designing  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  compound 
or  preparation,  manufactured  or  prepared  by  or  for  some  other 
person  or  j>ersons,  association  or  unioTi  of  workingmen,  or  l)ody 
corporate  or  iiolitic.  or  who  shall  K'nowingly  sell  or  expose  or 
offer  for  sale  any  sucli  case,  box,  web.  i)ackage,  or  bottle,  with 
any  such  label,  l)rand,  stamp,  wrapper,  engravincr,  imprint  or 
mark  affixed  to  or  ui)on  it,  shall,  provich-d  such  jjcrson  or  per- 
son.s  affixing  or  causiiig  to  l)e  affixed  any  such  label,  brand, 
stamp,  wrapper,  engraving,  imprint  or  mark  or  so  selling  or 
offering  for  sale  any  such  case,  Imx,  web,  package  or  bottle, 
shall  not  have  been  the  first  to  employ  or  use  such  word  or 
words  or  general  design  to  designate,  wholly  or  in  part,  any 
goods,  wares,  merchandise,  compound  or  preparation,  and  upon 
conviction  thereof  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeaimr,  and  shall 
be  liable  to  the  party  aggrieved  in  the  penal  sum  of  five  ium- 
dred  dollars,  and  for  a  further  sum  equal  to  the  amount  which 
the  aggrieved  pnrty  might  have  received  for  the  same  amount 
of  genuine  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  compounds  or  prepara- 
tions, and  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  on  conviction 
may  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  for  a 
pei'iod  of  not  less  than  one  month  nor  more  than  tAvelve  months 
or  fined  not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars,  nor  more  than  five 
thousand  dollars,  or  ])oth  such  fine  and  imprisonment.      (R.   S. 

isno,  s(M-.  MY.mK) 

Section  llTiM.  What  courts  have  jurisdiction.  All  courts 
of  this  state  having  jurisdiction  of  criminal  cases  .shall  have 


TIG  APPKNniX    F. 

juristliotioii  <if  prococdinp*  for  violation  of  tliis  chapter.  All 
suits  brought  uiulcr  this  rliaptiT  shall  he  l)n)ii;;i»t  l»y  the  person 
or  persons  injure<l  or  (lefrandetl  hy  such  parti«'s;  and  if  hron^jlit 
by  any  nssoeiatioii  or  union  of  uorkiimnieii.  tin-  .suit  may  be 
l»roU}>'ht  in  tin*  iwuiu"  of  tlu*  president  and  secretary,  to  the  use 
and  benefit  of  association  or  corporation,  and  nuiy  thus  sue  and 
be  sued.     (  H.  S.  18!M).  sec.  10370.) 

Skction  117!>.").  Aktici.ks  hkakin*;  kalsf.  tradf.mahks  to  be 
i»t>%THOYKn.  it  shall  he  the  duty  of  any  otTicer  within  the  juris- 
diction of  the  court  luivin«,'  authority,  to  wlioni  there  shall  be 
delivered  any  warrant  for  the  arrest  of  any  |)erson  alle^'cd  to 
have  committed  any  olTense  created  hy  tiiis  chapter,  to  seize 
any  and  all  {joods,  wares,  merchandisi'.  compounds.  i)reparations, 
labels,  brands,  implements,  stamps.  wrap|)ers.  imprints,  cufxrav- 
inps.  platens,  bottles,  dies  or  mokis,  mentioned  or  referred  to  in 
the  complaint,  or  afTidavit  or  information,  upon  which  said 
warrant  issued,  and  upon  linal  convicti<»n  of  the  otTender.  the 
court  shall  direct  such  of  same  as  nuiy  he  counterfeit  to  be 
destroyed,  and  they  shall  be  so  destroyeil  accordingly:  Proiidrd, 
liou'ci'cr,  That  if  said  property  consists  of  wares  and  nu>rchan- 
dise.  which,  in  the  judgement  of  the  court,  are  independent  of 
any  trademark,  of  genuine  and  intrinsic  value,  and  capable  of 
bein?  applied  to  a  usefid  and  beneficial  purpose,  then  and  in 
such  case  all  counterfeit  words,  nuirks,  wrappers,  labels,  em- 
blems, stamps,  brands,  bottles,  imprints  and  si«jns  used  in  con- 
nection therewith  shall  be  first  erased.  ol)literated  and  destroyed, 
and  said  property  shall  be  sold  within  ten  «lays  next  succeeding 
the  decision  of  the  court  thereon,  in  such  manner  as  the  court 
shall  direct,  and  the  proceeds  of  said  side,  less  the  expense  thereof, 
be  aj)plied  to  the  benefit  of  the  school  fund  of  the  county  in 
which  said  seizure  was  elTected.     (R.  S.  ISDi),  sec.  10371.) 

Section  117!Mi.  What  kvidf.ncf.  .'^iiai.l  not  of.  iskd  in  crim- 
inal I'KOSKCiTioNs.  No  testimony  or  evidence  ^iven  by  any 
person  in  any  civil  action  to  which  said  person  may  be  a  party, 
or  by  any  other  witness  in  such  action,  or  in  any  reference  or 
proceedinjr  which  may  be  had  in  such  action,  nor  any  testimony 
or  evidence  derived  from  the  books  or  papers  of  .such  party  or 
witness,  (»r  oth»'rwise,  in  such  action,  or  in  any  reference  or  other 


MLSSOl'KI   STATITHS.  717 

procoodiiif^  uiiicli  may  Ix-  had  t  Inrcin,  can  or  slmll  ho  askod  in 
any  criminal  prosecution  a^'ainst  siidi  part>-  (»r  witiicws,  under 
any  of"  llic  provisions  of  this  <'haj)t('r,  nor  shall  any  party  or 
witness  refuse  to  testify  or  furidsh  evidence  in  any  civil  action 
hy  reason  of  any  of  tlic  provisions  of  this  chapter.  (K.  S.  1899, 
sec.  1();{72.) 

Section  117IK)a.  Any  person  or  persons,  employer,  associa- 
tion who  shall  l<nowin<;ly  and  wilfully  kcc[)  ov  display  in  his 
husiness  any  uinon  card  or  lahci  without  a  c(»iitract  with  such 
union  for  the  use  of  its  union  card  or  lahel,  or  who  shall  refuse 
to  return  said  card  or  lahel  at  the  ex|)iration  of  such  contract 
with  sucli  union,  or  wlio  shall  disphiy  such  union  card  or  lahel 
in  his  j)lace  of  husiiu'.ss  wherein  he  does  not  employ  memhers 
of  such  union  or  who  shall  knowiufrly  and  wilfully  make,  for{;e 
or  counterfeit  any  representation,  likeness,  copy  or  imitation  of 
the  private  card  or  lahel  adopted  hy  any  union  of  workinpmen, 
who  shall  knowinp;Iy  display  in  his  place  of  husiness  any  such 
forged,  counterfeit,  likeness,  copy  of  imitation  of  the  private 
card  or  lahel  or  trademark  adopted  hy  any  union  of  workingmen 
upon  conviction  thereof,  he  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor, 
and  shall  he  punished  hy  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  for 
a  period  of  not  less  than  three  months  nor  more  than  twelve 
months,  or  fined  not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars  nor  more 
than  five  hundred  dollars,  or  both  such  fines  and  imprisonment. 
(Approved  March  22,  1915.) 

Section  2534.  Remedy  bv  injunction  to  exist,  in  wh.vt 
OASES — I'ROiiinrnoN.  The  remedy  hy  writ  of  injunction  or  pro- 
hibition shall  exist  in  all  cases  where  a  cloud  would  l)e  jnit  on 
the  title  of  real  estate  being  sold  under  an  execution  against  a 
person.  partiu:'rship  or  corporation  having  no  interest  in  such 
real  estate  subject  to  execution  at  the  time  of  sale,  or  an  irre- 
parable injury  to  real  or  personal  property  is  threatened,  and 
to  prevent  the  doing  of  any  legal  wrong  whatever,  whenever  in 
the  opinion  of  the  court  an  adequate  remedy  can  not  be  afforded 
by  an  action  for  damages. 

Under  this  section  it  has  been  held  that  damages  are  recover- 
able in  an  action  for  unfair  competition.  Joseph  S.  Baum  Merc. 
Co.  V.  Levin  (Mo.  App.),  174  S.  W.  Rep.  442. 


718  AIMMNOIX    v. 

Sections  'K^2n.4S:{:{.  Kovisod  Statutes  1000.  provide  for  the 
protefti«)M  of  Iwxes  ami  other  ri'C('|)ta('h's,  used  hy  inamifac- 
tiMvrs  of  liotth's,  hotth'rs.  maiiiiraetiircrs  of  and  th'ah'rs  in  min- 
eral waters,  soiUi  waters,  and  other  l)eVeraKe.s.  the  ch'seription  of 
tile  nanu's.  marks,  or  de.si^jnations  to  he  reeorch'd  with  the  re- 
eor(h>r  of  det'ds  of  the  eoiinty  or  eity.  See.  483;i  eontains  pro- 
visions for  seareh  warrants  in  sueh  eases. 

Under  see.  117!>;}  an  information  which  sets  out  and  eontains 
n  copy  of  the  defenchmt's  lal)el,  and  of  the  h\l)el  which  the  de- 
fi'ndant's  hil)el  is  alh'Ked  to  imitate,  and  which  aUepes  that  the 
ih'femhmt's  hihel  imitates  the  other  "in  part,"  hut  does  not 
stati'  what  part  of  tiie  one  is  an  imitation  of  tlie  otlier,  is  fatally 
vlefective.  State  v.  Thicrauf.  KiT  Mo.  4-Jl).  (i7  S.  \V.  K.-|i.  'J!>'2; 
Stoic  V.  nick.  I(i7  Mo.  'ITl. 

An  information  in  a  pro-secution  for  selliiif;  ei<»ars  in  ho.xes 
hearing;  a  counterf«'it  union  lahel,  in  which  a  p:einiine  union  lahel 
was  pasted,  was  approved  in  State  v.  Sicmnauu,  lol  .Mo.  App. 
507,  74  S.  W.  Kep-  638. 

An  Act  of  1S!)3,  for  tlie  |)rott'cti()n  ol'  union  hilx'ls  has  heen 
ln'ld  not  to  !>!'  in  violation  of  articU'  1\',  see.  W.\.  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  Missouri;  and  that  to  sustain  a  conviction,  pjuilty  knowl- 
edjre  hv  the  defendant  must  I)e  shown.  State  v.  liishop,  V2H  Mo. 
H7:>.  :U  S.  W.  Rep.  !). 

The  early  act  against  counterfeiting  trademarks  (Wag.  St., 
p.  1330)  was  held  to  he  designed  for  the  protection  of  trade- 
nuirks.  regardless  of  the  citizenship  of  their  ownei's.  It  might, 
therefore,  he  invoked  in  a  prosecution  hased  upon  a  trademark 
owned  ))V  a  citizen  of  another  country.  State  r.  Gibhs,  ")(>  Mo. 
133. 

That  a  union  lahi-j  wa.s  used  as  a  device  or  trademark  for  .sell- 
ing and  delivering  cards  hy  a  party  who  had  no  right  to  u.se  it, 
sueh  party  was  liahle  to  prosecution  ami  punishment  under  this 
.section,  see  State  v.  St.  Clair,  137  Mo.  App.  183. 

That  the  words  "or  other  heverage,"  as  used  in  sec.  4829, 
refer  to  heverages  known  as  ''mineral  water"  or  ".soda  water," 
see  State  v.  Dintiisae,  10!)  Mo.  434;  State  r.  Hasl.oieitz,  156  S.  W. 
Hep.  045. 

FORM   OF   AIMM.KATION    KOK    KK(  i  iS'l'KATION   OF 
THADlvMARK. 

KOU.M    FOK  fOlJI'oIIA  TKiNS. 

Knoir  all   TTHjt    hy    tlnHc  preacntn: 

Tliat  tlu'  ,  a  (((rporiition   duly   <»r;,'iuii/.i(l   und   ixiHting  under  the 

lawrt  of  the  State  oi  ,  and   liaviii;,'   its  oilier    in   tlic  City  of  , 

fuiid    State,    deHirin;:    to    avail    itwlf    of    tlie    proviHions    of    eliapter    120, 


MISSOURI   STATCTES.  713 

lU'viHrd  StatiitcH  of  l!Mi!t,  iiiiil  iiioir  |)arti('uliirly  of  »<'c.  11780  theroof, 
lius  ailoptcil  for  its  use  a  tiailnnark  to  dcHi^riiatf,  make  kiiDwn  or  (IIh- 
tiiimiiHli  a  cirlaiii  article  of  ^'oodw,  ware  or  incrc-liaiHlim-  liy  it  inaiiufuc- 
turi'd    or   prcparrd,   of   wliicii    the    followiiij^    \h  a    d<>Hcri|ition: 

,    till'    cHHciitial    fcaturr   nf    wliicli    tin-   ,    an 

applied    tu  ;    and   that   tin-    fiic  similes    prcHciitfd    licrcw  ith    arc    true 

and    correct   copies   tlicn-of. 

In   testimony   whereof,   the  Haid  eorjairation   has  eauHcd   thin    inHtrnnient 

to  l)(!  sif^ned  hy   its and  the  8eal  of   Haid  corporation  to   he   hcrreto 

attached,  at  tlie  City  of ,  .State  of ,  thia  day  of  , 

11)—. 

[Seal.]  , 


[I'rcsidttit    or   utluT   duhj    authorized  officer.] 


State  of  , 

("oiinty   of   ,   as: 

On   this  day  of  ,    lit — ,  liefore  me  appeared  ,  to  me 

personally    known,   who,   hein;^  hy   me   duly    Hworn    did  say   that   he   in  the 

of  the  said ,  a  corporation,  and  that  the  seal  allixed  to  the 

fore^'oin;,'  instrument  is  the  corporate  seal  of  said  corporation,  and 
that  said   instrument  was  sif^nied  and  sealed  in  helialf  of  said  corporation 

by   authority    of    its   lioardof    directors,    and    said    acknowledfjed 

said  instrument  to  be  the  free  act  and  deed  of  said  corporation,  for  the 
])ur])08e   therein   stated. 

In    testimony    whereof,    I    liave    hereunto    set   my    hand    and    allixed    my 

seal   at   my   oflicc    in    the   City   of   the   day    and    year    last    above 

written. 

My  commission   expires  .  , 

Notarij  Public. 

FORM  FOR  INDIVIDUALS  OR  TARTNERSHIPS. 
Know  all  mcv    hi/   these  presents: 

That   T,  .  residinj;  in   the  City   of  .  State  of  ,  liavc 

adopted  for  my  use  a  trademark  to  designat<',  make  knowii  or  distinguish 
a  certain  article  of  goods,  wares  or  merchandise  by  me  manufactured 
or   prei)ared,   of   which   the    following   is   a   descri|)tion : 

the    essential    feature    of    wliich    the    ,    as 

applied    to   ;    and   that    the    fac-similes   presented   herewith    are    true 

and    correct    copies    theret)f. 

In    testimony    whereof,    I    have    hereunto    set    my    hand    at    the    City    of 
.   State   of   ,   this   day   of  ,    19—. 


State  of , 

County   of   ,  ss: 

On   this   day   of   ,    Ifl — ,    before   me    personally    appeared 

,   to   me   known   to   be   the  person   described   in   and   who   executed 


720  AriMNOIX     K. 

tho    foro;joinir   instnimont.   nml    aikii<>\vl.(l;,'.(l    that    lio   oxecutrd    tlic    sanu' 
HH  hi««  in^'  Hct  itnii  ilt-rd. 

In    trHliuumy    \vhrrH>f,    1    liuvr    hiTciinUt    m-t    my    luiiul    ami    atlixt-d    my 

wul    at    my    oHicf    in    tin-   City    «>f    tlio    (lay    and    year    lawt    alK)vo 

written. 

My   i»>mmio!«iiiM   <x|iir«'«  .  , 

Xotary  Public, 

XoTE — Tlu'  appliratinn  for  r«'^'i«tration  f>iM«<  hr  txcctitrd  in  duplicate. 
In  other  irr>rrf«,  two  ori<rinals.  Far-Hitnilc  of  trademark  to  he  ti-acd 
attached.      Vw,   $1.00. 

MONTANA. 

rOMTir AL   CODE. 

Sex:tion  2037.  Any  person  may  record  any  tradoin.irk  or 
name,  by  filinp  with  the  Secretary  of  State  Wis  claim  to  tlie  same, 
and  a  copy  or  description  of  such  trademark  or  name,  with  his 
affidavit  attached  thereto,  certified  to  hy  an  ofHicer  authorized  to 
take  ackumvUnlsments  of  conveyances,  .settiuf?  fortli  that  he  or 
the  firm  or  corporation  of  which  he  i.s  a  member,  is  the  exclusive 
owner,  or  agent  of  the  owner  of  such  trademark  or  name. 

SwTiox  2038.  The  Secretary  of  State  must  keep  for  public 
examination  a  record  of  all  trademarks  or  names  filed  in  his 
oflfice,  with  the  date  when  filed  and  the  name  of  the  claimant, 
and  nnist  not  rec(.rd  any  two  like  trademarks  or  names.  He 
must,  at  the  time  of  filing  and  recording  a  trademark  or  name, 
collect  from  the  claimant  a  fee  of  three  dollars.  Approved  Feb- 
ruary 2r),  1809. 

PEN.M.  CODE. 

Section  642.  Every  person  who  shall  use  any  counterfeit  or 
imitate  any  label,  trademark  or  form  of  advertisement  of  any 
such  person,  unif)n  or  sussociation.  knowing  the  same  to  be  coun- 
terfeit or  imitation,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor.  (Sec.  642. 
Act  approved  March  fi,  181>r).) 

Section  ♦i4.'{.  ICvery  such  person,  association  or  unioti  that 
heretofore  ado|)ted,  or  shall  hereafter  a(h)pt.  a  label,  trademark 
or  form  of  advertisement  as  aforesaid  may  file  the  same  for 
record   in   the  ofTice  of  the  Secretarv  (tf  State,   bv   leaving  two 


MJtICASK.V    STA'n  TKS.  I'll 

copies,  coiiiitciparts  or  fac-siinilcs  llicrcof  with  tlio  Rocretarj'  of 
State;  said  Secretary  sliall  deliver  to  .sinli  person,  association  or 
union  filint;  the  same  a  duly  atte^ste(|  (•crtifieatc  of  the  record  of 
the  same,  for  whii-h  lie  shall  receive  a  fee  of  one  dollar.  SiU'li 
eertilieate  of  reeoi-d  shall  in  all  suits  and  pros^-cut ions  under 
this  act  he  sutlicient  proof  of  the  adoption  of  such  lahel,  tra<Ie- 
luark  or  form  of  advertisement,  and  of  the  ri^ht  of  said  [)erson, 
associal  ion  oi-  union  to  adopt  the  same.  No  lahel  shall  he  re- 
coi'ded,  that,  prol)al)ly,  would  he  mistaken  for  a  lahel  already  of 
record.     (See.  'JA',i.    i^ict  ai)proveil  .March  G,  1895.) 

NEBRASKA. 

(•(Ulll.il.d      Stlllut(•^      I'Kll. 

Section  6810.  If  any  person  .shall  falsely  make,  alter,  forge, 
counterfeit,  print  or  photograph  »  *  *  a,jy  j)i.ivate  stamp, 
brand,  wrappei-.  lahei.  or  trademai'k,  usually  affixed  by  any  me- 
chanic, manufacturer,  druj;^dst,  merchant,  or  tradesman  to  or 
upon  the  floods,  wares,  merchandise.  prej)aration  or  mixture  of 
such  mechanic,  nuinufacturci'.  dru^Lrist.  merchant,  or  trades 
man;  *  *  '*  with  intent  to  damage  or  defraud  any  per.son 
or  persons,  body  politic  or  corporate,  or  any  military  body  or- 
ganized under  the  laws  of  this  state;  or  shall  utter  or  publish 
as  true  and  genuine,  or  cause  to  be  uttered  and  published  as 
genuine  and  true,  and  shall  have  in  bis  pos.session  with  intent 
to  utter  and  publish  as  true  and  genuine,  any  of  the  aliove 
named  false,  altered,  forged,  counterfeited,  falsely  printed,  or 
photographed  matter  above  specified  and  described,  knowing  the 
same  to  be  false,  altered,  forged,  counterfeited,  falsely  printed, 
or  photographed,  with  intent  to  prejudice,  damage  or  defraud 
any  person  or  persons,  body  politic  or  corporate.  Everv  person 
so  offending  shall  be  imprisoned  in  the  penitentiary  for  any 
space  of  time  not  exceeding  twenty  years  nor  less  than  one  year, 
and  jtay  fine  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars. 

Sp:cti()x  (iSll.  If  any  p(>rsoii  .shall  have  in  his  pos.session  any 
die  or  dies,  plate  or  plates,  brand  or  brands,  engraving,  imprint, 
printed  labels,  wrappers,  or  any  other  instrument,  thing  or 
means  whatever  with  intent  ther<>with  or  thereby  to  falsely  make, 
forge,  or  counterfeit  any  matter  specified  in  the  last  preceding 


722  APPENDIX    F. 

section,  or  to  cans*'  or  ciiatili'  tlii-  saiiu*  to  1m>  doiic  ;  or  shall  liave 
in  his  possossiou  any  such  falsely  Mia(h'.  forj^cd.  or  countt'rt't'iti'd 
niatt«'r  wln-thtT  the  sjiinc  Im-  conipli'tcd  or  only  partly  rxccutiul, 
for  the  purpose  of  hartcrin^r.  sillin^r.  or  disposinj;  tlicroof,  know- 
injj  tin*  same  to  ho  falsi'ly  nuide.  fortjcd  or  i-oiinttrfeitcd.  with 
intent  therehy  to  |)re.iudi»'e.  (hwnajro  or  defraud  any  person  or 
persons,  hody  jiolitic  or  eorpornte.  every  person  so  ofTendinf? 
shall  he  imprisoned  in  the  penitentiary  not  less  than  six  months 
nor  more  than  ten  years,  and  pay  a  tine  not  exeeedinj^  one  thou- 
sand dollars. 

Skction  r)S14.  Any  jiorson  wlio  shall  vend  or  keep  for  sale 
any  poods,  merchandise,  niixtiiie  or  preparation,  upon  which 
any  forped  or  eountorfeit  stamps.  l)rands.  im[)rints.  wrappers, 
lahels,  or  trach'marks  he  jilaced  or  affixed,  and  intended  to  repre- 
sent the  said  poods,  merchandise,  mixture  or  preparation,  a.s 
tlie  true  and  peiniine  poods,  merchainlise.  mixture  or  prepara- 
tion of  any  person  or  persons,  knowinp  the  same  to  he  eounter- 
feit,  shall  he  punished  hy  a  line  not  exceedinp  our  luiiidr('(l  dollai's. 

Sections  6922.  602»i.  are  directed  to  the  protection  of  casks, 
harrels,  kep.s,  hottles  and  hoxes.  used  in  tlie  handlinp  of  soda 
water,  mineral  water  and  other  ])everapes. 

Sections  :i7)4\K  I);')"):^  relate  to  the  prf)tection  of  the  lahels  of 
trade  unions  and  their  registration  with  the  Secretary  of  State. 


FORM    OF    APPLICATION    FOll    UKGISTRATION. 

Ccrtificnto  aooompanyinfj  a  trademark  or  lalx-l.  filed  in  acoordance 
witli  thf  j)rovisi<)nH  of  the  laws  of  the  State  of   Nel)rasku. 

The  said  trademark  or  lahel  has  been  or  is  iiiteii(h-(l  to  lie  ajipropriatod 
for  use  in  connection  with . 

The  size  and  style  of  type  and  tlie  color  of  ink  and  niaterisil  on  wliich 
the  Bame  in  used  may  he  varied  at  pleaH\ire.  It  is  usually  applied  hy 
naintinjf   or    stencilin;;,   or    hy    lahels,    or    hy    forming;    it    in.   or    on    cast- 

inj/g   .       It    is    also    used    in    advertisements,    on    letter    heads,    in 

jnvoic«'8  and  in  other  printed  matter. 

The   said    trademark    or   lahel    has    heen    in    use   since   ,   and    con- 

ttists  of  the  arliitrarilv   «elect4d   mark   or   character  herewith    illustrated: 


I,  ,  do  herehy  declare  that  the  fticfiimilr/i,  copies  or  counter- 
parts  filed   with    the   forejfoinf,'   certificate   are   true   and    correct. 

In  witness  whereof,    I    have   hereunto  si^rned    my    name    this  day 

of .  10—. 


NEVADA    STATUTES.  723 


State   of  - 
C'ounlv   i)f 


,  Ix'inp  firnt  duly   HWorn  dcpoRCB  and   nayn  tliiit  tin-   iiiiiti>r-   and 

factH   ahovf   Htatod    arc    tnn-   hh   In-    verily    l»cliev«'K. 

Witiii'HH   niv    liiiiid    iind    stiil    tliin    duv    of ,    1!) — . 


NEVADA. 

AN  ACT  to  protect  persons,  assoeiations  and  unions  of  workinj^men  and 
others  in  tlieir  laliels,  trademarks  and  forms  of  advertising^  and 
to  provide  a  penalty  for  tlu-  violation  of  tln'  provisions  of  this  act. 

(.•\pI)roved   March   -I'.K   1!»07.) 

Tlic  pco})h  of  the  State  of  Xrrada,  represented  in  Senate  and 
A,<scmbhj,  do  enact  as  follows: 

Section  1.  (Trade  filing.)  Every  porson  or  association  or 
union  of"  woi-kiimiiicii  or  others  that  lias  adopted  or  shall  adopt 
for  their  j)roteetioti,  any  lahel.  trademark  or  form  of  advertise- 
ment, may  file  the  same  for  reeord  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary 
of  State  by  Icavinir  two  copies,  counterparts  or  fac-.similes 
thereof  with  the  Secretary  of  State.  Said  Secretary  shall  there- 
upon deliver  to  such  persons,  association  or  union  so  filing  the 
same,  a  duly  attested  certificate  of  the  record  of  same,  for  which 
he  ?\\i\\\  receive  a  fee  of  five  (.$5.00)  dollars.  Such  certificate 
of  record  shall,  in  all  actions  and  prosecutions  under  the  fol- 
lowinj;  three  sections,  be  sufficient  proof  of  the  adoption  of 
such  label,  trademark  or  form  of  advertisement,  and  the  rigrht 
of  .said  persoji    association  or  union  to  adopt  tlie  same. 

Section  2.  (Svme;  exclusive  use;  dam.vges.)  Ever}-  per- 
son, association  or  union  adopting;  a  label,  trademark,  or  form 
of  advertisement,  as  specified  in  the  preceding  section,  may  pro- 
ceed by  action  to  enjoin  the  manufacture,  u.se,  display  or  sale 
of  any  counterfeit  or  imitation  thereof;  and  all  courts  having 
jnri.sdiction  of  such  actions  shall  grant  injunctions  to  restrain 
such  mainifacture,  use,  display  or  sale  and  a  reasonable  attor- 
ney's fee,  to  be  fixed  by  the  court,  and  shall  require  the  defend- 
ant to  pay  to  such  persons,  association  or  union  the  profits  de- 
rived  from  such   wrongful  manufacture,  use,  display  or  sale. 


724  APPKNDIX    P. 

and  n  roasonnMi'  jntnnicy's  t'rr.  tn  I»f  lixf.l  l»y  tin-  cdiirt.  ;iii»1 
said  court  shall  also  onlrr  that  all  su.li  .•ouiilt-rfcits  or  imita- 
tions in  tilt'  possession  or  imkIit  tin*  coMlml  of  any  (li'f»'n<la)it 
in  such  casr  to  he  tU'liviTftl  in  ati  utTicT  of  the  .•oiirt  tn  lif 
tlestroyt'tl.  Siidi  a-'tions  nuiy  1m'  prosrcuti'ii  for  tlu'  bj-nclit  of 
any  assoiiation  or  union  by  any  ofllccrs  or  mrnilicrs  tlicroof. 

SK(-noN  :{.  (Samk.  coiNTKKKr.rnNc.'i  It  shall  he  nnhnvful 
for  any  person -or  corporation  to  imitate  any  I.iIm'I.  trademark 
or  form  of  advertisement  ailopted  as  providrd  in  the  second  pro- 
cedinp  section,  or  to  knowinsrly  use  any  counterfeit  or  imitation 
thereof,  or  to  use  or  display  such  frenuine  lahel.  trademark  or 
form  of  advertisement  or  the  name  or  seal  of  such  person, 
union,  or  association  or  of  any  officer  thereof,  unless  autliori/ed 
so  to  do.  or  in  any  manner  not  authorized  hy  him  or  it.  ^Vny 
person  violatiu}?  any  provisions  of  this  section  shall  he  imprisoned 
in  the  county  jail  not  more  than  thirty  days,  or  be  fined  not  less 
than  twcntv-five  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars. 


XKW  IIA.MPSIIIKH. 
AX  ACT  rt-latin;;  tn  tin-  I'm'  uf  'Irudcniarks  inid  Namrs. 
lie  it  (iwctfd  hii  the  Senate  and  Ifousr  of  lieprcsentatives  in 
(ienenil  Court  ronvcned: 
Section  1.  Tersons  en^'afjed  in  buying,  sellincr,  or  dealing?  in 
milk  or  cream  in  cans  or  bottles,  or  Mottling  or  selling  beverages 
in  bottles  or  ves.sels  with  their  name  and  the  word  "registered" 
branded,  engraved,  blown  or  otherwise  |)ro(lucc(l  thereon,  or  on 
the  boxes  used  by  them,  may  file  in  the  oiVice  of  the  <'lerk  of  the 
city  or  town  in  which  their  jirincipal  place  of  business  is  situ- 
ated, and  also  in  the  otTice  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  a  description 
of  the  name  .so  used  by  them,  and  shall  puhlish  such  description 
once  in  each  of  four  successive  weeks  in  a  newspaper,  if  any, 
ptiblished  in  the  city  (u-  town  in  which  said  description  has  been 
filed,  othcrwi.se.  in  a  newspaper  pnblishcd  in  the  county  in  which 
said  city  or  town  is  situated. 

SKniov  li.     Whoever  fills  with  milk,  cream,  (»r  any  manufac- 
tiire<)  lH.v.r:i.'.     with  intent  to  sell  tlw  same,  any  bottle,  can,  or 


NKW    II  A.MI'SllllCi:    STATl  TKS.  i2.) 

vessel.  iiiJiikcil  or  (lisliiij.Miislic(|  as  aforesaid,  lljc  tlescriptioii  of 
uliicli  lias  lict'ii  lilcil  and  piilili.sliiil  a.s  provided  in  the  prifiMling 
.S(H-ti<)ii,  oi-  <l('l'accs.  ciascs,  iDVirs  iij)  or  otherwise  removes  or 
I'oiieeals  any  smli  name,  or  tlie  word  '' rej^istered "  tliercoii,  or 
sells,  hiiys,  jiives.  fakes,  or  otiierwi.se  disposes  of.  or  tralTles  in 
llie  same,  without  the  written  consent  of.  or  iiid(!ss  the  same 
has  heeii  piirehased  from  the  person  wiiose  name  is  in  or  u[)on 
the  can.  hottle  or  vessel  so  filled,  defaced,  trafficked  in  or  other- 
wise used  or  disposed  of  shall,  for  the  first  offense,  he  punished 
hy  a  fine  of  fifty  cents  for  each  such  ean,  hottle.  or  vessel,  or  hy 
imiirisonnieiit  for  not  hss  than  ten  days  nor  more  than  one 
year,  or  hy  t)otli  such  fine  and  imprisoTiment :  and  for  each  snh- 
sefpient  ofTense,  hy  a  fine  of  jiot  less  than  one  dollar  nor  more 
than  five  dollars  for  each  suih  vessel,  .ir  !)>■  imprisoinnent  for 
not  less  than  twenty  da>s  nor  more  than  one  year. 

Section'  :]  Tlu^  use  liy  any  person  en^M<red  in  sellin<,'  milk 
or  cream,  oi-  in  manut'acturinfr.  hottlinp:  or  sellinj;  heverafres,  of 
a  hottle,  can,  or  vessel,  marked  or  distinguished  as  aforesaid, 
the  deseription  of  which  ha,s  l)een  filed  and  pnhlished  as  provided 
in  section  1,  without  the  written  eonsent  of,  or  purchase  from,  the 
owner  thereof,  or  the  huyinp:,  sellinf;,  disposinsr  of  or  traffiekinof 
in  such  hottles,  cans,  or  vessels  hy  .such  persons  without  such 
written  consent  or  purchase,  or  the  possession  hy  any  junk  dealer 
or  dealer  i;i  second-hand  articles  of  any  such  hottles,  cans,  or 
vessels,  without  the  written  eonsent  of  or  purchase  from,  the 
owner  thereof,  shall  Ih^  prima  facie  evidenee  of  unlawful  us€, 
possession  of  or  traffic  in  the  same. 

Section'  4.  Vpon  complaint  of  a  person  who  has  complied 
with  the  pi*ovisions  of  section  1.  or  his  ag:ent,  to  the  justice  of  a 
police  court,  or  to  a  justice  of  the  peace  in  a  town  which  has 
110  police  court,  that  he  ha.s  rea.son  to  helieve  and  does  helieve 
that  any  of  his  hottles,  cans,  or  vessels,  marked  or  distingruished 
as-  provided  in  said  section,  the  description  of  the  name,  on 
which  with  the  word  "rojristered,"  has  ])een  filed  and  pnhlished 
as  provided  in  said  s(H'tion.  ar»'  heinir  unlawfullv  used  or  filled 
]).v  a  person  eufrajied  in  huyincr,  selliiifj  or  dealins:  in  milk  or 
cream,  or  in   manufacturing,   bottling,   or  selling  beverages    or 


72G  APPENDIX    F, 

tliat  a  junk  dealer  or  vlealer  in  stH'oml-liand  articles,  or  a  vendor 
of  cuns  or  bottles,  has  any  such  eans,  liottlrs,  or  vi'ssi-ls  in  his 
possession,  or  sferi'ti'd  in  any  plaoi',  saiil  justiee  nuiy  tlu'reiipon 
issue  a  search  warrant ;  and  may  also  eau.se  the  person  in  whose 
possession  surh  cans,  bottles,  or  vessels  are  found,  to  be  brought 
before  him,  and  shall  thereupon  inquire  into  the  eireumstances 
of  such  possession;  and  sliall  award  possession  of  the  property 
taken  upon  such  si-arcii  \\;iii-aiit  to  tlic  owner  tliercof. 

Section  ').  All  acts  and  parts  of  acts  inconsistent  herewith 
are  hereby  repealed,  and  this  act  shall  take  effect  upon  its  pas- 
sage.   Ajiproved  April  2,  11K)3. 

FORM   OF   AI'IM-ICATION. 
To  thf  honnrahlr,   the  Secretary  of  i<t(ite:  ■ 
Sworn   appli'^ntion   accompany  in*;   a 


Hi-    it    known.   Tliat   ,    lia —   licn'toforc    adopted    mid    nscd    a    ccr- 

tijii,   ,  and   licn-witli    files   tin-   wimc    for   record    in    tlie   ollice  of  tlie 

Secretary  of  State  liv  leavinji  two  copies,  counterparts  or  facsimiles  tliere- 
of,  witli    said    Secn-tary.   and    liy    niin<.'   tlierewitli    tliis    sworn    application. 

(1)  The    name—    of    the    jierson —    so    filing    such    is    • 

(2)  Tlie    elass    of   merchandise    upon    which    the    same    lias   heen    used 

is   and    a    particular   description   of   tlie   goods   con^)rised    in   such 

class   is  . 

(3)  Said has  been   used   hy  applicant  since 


(4)      Said    is    as    follows:    and    consists    of   the 

e<}8t>ntial   f>alur.'  of  which  . 


the 


State   of , 

County   of   ,  bs: 

I,  ,  lioing  first  duly  sworn,  depose  and  say  that  T  am  

applicant    herein,    and    make    this    afiidavit    and     verification    in    

l)ehalf.  That  1  have  read  the  ahove  and  foregoing  apjilication  and  know 
the    contents    thereof,   and    that  the    facts   set   out   therein   are   true;    that 

naid   so   filing    said   has  the   right  to   the  use  of   the  same 

and  that  no  other  jierson,  firm,  association,  union,  corporation  or  organiza- 
tion has  tlM-  right  to  s»ich  use,  either  in  the  identical  form  or  in  any  such 
near  n-seuildance  thereto  as  may  he  calculated  to  dec<'ive.  and  that  the 
two  copies,  counterparts  or  facsimiles,  filed  herewith,  are  true  and  correct. 

{Sign   here]. 

SubBcrihed   and   sworn    to   hefon-   me   this   day  of   ,    H> 

■  t 

Fw,    $1.00,    cncloBcd.  • 


N'KW    JIUSKV    STATUTES.  727 

NEW   J  HUSKY. 

I.awrt     iS'.tS.       Cliiiptcr    .')(». 

AN    ACT    to    provide    for    tlic    n'j,'iHtratii»ii    of    IuIicIh,    tradi-markH,    t«TmH 
and  (icHij^iiH,  and   protect  and  wcure  tlif   rij.'litH,  jirojxrty  and   int<T- 
uhIs    tliert'in    of    tin-    iit-rHonH,    UHHuciutionH,    orj^unixHtionn    and    cor 
purationH   adoptin;^   and    lilin;^   tlic    Hanic. 

Be  il  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  General  Assembly  of  the  State 
of  Xeiv  Jersey: 

Section  1.  It  sluill  he  lawful  for  aii\-  person,  association,  or- 
gani/.ation  or  corporation  to  adopt  for  their  protection  and  file 
for  re,u;istry,  or  cause  to  he  filed  for  registry,  as  herein  pro- 
vided, any  lahel,  trademark,  term  or  design  that  has  hoen  used 
or  is  intended  to  he  used  for  the  purpose  of  designating, 
making  known  or  distinguishing  any  goods,  wares,  mer- 
chandise or  products  of  lal)or  that  have  heeii  or  may 
be  wholly  or  partly  made,  manufactured,  joroduced,  pre- 
pared, packed  or  put  on  sale  l)y  any  j)erson,  association,  or- 
ganization or  corporation,  or  to  or  upon  which  any  work  or 
labor  has  been  applied  or  expended  by  any  person  or  by  any 
mendjcr  or  members  of  any  a.ssociation,  organization  or  corpora 
tion  that  has  adopted  and  filed  for  registry,  Or  that  may  adopt 
and  file  for  registry,  any  such  label,  trademark,  term,  or  design 
as  aforesaid,  or  announcing  or  indicating  that  the  same  have 
been  made,  in  whole  or  in  part,  by  any  such  person,  association, 
organization  or  corporation  or  ])y  any  member  or  members 
thereof. 

Section  2.  Whenever  any  person,  association,  organization  or 
corporation  shall  adopt  and  file  for  registry,  or  cause  to  be 
adopted  and  filed  for  registry,  any  label,  trademark,  term,  or 
design  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  this  act,  the  property,  privi 
leges,  rights,  remedies  and  interests  in  and  to  any  .such  label, 
trademark,  term  or  design,  and  in  and  to  the  use  of  the  same, 
provided  or  giveji  by  this  act  to.  or  otherwise  conferred  upon 
or  enjoyed  by,  the  person,  association,  organization  or  corpora- 
tion filing  the  same,  or  causing  the  same  to  be  filed  for  registry 
shall  be  fully  and  completely  secured,  preserved  and  protected 
as  the  property  of  those  entitled  to  the  same,  before  any  such 


728  AIM-KNIMX    F. 

lal>ol,  trniloniark.  tonn  or  (l«'si<j:ii  lias  l»ooii  notually  applied  to 
any  j;o«>«ls,  waivs.  inorchaiMlisf  or  prodiu't  ol"  lal)or  and  pul  upon 
llu'  luarkt't.  for  sale  or  otlitrwi.si".  and  licforc  any  nsr  or  appro- 
priation of  any  sui'h  label,  traiiciiiark.  ti-riii  or  (Icsi^rn  has  hvon 
math'  in  roniifction  with  amy  snch  floods,  wares,  merchandise 
or  product  of  lahor.  as  well  as  .ifter  the  same  has  heen  used  or 
applied  to  (h'sifrnate,  make  known  or  di.stinj:uish  any  such  poods, 
wares,  merchandise  or  |tri)diict  of  lalMir  and  they  have  lieeii  put 
upon  tiie  market. 

Skction  :?.  Any  jierson.  association,  orpani/ation  or  corpora- 
tion tliat  has  heretofore  adopted  and  used,  or  shall  hereafter 
adopt  and  use.  any  lahel,  trademark,  term  or  design  as  heroin 
provided,  may  file  the  same  for  registry  in  the  office  of  the 
Secretary  of  State  by  leaving  two  copies,  fac-similes  or  counter- 
jiarts  thereof,  with  the  said  Secretary,  and  filins?  therewith  a 
statement  in  the  form  of  an  affidavit,  suhscri])od  and  sworn  to 
by  any  such  person,  or  by  any  officer,  ajrent  or  attorney  of  any 
such  association,  organization  or  cori)oration,  specifyinp:  the 
j)(>rson,  as.sociation,  organization  or  corporation  l)y  wliom.  or  on 
whose  behalf,  any  such  lal)el.  trademark,  term  or  (h'sipn  is  filed, 
and  the  class  or  character  of  the  proods.  wares,  merchandise  or 
product  of  labor  to  wliich  the  same  has  been,  or  is  intended  to 
be,  appropriated  or  api^lied.  and  that  the  person,  association. 
organization  or  corporation  .so  filing  the  same,  or  on  whose  behalf 
iho  same  is  so  filed,  has  the  ripht  to  the  use  of  said  lahel,  trade- 
mark, term  or  design,  an<l  th;it  no  other  person,  firm,  as.socia- 
tion. organization  or  corporation  has  the  right  to  such  use, 
either  in  the  identical  form  or  in  any  such  near  resemblance 
thereto  as  may  be  calculated  to  deceive,  without  the  permission 
or  authority  of  the  person,  association,  organization  or  corpora 
tion  filing  the  same,  or  causing  the  same  to  be  filed.  an<l  that  t)ie 
copies,  fac-similes  or  counterparts  filetl  then-witli  arc  true  and 
correct  copies,  fac-similes  or  counter|)arts  of  the  genuine  label, 
tradenuirk,  term  or  design  of  the  person,  association,  organiza- 
tioj)  or  corporation  filing  the  same  or  causing  the  same  to  he 
liled  :  and  there  shall  be  paid  for  such  filing  and  registry  a  fee 
of  one  dollar  to  the  Secretary  of  State  for  the  use  of  the  state. 


MiVV    .JKKSKV    STAIlJTtK.  7L*!) 

Section  4.  'I'Ih-  Scfrctai-y  of  Stjilr,  upon  the  filing'  of  ;iiiy 
such  Ijihtl,  t  r';i(lriiiail<,  tt-fiii.  di'  (l(•si^'ll  tlial  is  not  in  coiillict 
with  the  next  srctioii  licn'of,  shall  rct;is1cr  the  same,  and  sliall 
deliver  to  the  person,  assoeiation,  or<rani/.at ion  or  eor[)oratioii 
filiiif;  the  same,  oi*  causinjr  the  same  1o  ln'  filed,  as  many  <•(■!• 
tified  copies  thereof,  with  his  cr-rtificatf  of  sncii  registry,  as  any 
such  person,  association,  orj^ain/.at ion  or  corporal ioii  may  re- 
quest, and  foi"  vvi'vy  such  co|)y  and  certifieatc  there  shall  he 
paid  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  for  the  use  r)f  the  state,  a  fee  of 
one  dollar;  and  any  such  certified  copy  and  certificate  shall  be 
admissihle  in  evidence  and  competent  and  sufficient  proof  of 
the  adoption,  filing  and  re|[(istry  of  any  such  label,  trademark, 
term  or  desifrn  liy  any  such  person,  association,  orfjanization  or 
corporation,  in  any  action  or  judicial  i)roceeding  in  any  of  the 
courts  of  this  state,  and  of  due  compliance  with  the  provisions 
of  this  act  ;  Provided.  Iioii-rrcr,  that  sucb  certificate  shall  not  be 
assignable  or  transferal)le  l)y  the  person,  association,  organiza- 
tion or  cor|)()ration  to  whom  tlie  same  is  issued  by  the  Secretary 
of  State. 

SECTroN  ').  Tt  shall  not  be  lawful  for  the  Secretary  of  State 
to  register,  or  permit  to  be  registered,  for  any  person,  assoeia- 
tion, organization  or  corporation  any  label,  trademark,  term  or 
design  that  is  in  the  identical  form  of  any  other  label,  trade- 
mark, term  or  design  theretofore  filed  by  or  on  behalf  of  any 
other  person,  association,  organization  or  corporation,  or  that 
bears  any  such  near  resemblance  thereto  as  may  be  calculated 
to  deceive,  or  that  would  be  liable  to  be  mistaken  therefor ;  and 
any  person,  association,  organization  or  corporation  who  shall 
tile  or  pi-ocure  the  filing  and  registry  of  any  label,  trademark, 
terni  or  design  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  under  the 
provisions  of  this  act,  by  making  any  false  or  fraudulent  repre- 
sentations or  declarations,  witii  fraudulent  intent,  shall  be  liable 
to  pay  any  damages  sustained  in  consequence  of  any  such  reg- 
istry, to  be  recovered  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  party  injured 
thereby  in  any  court  of  law  of  this  state  having  jurisdiction  in 
civil  causes. 

Secttox  G.  "WTienever  any  person,  association,  organization 
or  corporation   has  heretofore  adopted  and  filed  for  record  or 


730  APPENPIX    K. 

rt'pistr}-.  or  shnll  horoaftor  a-l^i't  iiii.l  fil.^  for  ropistrj',  any  label, 
trademark,  ti-rni  or  (K'sinii.  or  rausf  the  saino  to  be  ilone,  aa 
herein  provided,  and  the  same  shall  luive  been  n'tristered  pur- 
suant to  this  aet.  it  shall  he  unlawful,  and  a  violation  of  this 
act,  for  any  other  person,  association,  ornauization  or  eorpora- 
tion  to  nminifaetun',  use.  sell,  «)ITer  for  sale,  or  in  any  way  utter 
or  cireulafe.  any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  such  label, 
tradenuirk,  ti'rm  or  desi«;n ;  or  have  in  possession,  with  intent 
that  the  same  shall  he  sold  or  disposed  of.  any  poods,  wares, 
merchandisi'  or  product  of  labor  to  which  or  on  which  any  coun- 
terfeit or  imitation  of  any  such  label,  trademark,  term  or  design 
is  attached,  aflixcd.  printed,  iniinted,  stamped,  impressed  or  dis- 
played;  or  to  sell  or  dispose  of.  or  ofTcr  to  sell  or  dispose  of,  or 
Imve  in  passession  with  intent  that  tlu-  same  shall  be  sold  or 
disposed  of,  any  poods,  wares,  merchandist'  or  product  of  labor 
contained  in  any  box.  case,  can  or  package  to  which  or  on  which 
any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached,  affixed,  printed, 
painted,  stamped,  impressed  or  displayed. 

Section  7.  "Whenever  any  person,  association,  organization  or 
corporation  has  heretofore  adopted  and  filed  for  record  or  reg- 
istry, or  .shall  hereafter  adopt  and  file  for  registry,  any  label, 
trademark,  term  or  design  as  herein  provided,  it  shall  be  un- 
lawful, and  a  violation  of  this  act,  for  any  other  person  or  per- 
sons, association,  organization  or  corporation,  to  make  any  use, 
sale.  olTcr  for  .sale  or  display  of  the  genuine  label,  trademark, 
term  or  design  of  any  such  person,  association,  organization  or 
corporation,  filing  the  same;  or  to  have  any  such  genuine  label, 
trademark,  term  or  design  in  pos.se.ssion  with  intent  that  the 
same  shall  be  used.  sold,  offered  for  sale  or  displayed,  or  that 
the  same  shall  be  applied,  attached  or  displayed  in  any  manner 
whatever  to  or  on  any  goods,  wares  or  UKM-i'liandise ;  or  to  sell, 
offer  to  sell,  or  dispose  of  or  have  in  pos-:es.sion.  with  intent  that 
the  same  shall  he  sold  or  disposed  of.  any  goods,  wares  or  mer- 
chandise in  any  box.  case,  can  or  pack.Tge  to  or  on  whicli  anv 
such  genuine  label,  trademark,  term  or  design  of  any  such 
[)erson.  associ.-ition.  organization  or  corporation  is  attached, 
affixed  or  disi)layed  ;  or  to  make  any  use  whatever  of  any  such 
t'cnuine  hihel.  trademark,  term  or  design,   without    first   ohtain- 


NEW  jf:rsf.y  stati:tks.  731 

in?  in  ovcry  sucli  case,  the  liccnso.  onnsont  of  autliority  of  the 
person,  association,  orj^anization  oi'  corijoration  adopting',  filitif? 
and  fcfiistcTin?  the  same,  or  eansiiif;  the  same  to  lie  adopted, 
tiled  and  ref^istered  ;  and  any  sudi  license,  consent  or  authority 
may  he  revoked  ami  terminated  at  any  time  upon  notice,  and 
thereafter  any  use  thereof  shall  he  a  violation  of  this  act,  and 
suhjeet  those  xiolatinj;  the  same  to  all  the  lial)ilities  and  pen- 
alties herein  pi'()\i(le(l  a^^aiiisl  any  violation  thereof. 

Section  S.  It  shall  Ite  lawl'id  for  any  person.  a.s.sociation, 
orjjani/.ation  oi'  eoi  poiation  that  has  adopted  and  filed,  or  caused 
to  he  filed  and  i-eeorded  or  re<.nstered  in  the  office  of  the  See 
retary  of  State,  at  any  time  hefoi-e  the  passaiEfe  of  this  act,  any 
lahel,  trademark,  term  oi-  design,  to  retile  the  same  for  reiristra- 
tion  hy  the  Secretary  of  State  i)ursuant  to  the  provisions  of  this 
act,  upon  paxnient  of  the  fees  herein  provided  for  tilinu  and 
ref;istei-in<x  any  lahel,  tradenuirk,  term  or  desi<^n,  and  for  copies 
and  certificates  thereof,  and  any  person,  association,  or<raniza- 
tion  or  corporation  .so  refilinp:  any  such  lalx^l,  trademark,  term 
or  desiijn  shall  have  and  he  entitled  to  all  the  riprhts,  remedies, 
l)rivilej,'es  and  protection  given  hy  this  act  to  any  person,  asso- 
ciation, organization  or  corporation  originally  filing  any  lahel. 
tradenuirk,  term  or  design  under  the  jirovisions  of  this  act  and 
suhjeet  to  the  same  liahilities. 

Section  0.  The  court  of  chancery  shall  have  .jurisdiction  in 
all  cases  arising  or  commenced  therein  under  this  act  for  the 
violation  of  any  of  the  provisions  thereof;  and  any  person,  asso- 
ciation, organization  or  corporation  filing,  or  causing  to  he 
filed,  for  regi.stry,  any  label,  trademark,  term  or  design  pur- 
suant to  the  provisions  of  this  act,  shall  have  the  right  to  an 
action  in  the  said  court  against  any  person  or  persons,  asso- 
ciation, organization  or  corporations,  for  the  violation  of  any 
of  the  provisions  of  this  act;  and  upon  the  filing  of  any  hill  of 
complaint  therefor,  the  law  and  practice  regulating  proceed- 
ings in  that  court  shall  he  applicable  thereto;  and  the  said 
court  is  hereby  empowered  and  required  to  enjoin  the  manu- 
facture, counterfeiting,  imitation,  display,  use,  sale,  offer  of 
.sale,  circulating  or  uttering  of  any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of 
any  such  label,  trademark,  term  or  design  of  any  such  person, 


733  Al'I'KNDIX    1". 

association,   orpanizntion  or  oorporation;   an.l   tlu^  s^alt^  or  dis- 
posal <»f  any  jroods,  wari's.  nu'rcliaixlist'  or  proilint  of  laltor  to 
whiili,   or   oil    which,   any   such   couiitfrfcit    or   imitation    label, 
tradtMnark.  term  or  dcsi^Mi  is  attachrd,  aflixcd.  priiitt'd,  painted, 
stamped,  inipressed  or  display«'d  .  <»r  .my  <.'oui!s.  wares,  merchan- 
dise or   product    of   lahor   contaimd    in    any    box,   case,   can   or 
package   to  or  on    which   any   sudi    lonnterfeit   or   imitation    is 
attached,  affixed,   printed,   painted,   stamped,   impres.sed   or  dis 
played:  and   furtlmr  to  enjoin  the  manufacture,  use.  sale,  offer 
of  sale,  or  display,  of  any   tjeiniine   label,   trademark,   term  or 
design  of  any  such  j)ei-son.  association,  orf^anization  or  corpora- 
ti<ni   lilinjr  the  same  as  afonvsaid;  or  havinjr  in    possession  any 
such  jrenuine  label,  tradenuirk,  term  or  (lesi«.M).  with  intent  that 
the   same   shall    lie    used.   sold.   otTered    for   sale   or   dis|)layed,   or 
the  same  applied,  attached   or  displaye-l    in  any   manner   what- 
ever to  or  on  any  poods,  wares,  merchandise  or  product  of  labor; 
or  tlu'  sellin«:  or  otTer  to  sell  or  dispose  of.  or  having  in  posses- 
.sion.  with  intent  that  the  same  shall  be  sold,  offered  for  sale  or 
disposed  of,  any  poods,  wares  or  merchandise  in  any  box,  case. 
can  or  packape  to  or  on   wliiih  any  sudi   peiuiine  label,  trade- 
mark, term  or  desipn  of  any  such  |)i'rson.  association,  orpaniza- 
tion  or  c<u-|)oration  is  attached,  affixeil  or  (lis|)layed  ;  and  from 
niakinp  any   other,  or  any.   use   whatever  of  any   such   penuine 
label,  trademark,  term  or  desipn.  without  havinp  first  obtained, 
in  any  and  every  such   case,  the  consent  and   authority  of  the 
person,  association,  orpanization  or  corporation  adopt inp.  tilinp 
and  repisterinp  the  same,  or  causinp  the  same  to  be  filed  and 
repistered,  as  herein  provided:  and  the  said  court  of  chancery 
is  hereby  empowered  to  nuike  such  other  orders  and  direct  such 
other  i)roceedinps  as  the  court  may  deem  neces.sary  and  proper 
for  the  due  protection  of  the  riphts  of  complaiiuints.  effectinp 
the  purpf)ses  of  this  act.  the  jireveiilioii  of  any  \iolation  of  any 
of    the    [irovisions   of    the   same;    and    secure    and    protect    any 
and   all    i)ersons,   associations,   orpanizations   or   corporations   in 
all  tln'  riphts,  [)rivilepes.   property  and  interests  to  which  they 
or  any  of  them  an-  or  may  be  entitled  in  any  such  label,  trade- 
mark,  term  or  desipn   under  any   of  the  provisions  of  this  act 
or  otherwise;   and    it   shall    be   the   duty   of   the   said   court   of 
chancery  to  award  to  the  eoniplaiimnt  or  complainant.s  in  any 


Ni;\V    .IKUSKV    STATITKS.  733 

siicli  a'-tioii  liny  aiid  nil  dnmaproR  rosnltinfr  froni  any  sufli  wrong- 
ful use  <»l'  any  such  lalicl.  t radniiar'k,  tiM-iii  or  drsij^n  hy  any 
(IcI'iMidaut  or  dctciidaut.s,  oi'  lor  any  violation  of  any  of  the 
provisions  of  this  act;  and  to  n'(|iiirc  any  such  defendant  or 
(iefeiidanls  to  pay  to  such  coinplainant.s  any  and  all  su<;li 
daniaf^'cs,  lo^'cther  with  all  costs  and  exjx'iises  incurred  by  any 
such  complainant  in  any  such  action  or  proceeding;;  and  the  said 
c'oui't  shall  also  order  ami  decree  that  the  defendants  i)ay  to 
the  complainant  or  eomj)lainants  any  and  all  |)rofit.s  obtained, 
received  or  derived  from  any  such  uron{j;ful  use  or  any  viola- 
tion of  the  pi'ovisions  of  this  act;  or  both  profits  and  any  such 
daniafjes,  and  tiiat  any  and  all  such  counterfeits  or  imitations 
of  any  such  labels,  trademarks,  terms  or  designs  in  the  j)Osses- 
sion  or  under-  the  control  of  the  defendant  or  defendants  in  any 
such  action  shall  be  delivered  up  to  an  officer  of  the  court,  or 
to  the  complainant,  to  be  destroyed,  and  that  any  such  genuine 
labels,  trademarks,  terms  or  designs  in  the  possession  or  under 
the  control  of  any  such  defendant  or  defendants  shall  be  deliv- 
ered up  to  the  complainant. 

Section  10.  That,  in  addition  to  any  other  rights,  remedies 
or  penalties  provided  by  this  act,  and  as  concurrent  therewith, 
any  person  or  persons,  association,  organization  or  corporation 
that  shall  violate  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  liable 
to  a  penalty  of  not  less  than  two  hundred  and  not  more  than 
live  hundi'ed  dollars,  to  l)e  recovered  in  an  action  of  debt  in  any 
court  of  law  of  this  state  having  jui-isdiction  in  civil  causes,  by 
any  siiteh  i>erson,  association,  organization  or  corporation  that 
has  adoi)te(l  and  tiled,  or  caused  the  same  to  be  done  as  afore- 
said, any  such  label,  trademark,  term  or  design;  which  action 
may  be  commenced  by  suiiunons  as  in  ordinary  cases,  and  shall 
lie  proceeded  with  therein  as  ordinary  cases  in  said  court;  and 
in  case  any  execution  shall  be  issued  upon  any  judgment  ob- 
tained against  the  defendant  or  defendants  in  any  such  action 
and  the  same  be  returned  unsatisfied,  the  court,  on  application 
ami  two  days'  notice  to  the  defendant,  may  award  an  execution 
to  take  the  body  of  the  defendant  or  defendants  as  in  other 
cases  where  a  capias  may  issue  out  of  the  circuit  or  supreme 
courts  of  this  state;  and  thereafter  the  rights,  remedies  and 
liabilities  of  tiie  parties,  and  the  proceedings  in  the  case  shall 


7:U  AIM'ENPIX    K. 

l)o  tlu>  siiiiK'.  or  as  nearly  as  may  Itr.  as  in  other  actions  in  said 
I'Oiirts  where  an  execution  to  take  the  boil;,'  of  the  (lefenchinl  or 
ili'feiHlanls  lias  been  issued;  and  it  shall  bo  the  duty  of  tlio  I'ourt 
in  which  any  siu-h  action  may  be  l)rou^'ht  to  make  all  proper  and 
noi'ossiiry  orders  to  restrain  and  pi-event  any  dei'eiidaid  or  de- 
ftMidants  from  continuin«_'  the  connnittini:  of  .my  violation  (»f 
any  of  tlu*  ])rovisions  of  this  act. 

Skction  11.  In  an\'  suit  or  pi-oceedin^'  in  equity.  oi-  in  any 
action  at  law.  l)rou<rht  by  or  on  behalf  of  any  such  a.s.soeiatioii 
or  or<7ani/,ation  that  is  not  incorporated,  for  any  violation  of 
any  of  tlie  provisions  of  this  act.  the  same  may  l)e  brought  in 
the  reeofrnized  name  of  any  such  association  or  or<janization. 
or  in  the  propiT  name  of  the  president  or  the  secretary  or  the 
treasurer  of  any  such  association  or  or«ranization  who  has  been 
or  may  be  piven  authority  to  bring  any  action  or  actions  for 
or  in  behalf  of  any  .sueli  association  or  orjianization.  and  if  for 
any  reason  such  authority  is  not  piven  before,  the  commence- 
ment of  any  such  suit  or  action,  tlie  same  may  be  given  there- 
after at  any  time  ])efore  the  trial  of  tlie  same;  and  any  such 
suit  in  ('(piity  or  action  at  law  may  be  brought  as  aforesaid  in 
the  rc'cojrnized  name  of  aii\'  bi-anch  or  local  sub-association, 
aflfiliated  or  coiuiected  with  any  national  or  international  as.so- 
ciation  or  organization,  or  in  th(^  name  of  the  president,  or  the 
secretary,  or  the  treasurer  thereof;  and  such  authority  to  bring 
the  same  may  be  given  by  any  board  of  directors,  executive 
board,  or  executive  committee,  of  any  such  association  or  organi- 
zation, elected,  chosen,  or  appointed  by  any  such  association 
or  organization:  and  any  such  jiei-son  or  j)ersons  bi-inging  any 
such  action  or  proceeding  in  any  court  of  law  or  e(|uity  in  this 
state  shall  have  the  right  to  receivii  any  and  all  moneys,  prop- 
erty or  other  valuable  thing  recovered  by  or  adjudged  to  the. 
comi)lainant  oi-  jilaintifT  in  any  su<'h  suit  or  action,  for  the  use 
and  benefit  of  th(^  association  or  organizatioji  entitled  to  tint 
same;  and  whenever  any  such  suit  or  action  shall  be  brought 
by  or  on  behalf  of  any  such  branch  or  local  or  sid)-a.ssociation 
or  organization  as  herein  provided  instead  of  by  or  on  behalf 
of  any  such  national  or  internatioiuil  association  oi-  organiza- 
tioj).  such  branch  or  local   or  sub-association  bringing  tin;  same 


MOW    .JKH.SEY    STA'J'LTKS.  735 

shall  I)C  cnlillod  to  tho  saino  tIkIiIs.  priviloRcs,  rcino(li('s  ami 
advantafjjcs,  in  the  piosrciitioii  ot^^  such  suit  or  ai-fioii.  as  any 
other  party  or  parlies  autliori/cd  by  this  act  to  hriiiK  such  suit 
or  action  would  have  hccu  entitled  to  if  any  su<'h  suit  or  action 
had  been  brouf^ht  hy  them,  or  in  their  hehalf,  ;is  herein  provided. 

Section-  1'_'.  This  act  shall  he  const rui'd  hy  all  courts  at  idl 
times,  in  all  suits,  actions  and  proceedings,  in  the  most  liherai 
manner  for  efTectinj?  the  objects  and  purposes  thereof  and  pro- 
tecting,' the  claims,  rights,  interests,  use  and  property  of  every 
person,  association,  orp;anization  or  corporation  in  and  to  any 
label,  trademark,  term  or  design,  filed  and  registered  pursuant 
to  the  [jrovisions  of  this  act. 

Section  l:^.  All  acts  and  parts  of  acts  contrary'  to,  or  incon- 
sistent with  the  provisions  of  this  act.  he  and  the  s;ime  are  hereby 
repealed. 

Section  14.     This  act  shall  be  deemed  and  taken  to  be  a  pub- 
lic act,  and  shall  take  etfect  innuediately. 
Passed  March  15,  1808. 
No  official  form  for  application. 

ACT  OF  APRIL  1,  1913. 
Laws  of  lOl:}.  p.  :i77. 

Section  1.  It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  merchant,  firm  or  cor- 
poration, for  the  purpose  of  attracting  trade  for  other  goods,  to 
appropriate  for  his  or  their  own  ends  a  name,  brand,  trademark, 
reputation  or  goodwill  of  any  maker  in  who.se  product  said  mer- 
chant, firm  or  corporation  deals,  or  to  discriminate  against  the 
same,  by  depreciating  the  value  of  such  products  in  the  public 
mind,  or  by  misrepresentation  as  to  value  or  quality,  or  by  price 
inducement,  or  by  unfair  discrimination  between  buyers,  or  in 
any  other  manner  whatsoever,  except  in  cases  where  said  goods 
do  not  carry  any  notice  prohibiting  such  practice,  and  except- 
ing in  case  of  a  receiver's  sale,  or  a  sale  by  a  concern  going  out 
of  business. 

Section  2.  Any  person,  firm  or  corporation  violating  this 
act  shall  be  liable  at  the  suit  of  the  maker  of  such  branded  or 


73G  Ai'i'i.NDix  r. 

tradcmarkoil  goods,  or  any  titlur  liijiui'd  pirstm.  to  an  liijuiic- 
tion  aj;aiiist  siu-li  practices,  ami  sludl  lie  lialilc  in  such  suit  for 
all  daniaiics  directly  or  indirectly  caused  to  the  maker  by  such 
practices,  which  said  daina^'cs  nuiy  he  increaseil  threefold,  in 
the  discretion  of  the  court. 

lSE(-noN  :{.     This  act  shall  tak.-  dVci-t  iniMietliat.'ly.     Apiu-ovcd 

April  1,  i:ti:{. 

That  this  statute,  being  in  derogation  of  the  common  law. 
must  be  strictly  construed,  ami  can  not  serve  to  enforce  a  mere 
price  restriction  alUxed  to  an  article  of  njcrchandise,  see  hi^ev- 
soil  V.  (iohlstdu  (N.  J.  Ch.),  \)\\  Atl.  Kep.  VXi. 

In  an  action  to  recover  penalties  under  sec.  ti  of  this  act  it 
is  not  necessary  to  show  guilty  knowledge  by  tiie  defendant. 
Cigar  Makers''  International  I'nion  of  America  r.  (ioldhrnj. 
57  Atl.  Kep-  1  *''•      l''^'  <'^'t  i-'^  constitutional.     I  hid. 

Section  10  of  Ihi.s  act  imposing  a  penalty  of  not  less  than  two 
hundred  dollars,  and  not  more  than  five  hundred  dollars,  per- 
mits the  plaint  ill"  in  an  action  for  its  recovery  to  elect  and  fix 
the  amount  for  which  the  suit  shall  be  brought  within  these 
limits.     State  r.  Sclnnidt.  4S  Atl.  Kep.  588. 

The  Acts  passed  in  188'J,  18!»2  and  18i)5,  for  the  i)rot»'ction 
of  the  labels,  trademarks  and  forms  of  advertising  of  a.ssocia- 
tioiLs  or  unions  of  workingmen,  were  held  not  to  be  unconstitu- 
tional, and  not  in  violation  of  article  IV,  sec.  7,  paragraph  11, 
of  the  (Constitution  of  New  Jersey,  forbidding  the  pa.ssage  of 
private,  local  or  special  laws,  granting  to  any  association,  cor- 
poration, or  individual,  any  special  privilege,  innnunity,  or 
franchise  whatever.  Schnnd:  r.  W'oohif,  57  N.  d.  \'a\.  :i03,  41 
Atl.  Kei).  931). 

An  Act  of  February  21,  l.s54,  supi)b'mented  .Maicli  :i5,  181)3, 
relating  to  the  protection  of  packages  of  maiuifacturers  of  min- 
eral waters,  and  other  beverages,  and  prescribing  a  penalty  for 
the  unauthorized  use  thereof,  tlid  not  apply  to  junk  dealers 
who  had  registered  bottK-s  on  their  premises,  lioinlen  v.  Ran- 
dolph Tp.,  41  N.  .).  Law.  402. 

In  the  Act  of  .March  11.  18:tl,  for  the  i)rotection  of  manulac- 
turers  and  bottlers  of  mineral  wat<'rs  and  the  like,  several  of- 
fenses are  specified.  It  has  been  held,  that  in  a  coiiiplaint  unde.- 
this  act,  no  .statement  of  demand  is  re(|uired ;  and  that  a  com- 
plaint is  defective  which  charges,  in  the  alternative,  the*  com- 
iiiission  of  one  or  another  of  several  of  the  specifieil  offenses. 
lirunt  V.  FrocUcli,  VJ  S.  J.  Law,  330,  8  Atl.  lU'p.  283. 


NtW    MKSUO    STATl'TKS. 


737 


NEW   MEXICO. 

AX    ACT    prnvi.Iiii-    for    (li<-    r.'>ii-t  i;it  i..ii    ..f    (i  iidr  naini's,    t  r;iil<- iiiiirk-    jukI 
lahcls. 

Ji<    it  rnarlnl  bil   tlit    Lcfjislatirr   Assmihhi  of  tlir   Territory  of 
Xcic  Mexico: 
SKcnioN   1.     Any  jxtsoii  or  persons,  linn,  corporation  or  asso- 
ciation   who   nianuriicturc   or   deal    in   articles   of   a   comniercial 
luitniv  and   wish   to  retain   the  exclnsivo   right  to  the  use  of  a 
trach'-nanie.  tra(h--inark  or  hihel,  shall  iiiak.'  a  dcscrii)tion  of  the 
same    in    writing,   accompanied    hy    a    fac-slmilr   of   such    tra<h'- 
nanie.   trademark    or   label,    which    description    and   appliration 
nnist  set    forth   the  elas-s  or  classes  of  nier.'h.indise  to  lie  covered 
hy  such  trade-iuime.  trade-mark  or  label,  toirether  with  a  state- 
ment that  the  applicant  claims  by  priority  of  adoption  and  em- 
ployment of  the  .same  exclusive  rielit  to  tli.-  use  thereof.     Such 
instrument  shall  ho  signed  by  at  least  one  of  the  person.s  or  by 
the  officials  of  the  company  makinir  application  for  recri-stration, 
the  whole  duly  acknowledi.'.'d.  and  filed  in  the  office  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Territory.     For  the  filing  of  each  application  and 
issuing  certificate   thereof,  the  secretary  shall    collect   a    fee  of 
$r).(K).     The  secretary  shall   keep   a    record   of  each  trade-name, 
trade-mark  or  label,  and  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  other  per- 
son, firm,  corporation  or  association  to  adopt  a  trade-name,  trade- 
mark or  label  identical  with  or  similar  to  one  previously  regis- 
tered.    A  copy  of  such  description  of  any  trade-name,  trade- 
mark or  label,  certified  under  the  Great  Seal  of  the  Territory 
of  New  :\rexico,  shall  be  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  facts  therein 
stated. 

Section  2.  The  proprietor  of  each  trade-name,  trade-mark  or 
label  shall  cause  the  same  to  be  plainly  marked,  printed,  stamped 
or  branded  upon  each  article  or  original  package  covered  by 
the  same. 

Section  3.  It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person  or  persons, 
firm,  corporation  or  association  to  use  or  refill  any  barrel,  sack, 
package  or  bottle  bearing  any  registered  trade-name,  trade-mark 
or  label  with  any  article  for  purposes  of  deceit. 

Section  4.  Tt  shall  be  uidawful  for  any  person  or  persons, 
firm,   corporation  or  association  to  make,   forge  or  counterfeit 


738  APPENDIX    P. 

any  tratli'-iiaiiu',  Iratlt'-iiiark  or  Inlnl  ]ir(n-ioiis]y  ropristorod  in  a('- 
rordaiicf  with  this  act  ;  have  in  his  or  tlwir  possession,  except 
with  written  permission  of  the  owner  thereof,  any  die.  stamp, 
stencil  or  model  of  such  tradc-naiiif.  trademark  or  label ;  vend 
or  keep  for  sale  any  drug's.  <,'ood.s.  wares  or  merchandise  intended 
to  represent  tlie  drug's,  floods,  wares  or  merchandise  covered  by 
such  tratle-nnme.  trade-mark  or  lahel,  or  affix  any  general  design 
ide?itieal  with  or  similar  to  such  trade-name,  trademark  or  lahcl 
when  not  the  first  to  ejnploy  or  use  tiie  same. 

Section  ">.  Any  person  or  persons,  firm,  corporation  or  as.so- 
eiation  violatini;  the  provisions  of  sections  '.\  or  4  of  this  a<*t  shall 
be  deemed  pnilty  of  misdemeanor  and  shall  he  suh.ieot  to  a 
fine  in  a  sum  not  less  than  .^50. 00  nor  more  than  $200.00  for 
each  offense,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court,  togetiier  with  dam- 
ages as  they  may  appear. 

Section  fi.  The  provisions  of  this  act,  in  so  far  as  tliey  may 
be  applicable,  are  hereby  (>xtended  to  any  person  or  persons, 
firm,  corporation  or  association,  who  may  have  reiristered  a 
trade-name,  trade-mark  or  label  in  <:o()d  faith  prior  to  the  pas- 
sage of  this  act,  and  this  act  shall  be  in  force  and  effect  from 
and  after  its  passage. 

Chap.  24,  Laws  1005.     Approved  March  2,  1905. 

No  official  form  for  application. 

NEW    YORK. 

Lawa   of    1 '.»(»!».    i-haptcr    0. 

Section  48.  Manufacturer's  brand  op  cheese.  Every 
manufacturer  of  full-milk  cheese  may  put  a  brand  or  label  upon 
such  cheese  indicating  "full-milk  cheese"  and  the  date  of  the 
month  and  year  when  made;  and  no  p(M'son  shall  use  such  a 
brand  or  label  upon  any  cheese  made  from  milk  from  which 
any  of  the  cream  has  been  taken.  The  Commissioner  of  Agri- 
culture shall  procure  and  issue  to  the  cheese  manufacturers  of 
the  state,  on  proper  application  therefor,  and  under  such  regu- 
lations as  to  the  custody  and  use  thereof  as  h(>  may  prescribe, 
a  uniform  stencil  l)rand  or  labels  bearing  a  suitable  device  or 
motto,   and    the    words   "New    York    state    full-cream    cheese." 


\I\V     V()1{K    STATI'I'KS.  739 

Every  such  lirinxl  oi-  lalicl  sliall  lio  used  upon  llif  oiitsido  of 
the  cliccsc  iiiid  sliall  hear  a  (lillcn-rit  iiiiiiiliri-  lor  cadi  separate 
factory.  TIk'  coiiiiiiissioiu'r  shall  keep  a  hook,  in  wliicli  shall 
])('  i'('<;ist('n'(l  the  name,  location  and  /luiiihcr  of  each  inainifac- 
tory  usiii^'  the  hi'aiids  oi-  lahels,  and  the  name  ov  names  of  the 
I»ersons  at  each  manuractory  aiithori/.ed  to  use  the  same.  \o 
such  hrand  or  lahels  shall  he  used  upon  any  other  than  full-milk 
cheese  or  packages  containin<^  the  same. 

Section  49.  Use  op  false  brand  rKoiiiniTKi).  No  person  shall 
offer,  sell,  or  ex|)ose  for  sale,  i?i  any  packas^e,  hutter  or  cheese 
which  is  falsely  hranded  or  lahelcd. 

Section  50.  Coitnty  trademarks.  At  a  regular  or  special 
meeting  of  a  county  dairymen's  association  in  any  county  of 
the  state  there  may  Ix;  adopted  a  county  trade  mark,  by  a  ma- 
jority of  the  mem-})ers  present  and  votincr,  to  he  used  as  a  trade 
mark  ])y  a  person  manufacturing  pure,  unadulterated  butter  or 
full-milk  cheese  in  such  county.  The  secretary  of  the  associa- 
tion shall  forthwith  send  to  the  Commissioner  of  Agriculture 
a  copy  of  such  trade  mark,  which  copy  he  .shall  i)lace  on  file  in 
his  office,  noting  thereupon  the  day  and  hour  he  received  the 
.same.  Hut  one  county  trade  mark  for  hutter  and  for  cheese 
shall  be  placed  on  file  for  the  same  county.  No  association  shall 
adopt  any  trade  mark  in  any  county  already  on  file,  or  use 
that  of  any  other  county  in  the  formation  of  a  trade  mark. 

Section  51.  Ob.ject  and  intent  of  this  article.  This  ar- 
ticle and  each  section  thereof  are  declared  to  be  enacted  to  pre- 
vent deception  in  the  sale  of  dairy  products,  and  to  preserve 
the  public  health,  which  is  endangered  by  the  manufacture,  sale 
and  use  of  the  articles  herein  regulated  or  prohibited. 

Section  52.  Penalties.  Every  person  violating  any  of  the 
provisions  of  this  chapter  shall  forfeit  to  the  people  of  the 
state  of  New  York  the  sum  of  not  less  than  fifty  nor  more 
than  one  hundred  dollars  for  the  first  violation  and  not  less 
than  one  hundred  dollars  nor  more  than  two  hundred  dollars 
for  the  .second  and  each  subsequent  violation.  When  such  vio- 
lation consists  of  the  manufacture  or  production  of  any  pro- 
hibited article,  each   day  during  which  or  any  part  of  which 


"JO  APPKNI>I\    K. 

sui-li  Jiinnufai'turc  or  |tr(Mliictioii  is  iMirii-d  on  or  coiitiiiuoil, 
slinll  1)0  tltHMurd  a  separate  violation.  When  tlu'  violation  con- 
sists of  tlu*  sale,  or  tlif  ofTcrintr  or  I'xposin^:  for  sale  or  oxchnnge 
of  any  prohiltited  article  or  snhstanec,  the  sale  of  each  one  of 
several  pai'ka«:es  shall  constitiite  a  separate  violation,  and  each 
tiny  on  which  any  such  articK-  or  s»il)stan('e  is  otTer(Ml  or  exposed 
for  s;de  or  exchange  shall  constitute  a  separate  violation.  When 
the  use  of  any  such  article  or  suhstaitce  is  prohibited,  each  day 
durinfj  whieh  or  any  part  of  \vhi<'h  such  article  or  substance  is 
so  used  or  furnishetl  for  use.  shall  constitute  a  .separate  viola- 
tion, and  the  furnisliinfj  of  the  same  for  nse  to  each  person  to 
Avhoni  the  same  may  be  furnished  shall  constitute  a  separate 
violation. 

1      Chapter  lir»,  jjiws  of  l!)()0,  contains  the  follow  in«;  sections: 

SkcTION     'MiU.        Tli  \I»1-M  AICKS     O.V     I'.OTTI.KS.     SHMIONS.     TI.NS     (IK 

KEGS.  Any  peiNon  or  corporation  en.L'a<:ed  in  ma<iut"acturinj;, 
bottling  or  .sellinj;  sod:i  waters,  mineral  or  ai'rated  u~aters,  porter, 
ale.  beer,  cider,  frinjrtr  ale.  milk,  cream,  small  beer,  laper  beer, 
Weiss  beer,  white  ])eer,  or  othi-r  beverages  or  medicines,  medicinal 
pre[)arations,  perfumery,  oils,  com|)ounds  or  mixtures,  in  bottles, 
siphons,  tin.s  or  kegs,  with  his  or  its  name  or  other  marks  or 
devices  branded,  stamped,  engraved,  etched,  blown,  inipre.s.sed, 
or  otherwise  produced  upon  such  bottles,  siphons,  tins  or  kegs, 
or  the  boxes  u.sed  by  him  or  it,  may  file  in  the  office  of  the  clerk 
of  the  county  in  which  his  or  its  principal  i>lace  of  business  is 
situated,  or  if  such  jjcrson'  or  corporation  shall  manufacture 
or  bottle  out  of  this  state,  then  in  any  county  in  this  state,  and 
also  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  a  description  of  the 
nanre,  marks  or  devices  so  nsed  by  him  or  it.  and  cause  such 
description  to  be  |»rinted  once  in  each  week,  foi-  three  weeks 
suece.ssively,  in  a  newspaper  published  in  the  county  in  which 
said  notice  may  have  been  filed  as  aforesaid,  except  that  in  the 
boroughs  of  .Mardiattan  and  Brooklyn  in  the  city  of  Xew  York, 
such  pulilication  sliall  be  made  twice  in  each  week  for  tliree 
weeks  successively  in  two  daily  newspa|ters  published  in  such 
boroughs,  respectively,  and  he  shall  thereupon  be  deemed  the 
proprietor  of  such  name,  mark  or  device  and  of  every  vessel  or 
receptacle  upon  which  it  may  be  branded,  stamped,  engraved, 
otchr-d,  blown,  impressed  (u*  otherwise  produced. 


m:\v   vt'KK   sr\'ri'n:s.  741 

Skctiox  ;?(■>!.  Ti;\i>i;m  \i{KS  ox  otiikk  vhticf.fs.  Any  [icrson 
or  cnriioi-iitinii  cii^'a^'cd  in  niamir.ict  iiriiij.',  frt'c/iii^'.  preserving' 
or  selling  it"*'  fi'oani,  eont'ectionery.  ehariotle  russe,  cakes  and 
jellies,  with  his  or  its  name,  or  other  marks  or  devices,  hranded, 
staiiii>e<l,  enjii'a\e(l,  stenciled.  Mown,  inipressed  or  otherwise 
produced  upon  the  free/ers,  eans,  liloeks,  molds,  trays,  bricks, 
pans,  tank«.  pails,  keprs,  tubs,  refrif^erators,  boxes,  spoons,  cut- 
lery, glass,  china,  chairs,  tables  or  sipn.s  used  liy  him  or  if,  may 
file  in  the  olTice  of  the  clerk  of  tlie  county  in  which  his  or  its 
principal  place  of  business  is  located,  or  if  such  [)erson  or  cor- 
poration shall  manufacture  or  sell  out  of  this  state.  the?i  in  any 
county  in  this  state,  and  also  in  the  olTlce  of  the  Secretary  of 
State,  a  description  of  the  name  or  names,  marks  or  devices, 
so  used  by  him  or  it.  and  cause  .such  description  to  be  printed 
once  in  each  week,  for  three  weeks  successively,  in  a  newspaper 
published  in  the  county  in  which  said  notice  may  have  been 
filed,  as  aforesaid,  except  that  in  the  boroughs  of  ^Manhattan 
and  Brooklyn  in  the  city  of  New  York,  such  publication  .shall 
be  made  twice  in  each  week,  for  three  weeks  successively,  in  two 
daily  newspapers  published  in  said  boroughs  respectively. 

Section  302.  Unlawfi-l  t-re  ok  thaok  maukko  articles. 
1.  It  is  hereby  declared  to  be  unlawful  foi-  any  person  or  cor- 
poration to  fill  with  soda  waters,  mineral  or  aerated  waters, 
porter,  ale,  cider,  ginger  ale.  milk,  cream,  beer,  small  beer,  lager 
beer,  weiss  beer,  white  beer  or  oth(>r  beverages,  or  with  medicine, 
medical  preparations,  perfumery,  oils,  compounds  or  mixtures, 
any  bottle,  box,  siphon,  tin  or  keg  so  marked  or  distinguished 
as  aforesaid,  with  or  by  any  name,  mark  or  device,  of  whieli  a 
description  shall  have  been  filed  and  published,  as  provided  in 
section  three  hundred  and  sixty,  or  to  deface,  erase,  obliterate, 
cover  up  or  otherwise  remove  or  conceal  any  such  name,  mark 
or  device  thereon,  or  to  sell,  buy.  give,  take  or  otherwise  dispose 
of  or  tratfic  in  the  same  without  the  written  j'onsent  of,  or  unless 
the  same  shall  have  been  purchased  from  the  person  or  corpora- 
tion whose  mark  or  device  shall  be  or  shall  have  been  in  or 
upon  the  hottle,  box,  siphon,  tin  or  keg  so  filled,  trafficked  in, 
used  or  handled  as  aforesaid.  Any  person  or  corporation  of- 
fending against  the  provisions  of  this  subdivision  shall  be 
deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall  be  punished  for  the 


742  APPENDIX    F. 

first  otTciisc  l»y  iiiiprisoiuiifiit  fitr  not  less  than  ten  days  nor 
more  than  onf  year,  or  Ity  a  tino  of  Ht'ty  cciits  for  each  and 
every  sinh  hottU-,  hox,  .si|)hon.  tin  or  kc^  so  fiUed,  sohl,  ased, 
disposed  of.  houjrht  or  tranicked  in,  or  by  hoth  such  Ihw  and 
injprisonnient.  anil  for  cadi  sMhsc<|U('nt  olTcnsc  hy  imprisonment 
not  less  tlum  twenty  days  nor  more  than  one  year,  or  hy  a  fine 
of  not  h'ss  than  one  dollar,  nor  more  than  live  dollars,  for  each 
and  rvt-ry  huttlc.  hox.  siphon,  tin  or  kcii  so  filled,  sold,  used, 
disposed  of.  hoM'jht  or  trafTicked  in.  or  hy  hoth  such  fine  and 
imprisonment,  in  the  discretion  of  the  niasristrate  before  whom 
tlie  offense  shall  he  tried. 

2.  Tt  is  hereby  declared  to  be  unlawful  for  any  person  or 
corporation  to  nuikc  use  of.  for  similar  or  other  jiiirposes.  any 
.such  freezers,  cans,  blocks.  moMs.  trays,  bricks,  pans,  tanks, 
pails.  ke<rs.  tubs,  n^frifjerators.  boxes,  sjioons,  cutlery,  jrlass, 
china,  chairs,  tables  or  siprns  so  marked  or  distinjruished,  as 
aforesaid,  with  or  by  any  name,  mark  or  device,  of  which  a 
description  shall  have  been  filed  and  published,  as  provided  in 
section  three  hundred  and  sixty-one.  or  to  deface,  erase,  obliterate, 
cover  up  or  otherwise  remove  or  conceal,  any  such  name,  mark 
or  device  thereon,  or  to  sell,  buy,  jjive,  take  or  otherwise  dispose 
of  or  traffic  in  the  same  without  the  written  consent  of,  or  unless 
the  same  shall  have  been  purchased  from  the  person  or  corpora- 
tion whose  mark  or  device  shall  be  or  shall  have  hoou  in  or 
upon  the  said  freezers,  cans,  blocks,  molds,  trays,  bricks,  pans, 
tanks,  pails,  kejrs,  tubs,  refriserators,  boxes,  spoons,  cutlery, 
glass,  china,  chairs,  tables  or  sipjns  trafficked  in,  used  or  handled 
as  afoH'said.  Any  person  or  corporation  ofTendint;  ajrainst  the 
provision  of  this  subdivision,  shall  be  deemed  {juilty  of  a  mis- 
demeanor, ami  shall  be  punished  for  the  first  offense  hy  im- 
prisonment not  less  than  ten  days  nor  more  than  one  year,  or 
by  a  fine  of  three  dollars  for  each  and  every  such  artich^  name<l 
and  described  in  section  three  hundred  and  sixty-one.  sold,  used, 
dispased  of,  boufzht  or  trafficked  in,  or  by  both  such  fine  and 
iiriprisfnuiient.  and  for  each  subse(|uent  offense  by  imprisonment 
not  less  than  twenty  days  nor  more  than  one  year,  or  by  a  fine 
of  not  less  than  five  dollars  nor  more  than  ten  dollars  for  each 
and  every  such  article  named  and  describe<1  in  said  .section, 
sold,  used,  disi)0sed  of,  huuKht  ov  tratlicked  iu,  or  by  b(jth  such 


NKW    VOUI-:    STATITKS.  743 

fine  ;mi(]  iiiiprisomiiciil,  in  IIk-  discrclioii  of  llic  magistrate  before 

uliorii   flic  olVciisc  shall   lie  ti'icil. 

Section  'M)'\.  I'lnosf.MrTni:  iaidknci:  ok  rNLAWFtr.  itse. 
1.  TIk'  use  by  any  person,  other  than  tlie  person  or  ef)r|)ora- 
tion  whose  device,  name  or  mark  sliall  he  or  shall  hav(3  Ix'en  upon 
the  same  without  such  written  consent  oi*  pui'chase  as  afore- 
said, of  any  such  luai'ked  or  distin^'ui.shed  bottle,  })0X,  siphon, 
tin  or  keg,  a  description  of  the  name,  nuirk  or  device,  whereon 
shall  have  been  filed  and  published,  as  herein  provided,  for  the 
sale  therein  of  soda  waters,  mineral  or  ai-rated  waters,  porter, 
ale,  cider,  <^injrer  ale,  milk,  cream,  beer,  small  beer,  lager  beer, 
vveiss  beer,  white  beer  or  other  beverages,  or  an.y  article  of 
merchandise,  medicines,  nuMlicinal  preparations,  perfumery,  oils, 
eompouiuls,  mixtures  or  preparations,  or  for  the  furnishing  of 
such  or  similar  beverages  to  customers,  or  the  buying,  selling, 
using,  dispasing  of  or  trafficking  in  any  such  bottles,  boxes, 
siphons,  tins  or  kegs  by  any  person  other  than  said  persons  or 
corporations  having  a  name,  mark  or  device  thereon  of  such 
owner  witliout  such  written  consent,  or  the  having  by  any  junk 
dealer  or  dealers  in  second-hand  articles,  possession  of  any  such 
bottles,  boxes,  siphons,  tins  or  kegs,  a  description  of  the  marks, 
names  or  devices,  whereon  shall  have  been  so  filed  and  published 
as  aforesaid,  without  such  written  consent,  shall  and  is  hereby 
declared  to  be  presumptive  evidence  of  the  said  unlawful  use, 
purchase  and  traffic  in  of  such  l)ottles,  boxes,  siphons,  tins 
or  kegs. 

"2.  The  use  by  any  person  other  than  the  person  or  corpora- 
tion whose  device,  name  or  mark  shall  be  or  shall  have  been 
upon  the  same  without  such  written  consent  or  purchase  as 
aforesaid,  of  any  such  article  named  and  described  in  section  three 
hundred  and  sixty-one,  a  description  of  the  name,  mark  or  de- 
vice whereon  shall  have  been  filed  and  published  as  herein 
provided,  for  similar  or  other  purposes,  or  the  buying,  selling, 
using,  disposing  of.  or  trafficking  in  any  such  article  named 
and  described  in  said  section,  by  any  person  other  than  said 
persons  or  corporations  having  a  name,  mark  or  device  thereon 
of  such  owner,  without  such  written  consent,  or  the  having 
by  any  junk  dealer  or  dealers  in  second-hand  articles,  posses- 
f^ion  of  any  such  article,  named  and  described  in  said  section, 


744  APl'KNDIX    V. 

a  (It'soriptlon  .if  llu-  marks,  iiainos  or  dcvioos.  wlioroon  sliall  liavo 
luH'U  so  filfd  ami  pultlislnMl  as  afon-said.  without  such  written 
ronsiMit.  shall,  ami  is  IumvIiv  (U'l-larcd  to  he  prcsuniptivt'  »'vi- 
(UMU'f  of  the  said  unlawful  use  or  purchase  of  .iikI  tratTic  in  ot 
such  freoziTs,  cans,  lilocks,  uiolils.  trays,  bricks,  pans,  tanks, 
pails,  ke^'s.  tubs,  refrigerators,  boxes,  spoons,  cutlery,  iriass. 
oliiiin.  chairs,   tables  or  signs. 

SkCTION    ma.       SF.AKCM     WAKKANT    to    msCOVKK    TKADK    MAKKKP 

ARTICLES  UNiJVWFiLLY  USED.  1.  Whenever  any  person  or  cor- 
poration mentioned  in  si'ction  three  hundred  and  sixty  or  his  or 
its  atrent  shall  nud<e  oath  bcM'ore  any  nia^'istrate  that  he  or  it 
has  reason  to  believe,  and  docs  l)clievo,  that  any  of  his  or  its 
bottles,  boxes,  siphons,  tins  or  ketrs.  a  de.seription  of  the  Tuiines. 
marks  or  devices  whereon  has  been  so  filed  and  published  as 
aforesaid,  are  bein«r  unlawfully  used  lu-  filled,  or  had.  by  any 
person  or  corporation  nuinufacturinj;  or  sellin<r  soda,  mineral  or 
aerateil  waters,  porter,  ale,  eider.  f,Mn«jer  ale,  milk,  eream,  small 
beer,  lager  beer,  weiss  beer,  white  beer  or  other  beverages  or 
medicine,  medieinal  preparations,  perfumery,  oils,  eompounds  or 
mixtures,  or  that  any  .junk  dealer  or  dealers  in  second-hand 
articles,  vendor  of  bottles,  or  any  other  person  or  corporation 
luLs  any  such  bottles,  boxes,  siphons,  tins  or  kegs  in  liis  or  its 
possession  or  secreted  in  any  place,  the  said  magistrate  must 
thereupon  issue  a  search  warrant  to  discover  and  obtain  the 
.same,  and  may  also  cause  to  be  brought  before  him  the  person 
in  whose  possession  sueh  bottles,  boxes,  siphons,  tins  or  kegs 
may  he  found,  and  shall  then  inquire  into  the  circumstances  of 
such  possession,  and  if  sueh  magistrate  finds  that  such  person 
lias  been  guilty  of  a  violation  of  s.ibdivision  one  of  section  three 
hundred  and  sixty-two.  he  must  impose  the  punishment  herein 
prescribed,  and  he  shall  also  award  possession  of  the  i^roperty 
taken  upon  such  -warrant  to  the  owner  thereof. 

'J.  Wiienever  any  jx-rson  or  corporation  mentioned  in  sci-tion 
three  hundred  and  sixty-one  or  his  or  its  agent  shall  make  oath 
before  any  magistrate  that  he  or  it  has  reason  to  believe,  and 
does  believe,  that  any  of  his  or  its  freezers,  cans,  blocks,  molds, 
trays,  bricks,  i)ans,  tanks,  pails,  kegs.  tubs,  refrigerators,  boxes. 
Kj>oons,  cutlery,  ghtss.  china,  chairs,  tables  or  signs,  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  names,   nuirks  uv  devices  whereon  has  been  so   filed 


Ni:\v  voiv'K-  sTATi  ri:s.  Ti;! 

niul  pii'ilislicil  ;is  ;i I'oi'csaitl,  ;iit  lirinir  milawfiilly  used  ff>r 
similar  or  oIIm'C  [iiii'posos,  or  tlial  any  junk'  ilcalcr  or  dealer  in 
seeond-liaiid  aitides.  op  an\'  ollii'i-  person  oi-  corixiratiori,  has 
anj'  such  ar-tiilc  as  naiiicd  and  desciiltcd  liciciii,  in  his  or  its 
possession,  of  scrrdrd  ill  any  place,  the  said  iiiajristrate  nnist 
tliereiipon  issue  a  search  uaiTaiit  to  discover  and  ol)lain  tlic 
same,  and  may  also  cause  to  he  hruiiLdit  hcfore  him  the  person 
in  wliose  possession  such  artich-s  as  named  and  dese.rihed  lierein 
may  he  round,  and  shall  tlien  in(|uire  into  the  eireunistance.s  of 
such  possession,  ami  if  such  ma<ristrate  finds  that  such  person 
has  heen  ^niilty  ol"  a  violation  of  siihdivision  two  of  section  three 
hundred  and  sixty-two.  lie  must  impose  the  punishment  herein 
preserihed,  and  he  shall  also  award  possession  of  the  property 
taken  upon  sucli  warrant  to  the  owner  thereof. 

Skctiox  rjO.").  What  constittths  sale  of  articlk.  The  re- 
(piirinir.  takin.LT  or  accepting'-  of  any  deposit,  for  any  purpose, 
upon  any  hottle.  siplion,  tin,  keir,  free/er,  can,  hlock.  mold,  tray, 
l)riek,  j)an,  tank,  pail,  keg,  tuh,  refrijzerator,  hox,  spoon,  cutlery, 
glass,  china,  chair,  tahle  or  sign,  shall  not  he  deemed  or  consti- 
tute a  sale  of  such  property,  either  optional  or  othenVise,  in 
any  proceeding  under  this  article. 

Section  366.  Trade  marks  heretofore  filed.  Any  person 
or  persons,  corporation  or  corporations,  that  has  or  have  here- 
tofore filed  in  the  ()ffic<'s  mentioned  in  sections  three  hundred  and 
sixty  or  three  hundred  and  sixty-one,  a  description  of  the 
name  or  names,  marks  or  devices  upon  his  or  its  property, 
therein  mentioned,  and  has  caused  the  same  to  he  puhlished 
according  to  the  law  existing  at  the  time  of  such  filing  and  pub- 
lication, shall  not  be  required  to  again  file  and  publish  such 
description  to  he  entitled  to  the  henefits  of  this  article. 

Section  367.  Further  promsioxs  concerning  trade-marks 
on  articles  of  merchandise.  Any  person  or  corporation  en- 
gaged in  manufacturing,  packing,  bottling  or  selling  any  article 
of  merchandise,  jtut  up  by  him  for  sale  in  any  bottle,  vessel, 
box.  package  or  other  receptach*  with  his  name,  trade-mark, 
label  or  private  mark  appearing  in  any  way  thereon,  or  branded, 
stamped,  affixed,  ])lown  or  impressed  thereon,  may  file  in  the 
office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  in  the  office  of  the  county 


74G  AI'PKNDIX    V. 

clerk  of  tlie  county  \\lirr«'  \\\o  saiiio  is  iiiaiuifa<'turftl,  pacUctl, 
Dottlcil  or  put  up  for  sale,  ur  wlu-n-  liis,  its  or  tlicir  prim-ipal 
place  of  bu.siiK'ss  is  situatfd,  or  if  su«'li  person  or  torporation 
sluill  mauufaiturc,  pack  or  l)ottlc  outside  of  tliis  state,  then  in 
any  county  of  this  state,  and  also  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary' 
of  State,  a  deseription.  speeiiiien  or  fae-^siniih'  of  the  name,  tratlc- 
inark.  hiliel  or  other  private  mark  so  appearini;  thereon  or  so 
l)randed,  stamped,  affixed.  l>h)wn.  impressed  or  otherwise 
marked  thereupon,  and  he  sliall  thereupon  he  (K'eiiu'd  the  pro- 
prit  tor  of  such  iiam«\  trade-mark,  hihel  or  otlier  private  mark. 
The  Secretary  of  State  shall  deliver  to  sueli  person  or  corpora- 
tion so  filinf?  the  same,  a  eertilieate  undi'r  the  seal  of  the  rcconl 
of  sueh  lalii'l,  trade-mark  or  otlier  |)rivate  mark.  Any  pi-rson  or 
corporation  so  filin*?  said  description,  siiecimcn  or  fac-simile 
may  puhlisli  tlic  same  once  a  week  for  at  least  three  weeks  suc- 
cessively in  a  newspaper  pu!)lished  in  said  county,  except  in 
New  York  and  Kinirs  counties,  where  such  pulilication  shall  be 
for  the  same  leiiiith  of  time  daily  in  two  newsjiapers  therein. 
Such  a  certificate  granted  by  the  Secretary  of  State  under  this 
act  and  proof  of  publication  as  aforesaid  shall  be  jirima  facie 
evidence  of  the  ownership  and  use  of  the  trademark  and  label 
by  the  persons  therein  named,  in  any  actions  under  this  statute. 
Such  certificate  shall  be  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  ownership 
and  use  of  any  label  or  trade-mark  therein  described  by  the 
person  therein  named  in  any  prosecution  or  action  under  any 
of  the  statutes  of  this  state,  where  proof  of  such  ownership  and 
use  is  necessary,  and  in  any  action  or  iiroceediiifr  brought  for 
the  purpose  of  recovering  damages  for  the  violation  of  .said 
trade-mark  or  of  preventing  infringement  thereof.  This  stat- 
ute, liowcver.  .shall  not  be  construed  as  preventing  the  proof 
of  any  sucli  label  or  trade-mark  and  the  use  thereof  in  any 
lawful  manner  in  use  prior  to  the  passage  of  this  act.  The 
Secretary  of  State  shall  not  record,  register,  or  file  any  label, 
trad<*-mark  or  other  private  mark  identical  witii  (»i-  similar  to 
anv  other  label,  trade-mark  or  other  private  mark  theretofore 
filed  or  registered  as  abovi'  proviibil  as  would  be  calculated 
to  deceive,  unless  it  shall  be  proven  to  his  satisfaction  that  the 
person  or  corporation  lastly  api)lying  for  the  registiy  of  sueh 
label,  trademark  or  other  private  mark  sh;ill  be  entitled  thereto. 


Ni:\v  YouK  sTA'n'KS  747 

ami  the  I'if^litfiil  ow  iici-  llicrcot"  hy  pi'ior  ailoptioii ;  in  wliifli 
case  tlic  <lat('  of  tlic  adoprmii  shall  il«|crmiii(?  the  ownership 
and  shall  he  proven  hy  alifi'lavils  of  person  conversant  with  sufli 
dates  Tti  case  the  Secretary  of  State  heconies  satisfied,  after 
heariiii,'  the  said  aHidaNits,  thai  the  person  or  corporation  last 
ajiplyinj^  for  re<,Mstry  is  entitled  hy  jjriority  of  adoption  to 
register  .such  lahel,  tivide-niark  or-  other  i)rivate  mark,  he  .sluill 
revoke  the  lir-s(  r-e^isfr-y  tIier-eol\  ami  rc-refrister  the  same  in  tlie 
name  of  said  persons  last  appl>intf  therefor.  The  supreme 
court  may  also,  in  an  action  hruught  for  that  purpose  hy  any 
person  aggrieved  therehy  against  any  person  who  ha.s  already 
filed  or  registi'red  any  such  label,  trade-mark  or  other  privati- 
mark,  direct  the  revocation  of  any  such  registration  where  it 
shall  determine  that  the  person  wlio  has  already  registered  the 
same  is  not  the  riuhttul  owner  of  any  such  label,  trade-mark  or 
other  private  mark.  No  person  other  than  such  proprietor  of 
such  label,  trade-mar-k  or-  otiici-  private  mark  which  has  been 
filed  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  and  in  the  office  of 
the  county  clei-k,  as  aforesaid,  .shall  sell,  keei)  or  offer  for  sale 
in,  from,  or  out  of,  or  fill,  place  or  put  into,  any  vessel,  box. 
package,  bottle  or  receptacle  on  which  any  such  names,  labels 
or  iirarks  in  any  maimer  appear,  aird  w  bile  so  branded,  .stamped, 
labeled,  blown,  impressed  or  marked,  any  article  or  substance 
other  than  the  original  contents  placed  therein  l)y  the  proprietor 
of  the  label,  trade-mark  or  other  private  marks  thereon,  or  sell, 
keep  or  offer  for  sale  any  article  or  substance  in.  from  or  out 
of,  or  fill,  or  place  or  put  any  article  or  substance  into  any 
vessel,  box,  package,  bottle  or  receptacle  on  which  .said  label 
and  trade-mark  in  any  manner  app<'ars  or  whicli  shall  bear  or 
liave  branded,  stamped,  labeled,  blown,  impressed  or  otherwise 
marked  thereon,  any  imitation  or  counterfeit  of  any  such 
la])el,  trade-mark  or  other  private  mark  so  filed  in  the  office  of 
the  Secretary  of  State  and  county  clerk  as  afor(«,aid.  Xo  person 
other  than  such  proprietor  in  such  ca.ses  where  filing  and  pub- 
lication is  made  as  aforesaid,  .shall  remove,  deface  or  o])literate 
any  device,  l)i-arid,  stamp,  mar-k,  name,  trade-mark  or  other 
private  marks  impressed,  stamped  or  lilown  into  the  substance 
of  which  any  vi^ssel  or  receptacle  is  composed,  without  the  writ- 
ten permission   of  such   proprietor  or  unless  there  has  been  a 


T4S  AlTKNhlN    K. 

salo  to  such  person  of  sucli  vessel  or  reeeptacle  exclusive  of 
thp  contents  thereof  hy  sueh  proprietor.  No  person  other  than 
sueh  proprietor  shall,  without  his  pernii.ssion,  use.  trafTie  in, 
|»urchase,  sell.  tlisp(vs«>  of.  conviTt.  uuitilfift'.  destroy  or  wilfully 
or  unrensonnhly  refust>  to  return  or  deliver  to  such  proprietor 
on  tlenuuul.  mii\  sueh  vessel  or  reeeptaele  helonjriuf?  to  such 
proprietor,  whieh  is  hranded.  stamped  or  niark«'d  ])y  having 
any  sueh  registered  design,  device,  name  or  mark  blown  in  or 
impre.ssed  into  the  substance  of  which  the  ves.sel  or  receptacle 
i.s  composed  or  sell  or  dispose  of  any  such  vessel  or  rect'ptaele 
without  obliteratin<r  or  deraciii<r  such  label,  trade-mark  or  other 
jirivate  mark  if  s»u-h  .obliteratiiiir  or  defaeiu;:  can  be  done 
without  substantial  injury  to  the  vessel  or  receptacle  on  which 
it  appears  or  to  whicli  it  is  affixed  providing  filin<r  and  publica- 
tion has  been  made  as  aforesaid.  Nothinpr  lierein  contained  shall 
be  construed  as  preventiuf;  the  traffic  in  any  bottle.s  or  other 
recej)tacles  without  contents,  with  or  without  tlie  obliteration 
or  defacement  of  the  trademark  upon  it.  wliich  s\ich  trademark 
can  he  obliterated  or  defaced  without  substantial  injury  to 
the  bottle  or  receptacle,  the  intention  of  this  section  beint?  to 
proti.»ct  the  o\niers  of  the  trade-marks  and  labels  aprainst  imita- 
tion and  refilling  of  all  packages  and  receptacles  while  bearing 
such  tra(h'-marks.  lOach  act  of  refilling,  each  sale,  each  imita- 
tion, each  counterfeit  and  each  offering  for  sale  shall  be  con- 
strued as  constitiiting  a  separate  and  distinct  violatioji  of  this 
act.  Any  person  violating  any  provisions  of  this  section  shall 
forfeit  to  such  proprietor  one  hundred  dollars  for  each  such 
violation.  "Written  penni.ssion  of  such  proprietor  to  do  the 
s[)ecific  act  complained  of  shall  be  a  complete  defense  to  any 
action  under  this  section.  Nothing  in  this  act  sliall  prevent. 
le.s.scn,*  impeach,  or  avoid  any  reme<ly  at  law  or  in  ecpiity  which 
any  party  aggrieved  by  any  wrongful  use  of  any  trademark 
might  have  Irad  if  this  act  luid  not  been  passed,  and  nothing 
herein  contained  shall  prevent  or  avoid  or  defeat  any  prasecu- 
tion  under  any  of  the  existintr  penal  or  other  statutes  of  this 
state.  It  is  not  intended  hcreliy  to  repeal  any  of  the  existing 
penal  or  civil  s-tatutcs  or  remedies  relating  tt»  any  trade  murks, 
labels,  })ottles  or  i>ackagca. 

•  S<i   in   original. 


Nr:W    VOKK    STVTI  TICS.  740 

T.iiwH   of    l!MI!i.    (liaiil.r    :U). 
SeCTIOM    l").       TiAHKl.S.    liKANrW    AND    MAItKS    VHF.D    BY    l.MVm    OH- 

GANi/ATioNs.  A  imioii  (IP  iissocijit if)ii  of  j'lnploycs  may  adopt  a 
device  in  llir  foriii  of  a  laln'l,  hnmd,  mark,  naiiie  or  other  ehar- 
jK'ti'i-  foi-  tilt'  purpose  of  desi<;iiatiiit^  tlie  products  of  tlie  lahor 
of  the  iiiciiilici's  tliercof.  Duplicate  copies  of  such  device  shall 
lie  filed  in  the  ol'licc  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  who  ,shall,  under 
his  hand  and  seal,  deliver  to  the  union  or  association  filinjf  or 
re^isterinj,'  the  same  a  certified  copy  and  a  certificate  of  the 
filintr  thereof,  for  which  he  shall  he  entitled  to  a  fee  of  one 
dollar.  Such  certificate  shall  not  he  assignahle  hy  the  uiuon  oi- 
association  to  whom  it  is  is-sued. 

Sl'X'TK'N     1<I.        ll.CEnAL    IlSf-:    OP    LAnF.IvS,    TmANDR    AXn    MARKS    A 

MisuKMHWoi; ;  iNirxcTioN  i'R()rE!:niX(;.s.  A  person  who  (1* 
.shall  in  any  way  use  oi*  display  the  lahel,  hran*!,  mark,  name 
or  character  adopted  hy  any  such  union  or  association  as  pro- 
vided iji  the  preceding  .section,  without  the  consent  or  authority 
of  siioli  union  or  association:  or  (2)  shall  counterfeit  or  imitate 
any  such  lahel,  hrand,  mark,  name  or  other  character,  or  know- 
ingly sells  or  disposes  or  keeps  or  has  in  lii.s  po.ssession,  with 
intent  to  sell,  or  dispose  of,  or  keeps,  or  has  in  his  possession, 
with  intent  to  sell,  or  dispose  of  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise 
or  other  products  of  lahor  contained  in  any  box,  ease,  can  or 
package,  to  whicli  or  on  whicli  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation 
is  attached,  affixed,  printed,  painted,  stamped  or  impre.ssed,  is 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall  he  punished  hy  a  fine  of 
not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars,  nor  more  than  five  hundred 
dollars,  or  by  impri.sonment  for  not  less  than  three  months  nor 
more  than  one  year,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment. 
After  filing  copies  of  such  device,  such  union  or  association  may 
also  maintain  an  action  to  en.ioin  the  maiuifacture,  use,  display 
or  sale  of  counterfeit  or  colorable  imitations  of  such  device,  or 
of  goods  bearing  the  same,  or  the  unauthorized  display  of  such 
device,  or  of  goods  bearing  the  same,  and  the  court  may  restrain 
such  wrongful  manufacture,  use,  display  or  sale,  and  every 
unauthoi'ized  use  or  dis|)lay  by  others  of  the  genuine  device  so 
registered  and  filed,  if  such  use  or  display  is  not  authorized  by 
the  owner  thereof,  and  may  award  to  the  jdaintifT  such  damages 


750  APPKNDIX    1'. 

rosultinn  from  such  \vroii>;ful  iiiamifacturc,  use,  «lispla)'  nr  sale 
as  may  lu*  pnivcd.  top'tlu-r  with  tin-   profits  (Irrivcd  tlu-rcfroin. 

l.nws   nf    I'.Ml'.t,    ,liii|.t<r    ss. 

Section  4:i.'>.  Fai^^k  lauki^*^.  A  porsmi  uIki.  with  intiMit  to 
d«>frau<l : 

V  Puts  upon  an  art  id*'  of  nuM-chandiso.  or  \ipoii  a  cask, 
JH)ttlo.  stopper,  vc.ssd.  caso,  cover,  wraitper.  packajfe,  band, 
ticket,  lahcl  or  other  tlnnjr,  containinf;  or  covering  sucli  an 
article,  or  with  which  such  an  article  is  intench'd  to  he  sold,  or 
is  sold.  aii\  false  description  or  other  iiidic;ition  of  or  respecting 
the  kinil.  nundx'r.  quantity.  \\»'i<;ht  or  measure  of  such  article, 
or  any  j^art  thereof,  or  the  plac(^  or  country  where*  it  was  manu- 
factured or  pro(hiced  or  the  (pialit\'  or  ^M'ade  of  any  such  ar- 
ticle, if  tlu>  (piality  or  }rrade  thereof  is  rerpiired  l)y  law  to  be 
marked,  bramled.  or  otlierwise  indicated  on  or  with  such 
article ;  or 

2.  Sells  or  ofl'ers  for  sale  an  article,  wliich  to  his  knowledpre 
is  falsely  descrilied  or  indicated  upon  any  such  packajje,  or  vessel 
containing  the  same,  or  hihel  thereupon,  or  jiny  of  the  particulars 
specified ;  or 

3.  Sells  or  exposes  for  sah-  any  ^'oods  in  hulk  to  wliicli  no 
name  or  trademark  shall  he  attached,  anil  oially  or  otherwise 
represents  that  such  goods  are  the  manufacture  or  j)roduction 
of  some  other  than  the  actual  nuuuifacturcr  or  producer,  in  a 
ease  where  the  punishment  for  s\ich  ofTense  is  not  specially 
provided   for  otherwise  !iy  statute,   is  truilty  of  a  misdemeanor. 

Section  436.  Using  f.vi^jk  mauks  as  to  manikactihi:.  A 
person  who,  with  intent  to  defraud  or  to  enable  another  to 
defraud  any  person,  maiuifactures  or  knowingly  .sells  or  causes 
t(»  !)e  mainifactiire<l  or  sold,  any  article,  marked,  stamped  or 
branded  or  incased  or  enclosed  in  any  l»ox,  bottle  or  wrapper, 
having  thereupon  any  engraving  or  printed  label,  stamj),  im- 
pri'it,  mark  or  trade-mark,  which  article  is  not  liic  manufacture, 
worknuinship  or  |)roduction  of  the  pei-son  named,  indicated  or 
denoted  liy  sin-h  marking,  stamping  or  branding,  or  by  or  upon 
Kiich  engraving,  printed  la))el,  stamp,  imprint,  mark  or  trade- 
mark, is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor. 


.\i;\V    VOliK    STATCTES.  /.j1 

I'.iiiil     l.:l\^.    Art.    •idCi. 

Section  2350.    A  "trademark"  is  a  mark  used  to  indicate  the 

maker,  owner  or  seller  of  an  article  ol'  mcrehandiKo,  and  in- 
cludes, aiiioiij^'  oflier  tliintrs,  iiny  name  of  a  person  or  corjjora- 
lion.  Ol'  any  letter,  uui-d,  device,  emhlein.  lij:nre.  Heal,  statiip, 
diaL'ram,  lirand,  Avrajtper.  ticket,  stopper,  lahel  or  f)ther  mark, 
laufully  adoptcfl  by  jiim,  and  usually  afTixed  to  an  article  of 
nierclijindise  to  denoti-  lli;it  tile  same  was  imported,  manufac- 
tured, produced,  sold,  coiripounded,  bottled,  packed  or  otlier- 
wise  prepared  hy  him;  and  also  a  si<_Miature  or  mark  used  or 
conunonly  plai-ed  by  a  painter,  sculptor  or  other  artist  upon  a 
paintiu",',  dr;iwin<r,  entrraviui;.  statue  or  other  work  of  art,  to 
indicate  that  the  same  was  desirriied  or  executed  by  him. 

Section  2.'?")1.  A  trade-niin-k  i>  deenieil  to  be  affixed  to  an 
arti<'le  of  merchandise  when  it  is  placed  in  any  maimer  in,  or 
upon  : 

1.  The  article  itself;  or, 

2.  A  box,  bale,  barrel,  bottle,  case,  cask,  platter,  or  other 
vessel  or  packap:e.  or  a  cover,  wrapper,  stopper,  brand,  label  or 
other  thinp:  in,  by  or  with  which  the  ffoods  are  packed,  inclosed 
or  otherwise  jirepared  for  sale  or  disposition. 

Section  2352.  Artici>e  of  merchandise  defined.  The  ex- 
pi-es.sion  "article  of  in<M"cliandise, "  as  used  in  sections  twenty- 
three  Inmdi'ed  and  fifty  ;ind  twenty-three  liundred  aiul  fifty-one. 
sifjnify  any  proods.  wares,  work  of  art,  commodity,  compound, 
nnxture,  or  other  preparation  or  thing,  which  may  be  lawfully 
kept  or  offered  for  sale. 

Section  2353.  An  "imitation  of  a  trademark"  is  that  which 
so  far  rese-mbles  a  genuine  trade-mark  as  to  he  likely  to  induce 
the  belief  that  it  is  genuine,  whether  by  the  use  of  words  or 
letters,  similar  in  appearance  or  in  sound,  or  by  any  sign, 
device  or  other  mean.s  whatsoever. 

Section  2354.     (Amended  hy  Session  Act  1914,  as  follows)  : 

(TIAPTER    XVI. 

Laws  of  New  York,  in  14.      137th   Session. 

AX  A(^T  to  nmcnd  the  pi-na!  ]i\\\\  in  relation  to  trade-marks.  Hecame 
a  law  April  14,  1!)14,  '.vitli  t!ie  approval  of  the  CJovernor.  Passed, 
threi'-fifths   being  present. 


V.i'J  Al'J'KN'hIX    F. 

The   Ptofih    of   thr   SUntf   of  \nc   York,   rrprcsrnffd  in   F^rtuifr 
ami  Assembly,  do  enact  n<   follows: 

Section  1.  Section  twoiity-tlin'o  Imiulrtd  ami  tifty-four  of 
eliapter  ciphty-eijiht  of  the  laws  of  niiu'tfi'M  liiiiKlrcd  and  iiiiif. 
fntitltnl  "An  act  providing:  tnr  tlu'  pmiishnit'iit  of  criiiit',  coii- 
stitutinp  fliaptiT  forly  of  the  CoiisuIidiittMl  Laws."  a.s  ainrndctl 
by  chnptiM-  two  lumdn'd  and  forty  of  llic  laws  of  ii'mt'torn 
hundred  and  nine,  is  licn-liy  aiiit'iidt-d  to  rcail  as  follows: 

Sk(TIon  2'\'A.  (')kfensf..s  acjainst  tk  \I)I..m  vhks.  a  person 
who : 

1.  Falsely  makes  or  eouiiterffits  a  tradf-iuaiU  :  or. 

2.  Affixes  to  any  article  of  merchandise,  a  false  or  counter- 
feit tradf-mark,  knowinj;  tlie  same  to  he  false  or  counterfeit, 
or  tlie  peiniine  trade-mark,  or  an  imitation  of  the  trade-mark  of 
another,  without  the  hitter's  consent;  or, 

3.  Knowiufrl.v  sells,  or  keeps  or  offers  for  sale,  an  article  of 
merchandise,  to  which  is  affixed  a  false  or  counterfeit  trade- 
mark, or  the  <reniiine  trade-mark,  or  an  imitation  of  the  trade- 
mark of  another,  without  the  latter's  consent;  or, 

4.  lias  in  liis  jiossession  a  counterfeit  trade-mark,  knowintr 
it  to  he  counterfeit,  or  a  die.  plate,  hrand,  or  other  thing  for 
the  purpose  of  falsely  makin<r  or  counterfeiting  a  trade-nuirk;  or. 

.5.  flakes  or  sells,  or  offers  to  sell  or  dispose  of,  or  has  in 
his  possession  with  intent  to  sell  or  disjx^se  of,  an  article  of 
merchaiidise  with  such  a  trade-mark  as  to  appear  to  indii-ate 
the  quantity,  quality,  character,  place  of  manufacture  or  pro- 
duction, or  persons  manufacturinpr,  packing,  hottling,  boxing 
or  producincr  the  article,  hut  not  indicating  it  truly;  or, 

C).  Knowingly  sells,  offers  or  exposes  for  sale,  any  goods  which 
are  represented  in  any  manner,  by  word  or  i]vv(\,  to  he  the 
manufacture,  packing,  bottling,  boxing  or  product  of  any  person, 
firm  or  corporation,  other  than  himself,  unless  such  goods  are 
contained  in  the  original  packages,  box  or  bottle  and  under  the 
labels,  marks  or  names  placed  thereon  by  the  manufacturer 
who  is  entitled  to  use  such  nuirks,  names,  brands  or  trade- 
marks ;  or. 

7.  Shall  sell,  or  expose  for  sale  any  goods  in  bulk,  to  which 
nr.  label  or  trade-mark  shall  be  attached,  and  shall  by  represeiita- 


'NLW    YOICK    STATrTKS.  75:] 

tion,  nanio  or  mark  written  or  |)riiiti<l  thcrooii,  roprosont  that 
.sneli  poods  are  the  proiluction  <ir  inaiiuractiirc  f)f  a  jici-scjn  who 
is  not  the  inamit'acturcr ;  or, 

S.  Shall  know  iiit,'Iy  s<'ll,  offer  or  expose  for  sale  any  article 
of  niercliandisr,  iiml  sh.ill  oi-all\-  or-  hy  ro{)resontation,  name  or 
mark  written  or  pi'inted  thereon  or  attached  thereto  used  in 
eonneetion  therewith,  or  by  advertisement,  or  otlierwise,  in  any 
manner  whatsoever,  make  any  false;  repre>sentation  as  to  the 
person  by  wliom  sneli  arti<-le  of  merchandise  or  the  material 
thei-eof  was  madi".  or  was  in  whole  or  in  part  i)rodueed,  manu- 
factured, finished,  processed,  treated,  marked,  packed,  bottled 
or  l)o.\ed,  or  falsely  represents  that  such  article  of  merchandise 
or  the  material  or  any  part  thereof  has  or  may  properly  have 
;iny  trade-mark  attached  to  it  in  connection  with  it,  or  is  or 
jnay  properly  be  indicat(>d  or  identified  by  'any  trade-mark, 

Is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  punishable  for  the  first 
offense  by  a  fine  not  less  than  fifty  dollars  nor  more  than  five 
lumdred  dollars  or  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  one  year, 
or  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment,  and  for  each  subsequent 
offens<'  by  iuiprisonnieiit  for  not  less  than  thirty  days  or  more 
than  one  year,  or  by  both  such  im[)risonment  and  a  fine  of  not 
less  than  five  hundred  dollars  or  more  than  one  thousand  dollars. 

Si:cTi()X  2.  This  act  shall  take  effect  September  first,  nine- 
tee)i  lumdred  and  fourteen. 

Skction  2355.  Ri:Fn.LiNO  or  set,ltng  trade-mark  botti.e!^ 
AND  VESSELS.  Anv  person  en^ajred  in  making,  bottling,  pack- 
ing, selling  or  disposing  of  milk,  ale,  beer,  cider,  mineral  water 
or  other  beverage  or  in  making,  selling,  or  disposing  of  articles 
of  pastry,  may  register  his  title  as  owner  of  a  trade-mark  by 
filing  with  the  Secretary  of  State  and  the  clerk  of  the  county 
where  the  principal  place  of  business  of  such  person  is  situated. 
a  description  of  the  marks  and  devices  used  by  him  in  his  busi- 
ness, and  in  ease  same  has  not  been  heretofore  published 
according  to  the  laws  existing  at  the  time  of  publication,  causing 
the  same  to  be  published  in  a  newspaper  of  the  county,  three 
weeks  daily,  if  in  the  city  of  New  York  or  Brooklyn,  and 
weekly  if  in  any  other  part  of  the  state;  but  no  trade-mark 
shall  be  filed  which  is  not  and  can  not  become  a  lawful  trade- 
mark, or  which  is  merely  the  name  of  a  person,  firm  or  corpora- 


APPKN'PIX    1'. 


tinn  unnoooiupnniod  l«y  a  inark  sn(Tici(Mit  to  tlistiufriiisli  it  from 
the  same  naiiM>  wlu'ii  iisoil  In  another  iii'i-son.  After  such 
repistration.  tlie  use  without  th»'  eonseiit  of  the  owner  of  the 
trade-mark  so  (leseril»e'l  or  the  lilliMir  of  any  hotth'.  siphon, 
barrel,  platter,  vessel,  or  thinj;  for  the  purpase  of  sah>,  or  for 
the  sale,  therein.  (»f  any  article  of  the  same  general  nature 
and  (luality  which  said  hottle.  siphon,  harrcl.  platter,  vessel 
or  other  thinjr  before  contained,  without  the  obliteration  or 
defacement  of  the  tra<le-mark  upon  it.  when  such  trade-mark 
can  be  obliterated  or  defaced  without  substantial  injury  to 
the  Iwttle.  .siphon,  barrel,  platter,  vessel  or  other  thinj;  so  as  to 
prevent  its  wronfrful  use.  shall  be  deemed  a  mistlemeaimr. 

SkCTIOX     *J;ir)<!.        KlKl'IN(;     TKAHK-MAItK     HOTTI.K^;     AND    \T..^PET-S 

WITH  INTKNT  T<)  KKKiLi.  OK  sEi,T<  THEM.  Any  person  enffaged 
in  the  business  of  buyinj?  and  sellinfj  bottles,  siphons,  barrels, 
platters,  or  other  vessels  or  thinfrs,  who  shall  with  intent  to 
<lcfraud  the  rej^istered  owner  of  the  trade-mark,  knowiiifjly  sell 
or  offer  for  .sale  any  bottle,  siphon,  barrel,  platter,  vessel,  or 
other  thinfj.  to  any  person,  who  he  has  reason  to  believe  wronp- 
fully  int<'nds  to  um'  the  trade-mark  upon  it.  or  to  fill  such 
hottle,  siphon,  barrel,  platter,  vessel  or  other  thing  in  violation 
of  section  twenty-three  hundred  and  firty-live.  shall  be  deemed 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor. 

Skction  2'.)Tu.  Search  von  TRAm:-M\KK  motti.ks  and  vksrels 
KEPT  IN  VIOLATION  OF  LAW  AiTiioRizEn.  Wlienever  a  registered 
owner  (»f  a  trade-mark,  or  his  a^'ent.  makes  oath  before  a 
magistrate  that  he  has  reason  to  believe  and  does  believe, 
stating  the  grounds  of  his  belief,  that  a  bottle,  siphon,  barrel, 
platter,  vessel  or  other  thing  to  which  is  affixed  a  trade-mark 
belonging  to  him  is  being  used  or  filled,  or  ha.s  been  sold  or 
offered  for  sale,  by  any  person  whomsoever,  in  violation  of  the 
preceding  section,  then  the  magistrate  may  issue  a  .search 
warrant  to  discover  the  thing  and  cause  the  person  having  it 
in  pos.session  to  be  brought  before  him  and  may  thereupon 
inquire  into  the  eireumstanees,  and  if  on  examination,  he  finds 
that  such  person  has  been  guilty  of  the  ofTeiise  charged,  he 
may  hold  the  offender  to  bail  to  await  the  action  of  the  grand 
jur>',  and   the  ofTendcr  shall  also  be  liable  to  an  action  on  the 


NKW    VOKK    STATITES.  755 

case  t'of  tlaiiiafi'S.  t'or  siidi  w  I'oii^rnl  use  of  siicli  t  radi'-iiiiirk 
at  tlir  suit  of  tlir  owiM'c  tlicrcof,  ami  flic  party  ajrf^ru.'vcd,  shall 
also  have  his  pciikmIv  accordiii}^  to  tlif  course  of  ('(jiiity  to 
enjoin  the  u  roii'jriil  use  of  his  tra<h'-mark.  autl  to  recover 
coiiipensatioii  therefor,  in  any  eonit  ha\in<,'  jurisdiction  over 
the  jx'rson  j^uilty  of  such  uron^'ful  use. 

As  to  seai-ch  warrants  under  sec.  ;{ti!t,  I'enai  ('(xh-  lsi);{,  see 
People  V.  Ho(/a>i,  2!)  N.  Y.  St.  110.  For  rurllier  rulirij,'s  under 
that  section  see  MuUins  v.  I'cople,  2.i  Ilow.  I'r.  12S!),  24  X.  Y. 
390.     rcoi>le  V.  Catuion,  130  N.  Y.  32,  34  X.  K.  Kep.  T')!). 

Chapter  21!),  l^aws  1803.  relates  to  the  protection  of  lahels 
of  unions  or  a.ssoeiations  of  workinprnien.  and  i)rovides  a  penalty 
for  selling  ci<rars  hearinr;  a  counterfeit  lahel.  In  an  action 
for  the  recovery  of  this  penalty,  it  was  held  that  knowledfre, 
or  intent  to  injure  or  defraud  were  not  inj^redients  in  the 
offense  prohibited,  and  that  alle^'ations  of  the  knowled^re,  or 
intent  to  injure  or  defraud  should  he  treated  as  surplusage. 
Bulcna  v.  Sewman.  31  N.  Y.  Supj).  44!).  See  also  I'dkins  v. 
Hecrt,  158  N.  Y.  306,  53  N.  E.  Kep.  18. 

A  conviction  under  sec.  364,  Penal  Code,  was  su.stained  where 
the  defendant  printed  a  label  containing  a  trade-mark  at  the 
solicitation  of  the  agent  of  the  owner  of  the  trade-mark.  Peoph' 
V.  GlurJniian,  70  N.  Y.  Supp.  173. 

In  sustaining  a  conviction  unch-r  the  same  section,  it  wa.s 
held  to  he  immaterial  that  tlie  prosecutor  knew  that  he  was 
purchasing  counterfeit  goods.  People  v.  Ililfman,  70  N.  Y. 
Supp.  621. 

In  sustaining  another  conviction  under  this  section,  the 
court  of  appeals  similarly  held  that  it  was  no  defen.se  that 
the  act  relied  on  for  conviction  was  done  at  the  instance  of 
the  pro.secutor.  Peaple  v.  KvivitzUij,  168  X.  Y.  182,  61  N.  E. 
Rep.  175. 

"Where  the  plaintill's  had  filed  a  certificate  pursuant  to  sec. 
363,  Penal  Code,  setting  forth  their  intention  to  do  business 
under  the  name  "American  Watchman  Clock  Co.,"  and  sub- 
sequently prepared  to  incorporate  under  that  name,  and  the 
defendant  having  knowledge  of  the  facts,  and  to  forestall  the 
plaintiff's  propo.sed  incorporation,  thereupon  incorporated  under 
the  same  name,  injunction  Avas  granted  upon  the  ground  of 
unfair  competition.  Petlex  v.  Awerican  WdtcJiwaii's  Clock  Co., 
85  N.  Y.  Supp.  900. 

That  one  who  is  convicted  of  counterfeiting  or  imitating  a 
stamp,  wrapper,  or  label  is  also  liable  to  civil  damages,  see 
Brown  v.  Mercer,  37  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  265. 


7oG  M'l'KNPIX    V. 

Laws  of  1887,  ohnp.  .177,  su»o.  2.  ns  nmoiulod  Ity  laws  of  1888. 
«ha|>.  181.  ina(l<>  it  unlawful  to  usr  l)ox«'s.  Itottlcs.  and  other 
pa«'kam's  liaviiiu  tli«'  nwiifr's  nainr.  or  orlur  marks  or  devices, 
"lirandcd,  stampcii.  t-nnraveil.  eti-lh-d.  Iilown.  iiiipressed.  or 
otlu'rwise  pnidurcil  upon  surh  Itottlcs.'"  dc 

It  was  lirld  that  the  use  of  hottles  hearing'  iitho^'rapliic  hil)els 
eontainiuf;  the  name  of  another  was  not  a  violation  of  this  aet. 
I'roplf  V.  Klfriihcin,  20  N.  Y.  Supp.  MM. 

A  section  of  the  same  act  makinjr  it  a  misdemeanor  to  relill 
registered  stamped  hottles  of  the  manufacturers  of  soda  water, 
ami  the  like,  was  held  to  apply  only  to  dealiujx  in  empty  bottles 
after  the  orijrinal  contents  had  l)een  removed.  I'roplc  v.  Cannon, 
VV.)  N.  Y.  :'>•_'.  :U  N.  K.  Kei>.  7r.!>. 

ruder  the  Laws  of  1S()2,  chap.  ."^00.  sor.  A,  aiul  the  Laws  of 
IHiVA.  chap.  2(>!».  sec.  2,  relating'  In  the  use  of  false  stamps, 
labels,  or  tradenuirks,  and  providing  a  jtenalty  therefor,  it 
was  held  essential  to  a  recovery  of  the  penalty  that  the  fraudu- 
lent intent  of  the  derendant  be  shown.    IjOic  r.  flnU,  47  N.  Y.  104. 

Under  the  I'nion  Label  Act.  Laws  1>a!i:?.  chap.  219.  certain 
evidence  is  review»'d  and  held  not  sufficient  to  sustain  a  judg- 
ment for  plaintilT  in  Hi'fffitis  r.  Dnl.in.  X]  \.  Y.  Supp.  S!)0, 
86  Ilun.  4(il. 

Laws  of  1887,  chap.  'Ml,  amended  by  Laws  of  1888,  chap. 
181,  relatinc:  to  the  registration  of  marks  used  on  bottles,  it  is 
re(piired  that  the  certificate  filed  with  the  county  clerk,  describ- 
infr  the  names,  marks  and  devices  used  on  the  bottles  be 
certified.  Conscfpiently.  such  a  description  is  admissible  in 
evidence,  thoutrh  defi-ctively  acknowledLreil.  I'loplr  v.  Hurtholf, 
GO  Ilun.  02(i,  20  X.  Y.  Sui.p.  7S2. 

Penal  Code,  sec.  'M\\  prohibits  the  sale,  from  a  refilled  package 
bearinjj  a  tra/lemark,  of  goods  made  by  original  producer  of 
the  package.  People  v.  Luhrs,  89  X.  E.  Rep.  171.  lit.")  X.  Y.  377, 
affirming  judgment.  Ill  X.  Y.  S.  749,  127  A  pp.  Div.  (i.U. 

I'nder  sec.  'Mu ,  fJeneral  Business  Laws,  the  newspaper  publi- 
cation of  the  mark  is  not  n^fpiired  to  sii|>port  the  recovery 
of  a  penaltv  for  refilling  tradci.iarked  bottles.  John  Jameson  tl- 
Son  V.  Ii'e'ilhf,  \'y:i  X.  Y.  S.  22.').  !M)  .Misc.  Hep.  .S18;  aonlon 
Dnj  Gin  Co.'  r.  lidlly,  Ifj.'i  X.  Y.  S.  226. 

FOllM    i>l''   AI'I'LK  ATION    KoR    KKi :  ISIi:.\  Tl<  )\. 

T'j    the   firrrrtnry    nf   fitah     <-/    thr   Stnti'    of    \rir    VorA  ; 

In  (ompliniuM-  witli  tin'  r«HpiirinnntH  (.f  Article  Jt  <>f  Chnpttr  2'k  of  the 
I^wK  of  I'.tO'.J.  roiisliHitin;,'  CliaptcT  20  of  tin-  ('oii«oIi<lat«Ml  Lhwh.  known 
an  the  "(U-ncrnl  HuMincHH  Law,"  approvid  tin-  17tl»  <hiy  of  Frhnmrv,  lOon, 
an  amr-nd.d  ».y  Chaiitfr   17')  of  tin-  I.awH  of   IJKIO,  nlatinj,'  to  the  regJHtra 


NOKTII    CAROMS' A    STATlTI-a^.  T')? 

tioii,   use   and    pruicct imi    nf  (null-   iiuiiUrt,    \\f,   (lie   iMi(liTKi;.'nir!,   certify   iiH 
folloWH: 

I.     'I'lic  iiiiiiir  of  till-  iMiHoii  or  i'orj)orutioii  h|)1»1\  iii;^  for  lliin  rcgiHtrulion 


H.     Tlu'   principal    jjIucc  of   hiiHincHH  of  tin-   applicant    in   in   tlic  city   of 
,  and   State  of  . 


III.  The  nann',  trade  mark,  lalicl  or  privati-  mark  Ih  aH  follown: 

IV.  A  Hpcciincn   or   facsimile   Ih  allixed   hereto. 

V.  'J'lie  name    has    licm    in    use    liy   a|)plicant    since    . 


By 


State  of  , 

County  of  ,  ss: 

,    liein;,'    duly    sworn,    dejiosert    and    says    that    he    of    th« 

up|)licaiit  named  in  tiie  fore^'oinj,'  application.  That  lie  knows  the  con- 
tents thereof  and  that  the  statements  contained  therein  are  true.  That 
the  applicant  named  in  tlie  forejioinj;  application  has  the  ri;;ht  to  us«' 
the  name,  trade  mark  or  other  mark  therein  described,  and  that  no 
other  person  or  corporation  has  the  rignt  to  use  the  same  either  in  the 
identical  form  or  in  any  such  near  resemblance  thereto  a.s  mi;,'ht  be 
calculated  to  deceive,  and  that  the  fac-similes  or  specimens  filed  h<re- 
with  are  trui-   and   correct. 


Subscribed   and    sworn    to   before    me  this   dav    of   ,    !!• — . 


Notary  Public 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

Cliapter  74,  Revisal  of  lOO."). 

trademarks. 

Section.s. 

I.  Generally 3012  3022 

II.  Timber,    .302:{-.'?027 

ITT.  Live    stock,     3028 

i.     gknkhallt. 

Section  3012.  Tradk.makks,  labels,  etc.,  fit.ed  for  registry. 
It  sliall  bo  lawful  for  any  person  to  adopt  for  his  protection 
and  file  fo^-  registry,  as  in  thi.s  chapter  provided,  any  label, 
trademark,  term,  or  design  that  has  been  used  or  is  intended  to 
be  used  for  the  purpose  of  designating,  making  known,  or 
distinguishing  any  goods,   wares,   merchandise,   or  products  of 


758  mmm:ni>ix  f. 

labor  thnt  liavo  boon  or  may  bo  wliolly  or  partly  mado.  inami- 
fai'turotl.  prodnceil,  prepared,  packed,  or  put  on  saU'  by  any 
suc'b  person,  or  to  or  upon  wbieli  any  work  or  labor  ha.s  been 
applii'tl  or  expended  by  any  sueh  person,  or  by  any  member 
of  any  eorporation  tliat  lias  adopte«l  and  filed  for  registry  any 
sueh  label,  trademark,  tern),  or  desipru  as  aforesaid,  or  announc- 
inp  or  indieatinj;  that  the  same  have  been  iiiadc  in  whole  or 
in  part  by  any  such  person  or  corporation,  or  by  any  ineinbcr 
thereof.     0003.  c.  271.) 

Suction  .\0V^.  Pkoim^kty  r.KiiiT.'^  protectkp  nv  rn.iNc;  for 
RKGiSTKY.  Whenever  any  person  shall  adopt  and  iil<-  lor  registry 
any  label,  trademark,  term,  or  design  pursuant  to  the  pro- 
visions of  this  chapter,  the  property,  privileges,  rights,  remedies 
and  interest  in  and  to  any  such  label,  trademark,  term,  or 
design,  and  in  and  to  the  use  of  same.  i)rovided  or  fjiven  by 
this  chapter  to.  or  otherwise  conferred  upon  or  enjoyed  by, 
the  person  filinp  the  same  for  the  registry,  shall  be  fully  and 
completely  secured,  preserved,  and  protected  as  the  property 
of  those  entitled  to  the  same  before  any  .such  label,  trademark, 
term,  or  dcsi^in  has  been  actually  applied  to  any  prood.s,  wares, 
merchandise,  or  product  of  labor,  and  j)ut  upon  the  market 
for  sale  or  otherwi.se,  and  I)efore  any  use  or  approjiriation  of 
any  sueh  label,  trademarlv.  term,  or  desifrn  has  ])een  made  in 
connection  with  any  such  ^oods,  wares,  merchandise,  or  product 
of  labor,  as  well  as  after  the  same  has  been  used  or  applied 
to  desi<;nate,  make  known,  or  distiiiiruish  any  such  jroods.  wares. 
merchandise,  or  product  of  lal)or  and  they  have  been  put  upon 
the  market.     (1903,  c.  271,  s.  2.) 

Section  8014.  Filkd  with  Secretakv  of  Statk;  AFFin.vnT; 
FEE.*^.  Any  person  who  has  heretofore  adopted  and  used,  or 
shall  hereafter  adopt  and  iisr  imy  hihel.  tradeni;irk.  term,  or 
desi^'ii,  as  in  this  chapter  provided,  may  file  tlie  same  for  rej,Mstry 
in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  by  leaving:  two  copies, 
fac-siviiUs  or  counterparts  thereof,  with  tlie  said  secretary,  and 
filintr  tlierewith  a  statement  in  th(  form  of  an  aHidavit,  sub- 
scribed and  sworn  to  by  any  such  piM'son.  oi-  by  any  officer, 
apent.  or  iitlorney  if  a  corporation,  specifying'-  the  jierson  by 
whom  any  such  label,  trademark,  term,  or  desi<rn  is  filed,  iiini 
the   class    or   character   of    the   goods,    wares,    merchandise,    o- 


NORTH    CAROM.VA    STATITES.  T')!) 

prodnofs  nf  lnl)or  1o  wliicli  tlio  sainf  lias  lioon  or  is  iiiffiKhvl 
to  be  api)r()priat('(l  or  a|)|)lic(l,  and  that  the  person  .s<(  filiii^  the 
same  has  llic  ri^'hf  lo  the  use  of  the  said  lalifl.  trademark,  tenn, 
or  (h'sif^Mi,  and  that  iki  othci'  jxtsoii.  firm,  or  corfxjration  has 
the  v\'j.\\\  to  siicli  use,  cither  in  the  ith'iitieal  fnrtii  or  in  any 
siicli  near  rcscmlilanec  thereto  as  may  he  ealeidated  to  deceive, 
without  the  i)ermis.sion  or  authority  of  tlie  person  filing  the 
satne,  and  that  tlic  copies,  fdc-similcs,  or  eount<'ri)arts  f1h»d  there- 
with are  true  and  corrci-t  copies,  far-simih s,  or  ef)unteriiarts  of 
the  genuine  lahel,  traih'iiiark,  term,  or  design  of  the  person 
filing  the  same,  and  there  ])e  paid  for  such  registry  a  fee  of 
one  dollar  to  the  Secretary  of  State  for  the  use  of  the  state, 
and  the  same  reeording  fees  re(piired  hy  law  for  recording 
eertitieate  of  organization  of  corporations.     (inO-'J,  e.  liTl,  s.  3.) 

SkCTION     301;").        RkcISTKATION  ;     CERTIFIED    COPIES;     EVIDENCE; 

I'Ki:.'-;.  Th(^  Sc-cretary  of  Slate,  upon  the  filing  of  any  such  label, 
trademark,  term,  or  design,  that  is  not  in  conflict  witli  the  next 
section,  sliall  register  the  same,  and  shall  delivei-  to  the  person 
filing  the  same  as  many  certified  copies  thereof,  with  his  certifi- 
cate of  such  registry,  as  any  such  person  may  recpiest,  and  for 
every  such  copy  and  certificate  tliere  shall  be  paid  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  State,  for  the  nse  of  the  state,  a  fee  of  one  dollar:  and 
any  such  certified  copy  and  certificate  shall  be  admissible  in 
evidence  and  competent  and  sufficient  proof  of  the  adoption, 
filing,  and  registry  of  any  such  label,  trademark,  term,  or 
design,  by  any  snch  person  in  any  action  or  .judicial  proceeding 
in  any  of  the  courts  of  this  state,  and  of  due  compliance  with 
the  provisions  of  this  chapter.     ClDOr}.  c.  271.  s.  4.) 

Section  .'101  G.  TFow  transferred.  The  right  to  use  any 
registered  label,  trademark,  term,  or  design  shall  be  granted 
only  by  an  instniment  in  writing,  duly  filed  in  the  office  of 
the  Secretary  of  State.  The  fees  for  recording  or  filing  snch 
transfer  and  issning  copies  thereof  shall  be  the  same  as  for 
filing  such  label,  trademark,  term,  or  design. 

Section  3017.  Snin.AR  trademarks  reft'sed  registration. 
It  .shall  not  be  lawful  for  the  Secretarv  of  State  to  register  for 
any  person  any  label,  trademark,  term,  or  design  that  is  in  the 
identical   form  of  anv  o*her  label,  trademark,   t(M-m.   or  design 


760  Ai'PK.vnix  F. 

thorotofon-  lilotl  Ity  any  othor  person,  or  tlint  l)O.Tr'?  any  such 
near  ri'scinManrr  thereto  as  may  \n>  calculati'd  to  dceeivo,  or 
that  woulil  hv  lialtlc  to  l)o  niistakrn  tlu'rcfor.     (1 !)():?.  c.  271,  s.  5.) 

Skctiok  nOlS.  Pf.katty  foh  skcmkin*;  FKArnn.KNT  kkcis- 
TRATION.  Any  person  who  shall  fih'  or  prrxMiri'  the  filing  and 
repistry  of  any  lal)ol,  tradomaik.  tirm.  or  drsi-rn  in  the  office 
of  the  Seeretary  of  State  innhT  fhi-  |irovisions  of  lliis  fhaj>ter, 
by  niakinp  any  falsr  or  fraudMh'iit  representations  or  (h'chira- 
tions.  with  franduh'nt  intent,  shall  he  liahlc  to  pay  any  daniafjes 
sustained  in  eonseciuenee  of  any  such  registry,  to  he  recovered 
by  or  in  behalf  of  the  party  injured  thereby.     (1*)():{.  e.  1*71.  s.  ;').) 

Section  :U110.  Usk  of  cointfkfkit  tkvokmmjks  rNi-AWFii-. 
Wlienever  any  person  has  adopted  and  file(l  for  refristry  any 
label,  trademark,  term,  or  desi«!:n,  as  provided  l>y  law.  and  the 
.same  shall  have  l)«'en  re{;istered  pursuant  to  law.  it  shall  be 
unlawful  for  any  other  person  to  nuinufaeture,  use,  .sell,  offer 
for  sale,  or  in  any  way  utter  or  circulate  any  counterfeit  or 
imitation  of  any  such  label,  tradejnark.  term,  or  desijin.  or  have 
in  possession,  with  intent  that  the  same  shall  be  .sold  or  disposed 
of.  any  poods,  wares,  merchandi.se.  or  product  of  labor  to  which 
or  on  which  any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  such  label, 
trademark,  term,  or  desi'jrn  is  attached,  affixed,  printed,  stamped, 
impres.sed,  or  displayed,  or  to  sell  or  dispose  of.  or  offer  to  sell 
or  dispose  of.  or  have  in  posses.sion,  with  intent  that  the  same 
shall  be  sold  or  dispo.sed  of,  any  froods,  wares,  merchandise, 
or  product  of  labor  contained  in  any  box,  case,  can.  or  package 
to  which  or  on  which  any  .such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  at- 
tached, affixed,  printed,  stamped,  impressed  or  displayed. 
(lOO.'i  c.  '271,  s.  fi.l 

Section'  ^020  T"fNAi^TTioRTZEn  ttpe  ttnlawful;  use  ttnder 
UCp:n«:f.  "Whenever  any  person  has  adopted  and  rcpristered  any 
label,  trademark,  term,  or  <lesifrn.  as  provided  by  law.  it  shall 
be  unlawful  for  any  other  person  to  make  any  use,  sale,  ofTer 
for  sale,  or  display  of  the  prenuine  label,  trademark,  term,  or 
desipn  of  any  such  person  filincr  the  syime,  or  to  have  any  such 
penuine  label,  trademark,  term,  or  desi'_Mi.  in  pos.scssion.  with 
intent  that  the  same  shall  be  n.sed.  sold.  ofT<red  for  sale,  or  dis- 
played, or  that  the  same  shall  be  applied,  attached,  or  displayed 


NORTH    (Amtl.lNV    STATUira.  761 

in  any  mannor  uimtovor  to  or  on  any  ^'oods,  warr-s,  or  nu-rf^lian- 
(lisc.  or  lo  srll,  oll'rr  to  sfll.  or  (lisi)os('  of,  or  have  in  posscission, 
with  intent  that  the  saiiic  sliall  he  soM  or  (iisposcd  of,  any 
goods,  wares,  or  merchandise  in  an\-  1h)X,  ease,  ean  or  |)aei<aKe 
to  or  on  which  any  snch  t:enuine  hilx'l.  t  ra(h'iiiark,  term,  or  de- 
sitrn  of  any  snch  person  is  attaehe(|,  aflixed,  or  disphiyed,  or  to 
make  any  nse  whatever  of  any  snch  {reiniine  hilx-l.  trademark. 
term,  or  design,  witliout  lirst  ohtainiii^'  in  every  sneh  case  the 
license  of  the  person  ado|>tin<r.  filing'  and  re^'isterinf:  th<'  same; 
and  any  snch  licen.se  may  he  revoked  ami  termiinited  at  any 
time  npon  notice,  and  thereafter  any  nse  thereof  sliall  lie  nn- 
lawfiil.     (1!)0M.  c.  I'Tl.  s.  7.) 

Sectiok  ;1021.  Ri:Mi:nir.s;  oamahes;  profits;  dkstriction  of 
coiTNTKKFi:iTS.  Any  person  who  has  rojjistered  any  lahel,  trade- 
mark, term,  or  desi<,'n  nnder  the  provisions  of  this  chai)ter  shall 
have  a  ri<;ht  of  action  ajxainst  any  person  for  the  unauthorized 
nse  of  snch  lahel.  trademark,  term,  or  desifrn,  and  the  courts 
shall  hy  api)i-()priate  remedies  prevent  the  unauthorized  or  un- 
lawful use,  manufactur(>,  or  display  of  any  lahel,  trademark, 
term,  or  design,  or  the  imitation  or  counterfeit  tiiereof,  or  the 
sale,  disposal  or  display  of  any  articles  of  property  on  which 
any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  registered  lahel.  trademark, 
term  or  design,  or  on  which  any  genuine  lahel,  trademark,  term, 
or  design  may  be  used  or  displayed  without  proper  authority; 
and  shall  further  secure  and  protect  all  persons  in  all  rights 
of  property  and  interest  which  they  may  have  in  any  lahel, 
trademark,  term,  or  design  registered  under  this  chapter;  and 
the  court  shall  award  to  the  plaintiff  any  and  all  damages  re- 
sulting from  any  such  wrongful  use  of  any  such  label,  trade- 
mark, term,  or  design;  and  any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any 
labels,  trademarks,  terms,  or  designs  and  any  die,  engraving, 
mold,  or  mechanical  device  for  the  manufacture  of  the  same 
in  the  possession  or  under  the  control  of  the  defendant,  shall 
be  delivered  up  to  an  officer  of  the  court,  to  be  destroyed,  and 
that  any  such  genuine  labels,  trademarks,  terms,  or  designs  in 
the  possession  or  under  the  control  of  any  snch  defendant  shall 
be  delivered  to  the  plaintiff.     (1903.  c.  271,  s.  8.) 

Sectiox   3022,      Addittoxai.   pknalty.      In    addition    to   any 
other   rights,   remedies,   or   penalties   provided   by   this   chapter, 


762  APPENPIN    F. 

and  as  concurrent  thorcwifli.  any  por<;on  wlio  shall  violat*'  any 
of  the  provisions  of  this  cliaptcr  shall  he  liahh'  to  a  penalty  of 
two  hun<lnMl  dollars,  to  he  rcc.jvcrcd  hy  any  person  who  has 
tiled  any  such  lahel,  trademark.  t«'rMi,  or  design.  (1903,  c.  271, 
s.  9.) 

II.        IIMHKlt. 

Section  302:V  Yriio  m\y  aix>i'T.  Any  person  dealing  in 
tiinluT  in  any  form  .sliall  Ix'  known  as  a  timher  dealer,  and  as 
•such  may  adopt  a  trademark,  in  the  manner  and  with  the  effect 
in  this  suh-chapter  |>rovi(led.     {WHY.],  c.  'JHl.  .s.  1.) 

SkCTION     3024.         How      XDOI'TKD,     Iv'KGISTERKD     AND     IM'BLISHED. 

Kvery  sneh  dealer  desirinu'  to  adopt  a  trademark  may  do  so 
hy  the  execution  of  a  writin-r  in  form  and  efTect  as  follows: 

TRADEMARK. 

Notioo  is  horoby  pivon  tliat  T  [or  \vi\  etc..  an  the  rnsr  mnrf  hr}  have 
adopted  the   following  trademark.  In   l)e   used    in   my    [or  our,   etcd    busi- 

I1C88  as  timher  deah'r  [or  deahral   tn-wit: \flrrr  innrrt  the  words, 

letters,  figures,  ete..  ronstitutitifl  the  trademark,  or  if  it  he  any  deviee 
other    than    uords,    letters,    or  figures,    insert   a    faesimile    thereof}. 

Dat.d    tills    dav    of .    l!»— . 

A.   .    H.   . 

Sufh  writinp  shall  he  aeknowlodfred  or  proved  for  record  in  the 
same  manner  as  deeds  are  aeknowledtred  or  jiroved.  and  shall 
he  registered  in  the  office  of  the  register  of  deeds  of  the  county 
in  which  the  principal  oflice  or  place  of  husiness  of  sueh  timher 
dealer  may  he.  in  a  hook  to  he  kept  for  that  purpose  marked 
"Reffistry  of  Timher  Marks."  also,  in  ollfiee  of  Secretary  of 
State,  and  a  copy  thereof  shall  he  puhlished  at  least  once  in 
each  week  for  four  successive  weeks  in  some  newspaper  printed 
in  such  county,  or  if  there  he  no  such  newspaper  |»rint«>d  therein, 
then  in  .some  newsi)apcr  of  p'ueral  circulation  in  such  county. 
(ISSf),  c.  142:  1903,  c  2f;i,  s.  2.) 

Section  302.').  PHoi-r.irr'i  in;  how  rsr.u.  livery  tradenuirk 
so  adopted  shall,  fn.m  the  date  thereof.  I..-  the  exclusiv.-  prop- 
erty of  the  i)erson  adoptintr  the  same.  The  proprietor  of  such 
trademark  shall,  in  usine  the  same,  cause  it  to  he  plainly  stamped, 


XOKTIl     i\l«)l.|N'\    S'I'M'I'rKS.  763 

}ir;iii.i(Ml,  {»!•  otlicfw  isf  iiiiprcsscd  up<tii  rai'li  [)i('Cf  nf  tirtilior  upon 
uhich  tlir  saiiM-  is  pliK'rd.      f  IMSII,  c  Ml';  1!I():{.  r.  L'tll.  ss.  :{,  4.) 

Skctiov  ;U)J(!.  r.i; wdi.nc  wrni.  i;KKi:("r  of.  When  timber 
is  purclmscMl  by  llir  propricloi-  ol"  ;iiiy  such  tradciiiai'k.  and  the 
said  trademark  is  placed  ihereoii  as  liei-einlicrore  pr()vi(h'(|,  such 
tiiidxT  .shall  t  liciicefoi'lli  lie  deciiied  Hie  property  of  such  pur- 
chasei',  without  any  other-  or*  furtliei'  delivery  thei'eof,  and  such 
timber  shall  t lieicaftcr  be  at  the  risk  of  the  juirchaser,  uidess 
otherwise  providetl  by  contract  in  writin^r  between  the  parties. 
(1889,  c.  142;  \W.\,  e.  201,  s.  fi.^ 

Section  'M)2~.  I'R.vxnixu  with,  iaidkn-cio  of  owxkrsihi'.  Tn 
any  action,  suit,  on  contest  in  wliicli  the  title  to  any  timlter,  upon 
which  any  trailemark  has  been  placed  as  aforesaid,  shall  come 
in  question,  it  shall  be  presumed  that  such  timber  was  the 
property  of  tbi'  pi'o|»iie1oi'  ol"  such  trademark,  in  the  absence 
of  satisfactory  proof  to  the  contrary.     (1903,  c.  261,  s.  7.) 

NoTK. — l«'or  uidaw  ful  use  of  tind)er  trademark,  see  sees  3854- 
3856. 

For  IjuyiuLT  liranded  loirs,  see  sec.  3853. 

iii.  live  stock. 
Section  3028.  Owners  of  stock  to  register  brand  or  mark. 
Every  person  who  hath  any  horses,  cattle,  hogs,  or  sheep  may 
have  an  earumrk  or  brand  difT'erent  from  the  earmark  or  l)rand 
of  all  other  persons,  which  he  shall  record  with  the  clerk  of 
the  board  of  commissioners  of  the  county  where  bis  horses, 
cattle,  hogf-s,  or  sheep  are;  and  he  may  nrand  all  horses  eighteen 
months  old  and  upwards  with  the  said  brand,  and  earmark  all 
his  hogs  and  sheep  six  months  old  and  upwards  with  the  said 
earmark,  and  earmark  or  brand  all  his  cattle  twelve  months  old 
and  upwards;  and  if  any  dispute  shall  arise  about  any  earmark 
or  brand,  the  same  shall  be  decided  by  the  record  thereof.  (Code, 
«3.  2317;  R.  C,  c.  17,  .s.  1.) 

APPLICATION    POP    RECISTKATION   OF   TPvADEMARK   OR   DESIGN. 

State  of . 

County  of   ,  ss: 


To  the  f^crrctari/  of  State  of  the  l^tnlr  of  Xorfh  Carolina: 

Tlie    undorsifincd,    pursuant    to    Cliaptcr    74    of    tlio    Revisal    of    1905, 
entitled    "Trademarks,"    havinj;    lieretofore    adopted    or    used,   or    desiring 


71.4  .vri'tNDix  F. 

to  ntlopt  or  uw,  ji  trail. murk  or  iIohI^;!!  for  tin-  jiurposi-  »vt  out  in  tin- 
nfon-sHul  llinptcr  71  of  tin-  KiviKul.  luiil  <I«-Hirin>:  to  file  tho  Hamr  for 
nvtini  in  tin-  olVio*-  of  iUv  StH-n-tary  of  Stat.-  «>f  tin-  Stnto  of  Nortli 
i'Hrolinn.    »Ii><'h    lirrrhv    rtTtify; 

l«»t.     Till-    niiino  of    tlio   p«THon.    lirn>    or   ior|>oration    mi   lilinn   i« . 

2d.  The  prinripHl  oIVut  ^<T  plar«-  of  Iiuhmh-hm  of  ^aitl  jxTHon,  lirni  or 
rtirporation    in . 

:»(l.  Tlif  rlasH  of  in.Tcln.niliHi-  f<ir  wliitli  f*ai<l  trad. mark  or  ilfHij.'n  in 
to  Ik-  Ufutl   IH  . 

4th.     Thr    tradi'inark    ..r    (lrsi;:n    «-onhiHtH    of   . 

Mh.     Thf    l.-n^'th    of    tim.-.    if    anv,    iliirinj,'    whirli     it    liaa    Ix-cn    in    iiw 


Is 


Stnto    of    - 
County    of 


r»T8onally  app«'nr»'(l  laft.n-  me.  this  day   of  ,  A.   D.    19 — , 

.  wlio.  hfin;;  hy  me  duly  sworn  accordin;^  to  law,  doth  doposf  and 


Hay  that  tin-  stat«m«-nts  contained    in   the  fore{;oin<,'  instrument  are  true; 

lliat    .    the    jM-rson.    firm    or    corporation    so    filin*;    such    trademark 

or  desi;;n.  Iuih  the  ri^'ht  to  use  tlo-  same,  and  that  no  other  person  or 
|Mrsons.  firm  or  <orporation  has  the  ri;:lit  to  sudi  use,  and  tliat  the 
facsimiles    filed    therewith    are   true   and    correct. 

Sworn    to   and   suhscrilnd    l>eft»r.-    mr   tlie   dav   and    year   aforesaid. 


]i(OTF. — Two   copies  of  the   trademark   or    desi;.'n   must  he   filed   herewith. 
Registration    fee,    $3.10. 

NORTH    DAKOTA. 

llcv.    Codes    1 !»(».-.. 

Section  41)21.  One  who  produces  or  deals  in  a  particular 
thing  or  conducts  a  particular  l)usiiiess,  may  appropriate  to  his 
exclusive  use  as  a  trademark  any  form,  symliol  or  name  which 
has  not  been  so  a[)propriated  liy  another  to  desi^Miate  tlie  origin 
or  ownersliip  thereof:  hut  he  can  not  exclusively  appropriate 
any  designation  or  part  of  a  designation  whicli  relates  only  to 
the  name,  quality,  or  the  description  of  the  thing  or  business. 
or  th«'  i)lace  where  the  thing  is  produced  or  the  husines.s  is  car- 
ried on. 

SFXvnoN  402*2.  The  goodwill  of  a  business  Is  the  expectation 
of  continued  public  patronage,  but  it  does  not  include  a  right 
to  use  the  name  of  any  jxTson  from  whom  it  is  acipiired. 


NOKTII    l)\K()T\    STATITKS.  TH.'i 

Section  tl'i'.'?.  'I'lic  ^'oodw  ill  of  ;i  husini-ss  is  j»r(»j)crty,  trans- 
ferable like  any  other. 

Skction  r)42().  One  wlio  sells  or  a-rrces  to  sell  any  article  to 
which  there  is  affixed  or  attached  a  trademark,  thereby  war- 
rants that  mark  to  be  frenuine  and  lawfully  use-d. 

Skc'tiox  r)427.  One  A\ho  sells  oi-  a^^ni's  to  sell  any  article  to 
which  there  is  affixed  or  attached  a  statement  or  mark  to  ex- 
l)ress  the  (|uantity  or  (|uality  thereof  or  the  i)lace  where  it  was 
in  whole  or  in  piirt  produced,  manufactured  or  prepared  thereby 
warrants  the  truth  thereof. 

Section  8006.  Kvei-y  person  who  wilfully  forges,  counter- 
feits or  jirocures  to  be  forged  or  counterfeited  any  trademark 
usually  affixed  by  any  person  to  any  goods  of  such  i)erson,  with 
intent  to  pass  olf  any  goods  to  which  such  forged  or  counter- 
feit trademark  is  aftixed  or  intended  to  be  affixed,  as  the  goods 
of  such  person,  is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor. 

Section  S!)i»7.  Every  person  who,  with  intent  to  defraud,  has 
in  his  possession  any  die,  plate  or  brand,  or  any  imitation  of 
the  trademark  of  any  person,  for  the  purpase  of  making  any 
counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  description  whatever  of  such 
trademark,  or  of  selling  the  same  when  made,  or  affixing  the 
same  to  any  goods,  and  selling  oi-  ofVeriuir  the  same  foi*  sale  oi* 
disposal  as  the  orisinal  goods  of  any  other  per.son,  and  everj' 
person  who  so  uses  or  sells  the  same,  or  who  fraudulently  uses 
the  geiniiiie  trademark  of  another  with  intent  to  sell  or  offer 
for  sale  or  dis[)osal,  ajiy  iroods  not  the  goods  of  the  person  to 
whom  such  trademark  i)roperly  belongs,  as  genuine  and  orig- 
inal, is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor. 

Section  8008.    Every  person  who  either: 

1.  Uses  or  causes  to  be  used  any  brand,  mark,  name,  print, 
designation  or  description,  the  same  a.s  or  similar  to  any  re- 
corded to  any  other  persons,  or  on  tlie  place  recorded  to  an- 
other; or, 

2.  Uses  or  causes  to  be  used  any  second-hand  sacks,  box, 
barrel,  can,  package  or  other  article  on  which  has  been  placed 
any  hrand,  mark,  nf.me,  print,  designation  or  description,  the 
property  of  another,  for  the  purposes  of  deception  or  profit,  is 


7Gt)  APPENDIX    F 

puilty  of  a  misilomi'anor.  aiul  upon  ('(mvictioii  tlicrrof  is  i»\in- 
ishalilr  l>y  finr  of  not  Irss  lluin  oin"  liuntlrcil  and  not  cxcccdinj; 
ono  thousniul  dollars. 

Section  Sili'O.  Kvcry  person  who  sells  or  keeps  for  salo  any 
poods  upon  which  any  counterfeit  tradcnnirk  has  lieon  affixod, 
and  intondod  to  n>prt'spnt  such  f;oods  as  tlu'  genuine  fjoods  of 
another,  knowinj:  the  same  to  ho  counterfeited,  is  pruilty  of  a 
niisih'nieanor. 

Section  9000.  ICvery  |»erson  who.  with  intent  to  defraud, 
affixes  or  causes  to  l)e  affixed  to  any  poods,  or  to  any  bottle, 
case,  hox  or  other  packape  containinp  any  poods,  any  (h'scrip- 
tion  of  hihel,  stamp,  brand,  imprint,  jtrinted  wrapjx'r,  label  or 
mark,  which  desipnates  such  poods  by  any  word  or  token  which 
is  wholly  or  in  [>art  the  same  to  the  eye  or  to  ear  a.s  the  word 
of  any  of  the  words  or  tokens  used  by  any  other  person  as  his 
trademark,  and  every  person  who  knowinply  sells,  or  keeps,  or 
offers  for  sale  any  such  bottle,  case,  ])ox,  or  other  packape  with 
any  such  label,  stamp,  brand,  imprint,  printed  wrapper,  ticket 
or  mark  affixed  to,  or  upon  it.  in  case  the  person  allfixinp  or 
causinp  to  be  affixed  sucii  mark,  or  so  sellinp  or  exposinp  or 
offerinp  for  sale  such  bottle,  case,  box,  or  other  packape,  wjis  not 
the  first  to  employ  or  use  such  words  as  his  trademark,  is  puilty 
of  a  misdemeanor,  and  in  addition  to  the  punishment  prescribed 
therefor  is  liable  to  the  party  apprieved  in  the  penal  sum  of 
one  hundred  dollars  for  each  and  every  offense,  to  be  recovered 
by  him  in  a  civil  action. 

Section  0001.  The  word  "trademark,"  as  used  in  the  sec- 
tions precedinp,  include  every  description  of  word,  letter,  de- 
vice, emblem,  stamp,  imprint,  brand,  printed  ticket,  label,  or 
wrapper  usually  affixed  by  any  mechanic,  manufacturer,  drup- 
pist,  merchant  or  tradesman  to  denote  any  poods  to  be  poods 
imported,  inanura<-f ured,  prrxlnced.  compounded  (ir  sold  l)y  him. 
other  than  any  name,  word  f)r  expression  peiierally  (h'tiotinp 
any  poods  to  be  of  some  particular  class  or  description. 

Section  0002.  The  word  "poods."  as  used  in  the  sections 
precedinp.  indndes  r-very  kind  of  iroods.  war(\s,  merchandise, 
eomi)ound  or  prei);iratiori,  which  may  be  lawfully  kept  or  ofTered 
for  sale. 


NOKTII    DAKOTA    STATL'TRS.  707 

Section  0003.  Tho  ofTonso  of  affixing?  a  falso  trademark  to 
goods  is  equally  (■()in{)l('t('  uitliiii  llir  iii»'aiiiii«;  of  sections  7'jr><J, 
7259  and  72()0,  wliether  sir-Ii  mark  is  atHixi'd  to  the  ^oods  tliein- 
sel vos  or  to  any  i)ox,  bale,  itarrc!,  lM)ttN',  case,  cask,  wrapper  or 
other  package  or  vessel,  or  any  cover  or  stopper  thereof,  in  which 
such  poods  are  put  u[). 

Skctton  21.'^S  I'elates  to  protection  ol"  packaj^'es  of  manufac- 
turers and  bottlers  of  soda,  mineral   water,  and  other  beverages. 

CERTIFICATK  AND  STATKM  KN  T  ACCi  »M  I'AN^  I  NC    A    lltADKMAItK. 

Filed    ill    iiccorchuice   witli    Section    l.'>-4:i,   ('liiip(<T    124,    ScSHioii    Luwh 

of    1!)01,  of   tlic  State  of  N'ortii    Dakota,  lieiii;,'  an   act  to  i>ro- 

ti'ct    nianufactiinrs    from    the    use    of    counterfeiting 

labels,    stamps    and    trademarks. 

To   all    uJtoin    it    )fi<n/   concern: 

Bo    it    known    that    ,    a    corjxtration    duly    or;,'ani/.e<i    under    the 

laws  of   the  Stat*'  of  ,  and  having   its  place  of  Imsiness   at  

in  said  state,  has  adopted  a  trademark,  the  essential  features  of  which 
are   descriijcd    as    follows: 

,   the    style    and    size    of    t.\  pc    and    color    of    ink    and    piipcr    to    he 

varied  at  pleasure. 

The  trademark  has  lieeii  in  continuous  use  liy  said  corporation  since 
,  and   tlie   following  is  a  facsimile  thereof: 

I^   of    tlie do   hereby    declare,    in    accordance    with    the 

provisions  of  the  law  hereinbefore  referred  to,  that  tiie  said  company 
has  a  right  to  the  use  of  the  trademark  as  described  in  the  foregoing 
certificate  and  that  no  other  person,  firm,  association  or  corporation  has 
the  right  to  such  use,  either  in  tlie  identical  form  or  in  any  such  near 
resemblance    thereto   as   may    lie    calculated    to    deceive,   and 

I  further  declare  that  the  fac-similes,  copies  or  counterparts  tiled  with 
the  foregoing  certificate  are  true  and  correct. 

In  witness  whereof,  I   have  hereunto  signed  my   name   this  dav 

of   ,    1!)—. 


State    of , 

County  of   ,  ss: 

Personally  appeared  before  me,  a  Notary  Public  in  and  for  said 
county  and  state,  the  above  named  ,  and  made  oath  that  the  fore- 
going   declaration    by    him    subscribed    to    is    true    of    his   own    knowledge. 


Xotary   Public. 
Note. — The    fee    for    filing   the   aljove    is    $2.      In    case    a    certificate   of 
filing   is  desired,    papers    should    l)e   made    out    in    duplicate,   remitting   $1 
additional. 


768  .vri'iNiMx  r. 

OHIO. 

loj  (t.  I,.  :,\:\. 

AX  ACT  to  provido  for  tlu-  r«KiHtriition  of  markR  of  owniTHhip  on  por- 
wHinl  pri>iMTty,  and  ti)  iniiki'  sui-li  rf;;i(*t<Tf<l  mark  prima  facie 
rvidrncr  of  o\vniTshii»   of   property    ln-Hriii;;    such    iinirk. 

Be  it  cuacicti  by  the  (tcncral  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Ohio: 

SK.rTioN  r)'J4(l-l.  Si'ctioii  1.  Tliat  any  aii«l  all  persons  or  «'or- 
porations  who  may  hv  \ho  owners  of  cans.  tubs,  lirkins.  boxes, 
liottles.  casks,  barrels,  kejrs,  eartons.  tanks,  foiinfains,  vessels  or 
eontain«'rs.  with  his.  her.  its  or  their  names,  brands,  desifijns, 
trademarks,  devices,  or  «tther  marks  of  ownership  stamjjed.  im- 
pressed, labeled,  blown  in  or  otherwise  marked  thereon,  may 
file  with  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  also  with  the  ch-rk  of  the 
court  of  common  pleas  of  the  county  in  which  such  person  or 
persons  or  corporations  may  have  his.  hor.  its  or  their  principal 
place  of  business,  a  WTitten  statement  or  description  verified 
by  affiil'avit  of  such  owner  or  his.  her  or  its  aL'ents.  of  the  names. 
brands,  desifjn.s,  trademarks.  deAnces  or  other  marks  of  owner- 
ship so  used  l)y  him.  her.  it  or  them,  and  of  the  said  artiele  or 
articles  upon  which  the  same  are  used  :  or  if  such  principal  place 
of  business  be  without  this  state,  then  such  written  statement  or 
description  .so  verified  may  be  filed  with  the  clerk  of  the  court 
of  common  plea.s  of  any  county  in  this  state. 

Section  0240-2.  Section  2.  The  statement  provided  for  in  sec- 
tion on6  of  this  act  shall  he  published  once  a  week  for  four  suc- 
cessive weeks  in  a  newspaper  printed  in  the  Enjilish  lanpruase. 
and  of  prencral  circulation  in  the  county  in  which  suvh  notice  may 
have  heen  filed  with  the  clerk  of  the  court  of  common  pleas  as 
aforesaid;  a  copy  of  wliii-h  publication  prf)V('d  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  proof  of  jmblication  is  now  required  to  be  made  by  law, 
when  no  special  mode  of  provinfr  the  same  is  provideil.  shall  also 
l)e  filed  with  the  Secretnrv  of  State,  ami  with  the  clerk  of  the 
court  of  common  ple;is  of  the  countv  wliere  such  stiitement  is  filc<l. 

All  such  written  "-tntements  or  descriptions  and  all  such  cer- 
tificates of  nnbHfntlo*!  CO  filed  with  the  clerk  of  the  court  of 
common  f)leas  shall  be  recorded  by  him  in  a  hook  to  he  kept  hv 
him  for  such  purpose:  and  such  hook  shall  he  subject,  at  all 
reasonable  hours,  to  the  inspection  of  all  persons  who  may 
chooAe  to  inspect  the  same. 


OHIO   ST.VTl'TES.  709 

Skction  Cy420-'\.  Section  .'{.  'I'lir  Sccrotary  of  Stato  and  tin- 
clt'ik  of  the  court  of  coiiiinon  jjlcas  of  tin-  (•(uinty  ulicrc  Huch 
statement  is  tiled,  siiall  <leli\('r  to  any  person  who  may  ai)i)ly 
therefor,  upon  payment  of  the  fees  herein  provided,  copies  of 
all  such  written  statements  or  desciiptions  i;f  names,  hrandn, 
desifjns,  tradeiiuirks,  devices,  or  other  marks  of  ownership,  and 
of  all  certificates  of  pulilication  so  filed  with  them,  duly  cer- 
tified to  liy  them  in  the  usii;il  maiinei";  and  sn<'h  cei'tified  eopies, 
so  made  hy  either  the  Secretary  of  State  or  tin*  clerk  of  the 
court  of  common  j)leas  of  the  county  where  such  statement  is 
filed,  shall  l>c  admi^^sihle  in  evidence  in  any  suit,  aefion  oi-  [)ro- 
ceedinp  in  law  under  this  act,  and  shall  he  jtrinia  farir  evidence 
that  the  provisions  of  this  act  have  heen  comi)Iied  with,  and  also 
prima  facie  evidence  of  the  title  of  the  owner  or  owners  named 
therein,  to  the  property  upon  which  the  name,  hrand,  design, 
trademark,  device  or  other  mark  or  marks  of  ownership  of  such 
owner  or  owners  may  appeal*  as  descri!)ed  therein. 

Section  I)2K)-4.  Section  4.  The  Secretar\'  of  State  and  tlie 
clerk  of  the  court  of  common  pleas  shall  each  receive  a  fee  of 
one  dollar  (^l.(X))  for  each  statement  and  certificate  of  puhli- 
eation  filed,  and  also  a  fee  of  one  dollar  ($1.00)  for  each  cer- 
tified copy  of  such  statement  and  certificate  of  puhlication. 

"■J'he  sectional  numbers  on  the  margin  hereof  are  designated 
as  provided  hy  law. 

Timothy  S.  IToo.vx, 

Attoniey  General. 

S.  J.  YiNING, 

Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
Hugh  L.  Niciioi^, 
President  of  the  Senate. 
Passed  ^Fay  31st,  1911.    Approved  June  7th,  1011. 

JuDSON  Harmon,  Governor. 

100    0.    L.    lOS. 

AN  ACT  to  amend  and  supplement  section  KJKifl  of  tlie  Oencral  Code 
passed  April  28,  191.5  (103  0.  L.  6r)2).  liy  onactin;i  a  new  s;ection 
131()0,and  addinj,' supph  mental  sections  i:51()!)-l,  l.'^lti0-2  and  l;n(i!)-3 
providin<;  for  the  rejjistration  of  l)ottl('s,  siplions.  siplion  tops,  tins, 
fountain  tanks,  keps  or  otlier  containers;  and  makin<;  it  unlawful 
for  any  person,  other  than  the  owner  thereof,  to  fill,  refill, 
deal  or  traffic  in  such  bottles  and  other  containers  and  to  repeal 
said  orijxinal   section    13109   of  the  Geneial  Code. 


770  APPENnix  v. 

lit   H  t  luiittd  Inj  tilt'  (itncral  Aascmblif  of  the  State  of  Ohio: 

Section    1.      Thut  section    \'MG\)    »)f    tli.-    nciifral    Code   ho 

{iniondeil  by  onactiiiir  a  new  section   l.n<il>  and  siipplcincMtt'd  hy 

ailtliiijr  suppl*'">i''it»'  st'ctions   l:{l(i'J-l.    l;{lGl)-2  ami    13109-3  to 
rcati   as   followK: 

Section  L'^HIK  Ajiv  person,  firm  or  rorporntion  onpaped  in 
the  niannfaetiiriiif;.  hottliii^r.  or  selling  of  soda  waters,  mineral 
or  aerat<'d  uatei-s.  triri;/er  ale,  porter,  ale.  lieer,  cidei-.  small 
beer,  milk,  cream,  lajrer  ]>eer.  weiss  beer,  white  beer,  or  other 
beverages,  or  medicines,  medical  preparations,  perfumery,  oils, 
eomponnds,  or  mixtures,  and  usinj;  in  the  manufacture,  sale 
and  delivery  of  th<>  same  any  liottles,  siphons,  siphon  tops,  tins, 
fountain  tanks,  keprs  or  other  containers,  may  mark  and  desig- 
nate such  bottles,  siphon,  siphon  tops,  tins,  keps  and  other  con- 
tainers with  his  or  its  name  or  other  mark  or  device  branded, 
stamped,  enpraved,  etebed,  blown,  or  otherwise  produced  upon 
the  same,  and  file  in  the  oflfic(^  of  the  Seeretar.v  of  State  and 
also  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  tli(^  courts  of  the  county  in 
which  his  or  its  principal  place  of  business  is  situated  a  de- 
scription of  such  name,  mark  or  device  and  cause  such  descrip- 
tion to  be  print(>(l  once  in  each  week  for  three  weeks  successively 
in  a  newspaper  published  in  such  county.  Provided,  that  if 
the  principal  place  of  business  of  any  such  person,  firm  or 
corporation  is  in  another  state,  the  filing  of  such  description 
shall  be  made  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  and  also 
in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the  courts  in  any  county  of  this 
state,  and  jirinted  for  three  weeks  successively  in  a  newspaper 
published  in  such  county.  When  any  such  person,  firm  or  cor- 
[)oration  shall  have  comjilied  with  the  jirovisions  of  this  section, 
he  or  it  shall  thereupon  be  deemed  th(^  proprietor  of  such  name, 
mark  or  rlevice  and  of  every  such  bottle,  siphon,  siphon  top.  tin, 
fountain  tank.  ke<r  or  other  container  upon  which  may  be 
branded,  staiiifx-d,  etched,  engraved,  blown  or  otherwise  pro- 
duced upon  the  same,  upon  the  filinf.'  with  the  Secretary  of 
State  and  county  clerk,  as  herein  above  referr<'d  to,  such  name, 
mark  or  device,  there  shall  be  paid  to  the  Secretary  of  State 
and  the  county  clerk  respectively  one  dollar  for  each  such  name, 
mark  or  device  so  filed. 


OHIO  STATUTES.  771 

Section'  1 .1100-1.  When  .iny  person,  firm  or  corporation, 
liaviii^'  coiiiplicd  with  tlir  provisions  ot"  .section  l^JlOiJ  of  this  act, 
assi<rns  hy  sale  or  otherwise  his  or  its  Ijusiness,  ineludinK  such 
name,  mark  or  device,  to  another  person,  firm  or  corporation, 
the  assij;nee  sliall  have  all  the  rij^dils  and  imniunities  and  ohli- 
pitions  conferred  hy  this  act  upon  the  original  nuiinifacturer, 
hottler  or  seHer,  relative  to  said  hotth's,  siphons,  siphon  tof)s, 
tins,  rouiitaiii  taid<s,  kejxs  or  other  containers  so  assitrned,  pro- 
vided sueii  assif^nee  shall,  upon  such  ;i.ssit;nment,  file  in  the; 
office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  and  also  in  the  ofTice  of  the  clerk 
of  courts  of  the  county  in  which  his  or  its  principal  place  of 
business  is  situated  a  certilicate  of  said  assi<rnment,  and  cause 
such  certificate  to  he  i)rinted  once  in  each  Aveek  for  three  weeks 
successively  in  a  newspaper  pulilished  in  such  county.  If  the 
I)rin('ipal  place  of  business  of  such  assitrnee  is  in  another  state 
the  filing  of  such  certificate  of  assiirnnient  shall  be  made  in 
the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  and  also  in  the  office  of  th(! 
clerk  of  courts  in  any  county  of  this  state,  and  printed  oiice  in 
each  week  for  three  weeks  successively  in  a  newspaper  published 
in  such  county. 

Section  13169-2.  It  is  hereby  declared  unlawful  for  any 
person,  firm  or  corporation  to  fill  or  refill  with  soda  water,  min- 
eral or  aerated  waters,  ginger  ale,  porter,  ale,  beer,  cider,  small 
beer,  milk,  cream,  lager  beer,  weiss  beer,  white  beer  or  other 
beverages,  or  with  medicines,  medical  preparations,  perfumery, 
oils,  compounds,  or  mixtures,  with  intent  to  sell  such  contents, 
any  bottle,  siphon,  siphon  top,  tin,  fountain  tank,  keg,  or  other 
container  so  marked  or  designated  as  aforesaid  by  any  name, 
mark  or  device  of  which  a  description  shall  have  been  filed  and 
published,  as  provided  in  sections  13109  and  13169-1  of  this  act; 
or  to  deface,  erase,  obliterate,  cover  up,  or  otherwise  remove  or 
conceal  any  such  name,  mark  or  device  thereon,  or  to  sell,  buy, 
give,  take,  or  otherwise  dispose  of  or  traffic  in  such  bottles, 
siphon,  siphon  top.  tin.  fountain  tank,  keg,  or  other  container 
without  the  consent  of,  or  unless  the  same  shall  have  been  pur- 
chased from  the  person,  firm  or  corporation  whose  name,  mark 
or  device  shall  be  in  or  upon  the  bottle,  siphon,  siphon  top.  tin, 
fountain  tank,  keg  or  other  container  so  filled,  refilled,  trafficked 
in,  used,  or  handled,  as  aforesaid.     The  provisions  of  this  sec- 


772  aim'i:ni>i\  k. 

tion  sliall  not  apply  \o  an>-  i)^^^!)!!,  fiiiii  or  t'<)rp(irati()ii.  as  to 
filling  or  refilling;  witli  liis  (tr  it.s  protinct  any  hotth'.  siphon, 
tin,  fountain  tank,  kcj;,  or  other  i-^mtaiurr  ount'd  l>y  or  having 
thf  nanir.  mark  or  dt-signation  ol"  such  person,  tirin  or  corpora- 
tion pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  this  act.  w  hrn  such  person. 
firm  or  eorp(»ration  shall  have  eoin|)lie(l  with  the  rules  and  regu- 
latiojis  of  the  dairy  and  food  division  of  the  Atrrienltural  Com- 
mission of  Ohio,  relative  to  the  (■leaiisin^'  of  sin-li  hottles.  siphons, 
si|)hon  to|is.  fins,   fountain  tanks,  keirs.  or  othei-  eontainej*s. 

Section  1  Ml (!!>-:?  Whoever  violates  any  of  the  provisions  of 
this  section  shall  he  punished  for  the  fii-st  olTense  hy  a  fino  of 
fifty  cents  for  each  and  every  such  bottle,  siphon,  siphon  top, 
tin.  fountain  tank,  ke<r.  or  other  container  hy  him  so  fdled, 
refilled,  sold,  houfrht.  used,  disposed  of,  bought  or  trafficked  in; 
and  for  each  subsequent  ofTense  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  five 
dollars  for  every  such  bottle,  siphon,  sijihon  top,  tin.  fountain 
tank,  keg.  or  other  container  by  him  .so  filled,  refilled,  \ised, 
bought,  sold,  disjjosed  of.  bought  or  trafficked  in.  or  by  impris- 
onment not  to  exceed  ninety  days,  or  by  Imth  such  fine  and  im- 
prisonment in  the  discretion  of  the  magistrate  or  court  before 
whom  such  otTense  shall  be  tried. 

Section  2.  That  said  original  section  l:nt)!t  of  the  (leneral 
Code  be.  and  the  same  is  hereby  repealed. 

The  sectional  numbers  herein  are  in  conformity  to  the  Gen- 
eral Code. 

Edward  ('.  Tirner, 

Attorney  General. 

ClIARLKS     D.     CONOVER, 

Speaker  of  the  House  of  Hei>rcseiit(itife.t. 
John  II.  Arnold, 

Preside  tit  of  the  Senate. 

Passed  March  24,  1015.     Approved  April  2,  lit]."). 

Fkvnk    1'..    Wii.i.is.   (iortrnor. 

Filed  in  the  olTice  of  the  Secretary  of  State  at  Columbus,  Ohio, 
on  the  :{rd  <lay  of  April.  A.  I).  1:^5. 


OHIO   STATUTES.  11 'i 

CEKTII'irATE    FOR     RKCISTKATION    OF    BOTTLES,    SIPUONS, 

SII'IION  TOI'S,  TINS,  FOUNTAIN   TANKS,  KECIS  OK 

OTHER   CONTAIN ERS. 


Applicntion   of   of  ,  Oliio,  . 

WitiH'Hscth :    Tlint  ,   al>ovi'  iianu-d,   in   coinpliniicc  witli   "An   Act" 

of  tin-  OfiUTuI  Anscnildy  of  the  Stutr  of  Olii<i.  piiHH.'d  March  24,  HUT), 
and  api)rovi'd  April  2,  l!li:>,  (  HHi  ().  I..  lllHi.  "to  i.n.vid.-  f..r  tin-  r«'j,'iH- 
tration  of  l)ottli'H,  HJplions  Hiplion  tops,  tiiin,  foiintaiii  tarikH,  kc^jH  or 
other  containers,  and  niakin-,'  it  unhiwful  for  any  pcrnon  otiicr  than  tin- 
owner  tlu-rcof  to  fill,  nfill,  deal  or  trallic  in  hwcIi  hotth-rt  and  other  eon 
tainerH  and  to  re|)(al  ori^'inal  section  IHHi!)  of  the  <^;eneral  Code,  and  to 
make  «uch  rejjistered  mark  jirima  faeie  evidence  of  ownersliip  of  prop- 
erty hearinf,'  such  mark,"  lierehy  makes  application  for  the  re;,Mstra 
tion   in  the  oftice  of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of  Ohio  and   in 

tlie  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Court  of  Common   Pleas  of  County, 

Ohio,  said  havinj;   principal    place   of   Imsiness   hy 

filing   this  written    statement   or   description    verified    liy    affidavit   of    said 
mark  of  ownership  used  by  said  ,  to-wit: 


By 


State   of   , 

County   of   ,    as: 

,   hein^'    duly    aworn    says   that   he    is    the   of   the    above 

named ,   in   whose  behalf  the   fore{;oin<^  application    is  made;    that 

said  has   the   ripht  to   use  such   name,   mark  or   device,  and  that 

no  other  person,  firm,  association,  union  or  corporation  has  the  rif,'lit 
to  use  such  name,  mark  or  device  either  in  the  identical  form  or  any 
such  near  resemblance  thereto  as  may  ln'  calculated  to  deceive,  and 
that   the   description    of   said    mark,    name    or  device    is   true  and    correct. 

Subscribed    in   my   presence    and    sworn   to   before   me,   tiiis   day 

of  ,  A.  D.   19—. 


XoTK. — The   fee   for  filing  this  certificate   is  one   dollar    ($1),  for   each 
name,   mark   or   device. 

REGISTRATION    OF    ^lARKS    OF    OWNERSHIP    ON    PERSONAL 

PROPERTY. 


Application    of   of   .    Ohio,    . 

Witnesseth :   That  ,   above   named,  in  compliance  with   "An   Act" 

of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  passed  May  .31,  1911. 
and  approved  .June  7,  1911  (102  O.  L.  .■)l:ii.  "to  i)rovide  for  the  regis- 
tration of  marks  of  ownership  on  personal  property,  and  to  make  such 
registered  mark  prima  facie  evidence  of  ownership  of  property  bear- 
ing  such    mark,"   hereby   makes   application    for   the   registration   in    the 


774  APPENDIX    F. 

ortict'    of    til.'    S4Hr«>tHr.v     of     Slat.-    of     tli.«    SUtc    of    (Miio    niul     in     tlc! 

tilVuv    of    tin"    C'l«rk    of    tlio   Court    of    Conunoti    I'I<iik    of    County, 

Ohio,    Haid    liavinj;    primi|>iil    plao.-    oi    huMiwm    , 

by    fllinn    tlu8   written    Htat«iiU'nt    or    doHtriptioii    v.  riH.d    li\    iillidavit    of 
said    murk   of  ownership   uwd   l>y   »uid  ,  to-wit: 

By  —J 


Stat*'    of , 

County    of   ,    »8: 

,   Ix'in;;    duly    sworn   says   tliat   he    is   the   of   the   above- 
named   ,   in   whos«'   Ix'half  the   forejjoinjj  application    is  made;    that 

naid  has  the  ri^jht   to   use  sucli   mark  of  ownership,   and   tliat   no 

«»ther  p«-rs<in.  firm,  association,  union  or  corporation  has  the  ri^'ht  to 
use  sucJi  mark  <»f  (»wnfrship  ritlicr  in  tin-  identical  form  or  any  such  near 
rcs<'ml)lance  tlurcto  as  may  he  calculated  to  di-ci-ivc,  and  that  tlic  fac- 
siniil.s  i.r   counterparts  tiled  therewith  are  trui-   and  correct. 


Subserihed    in    my    pres*«nce    and    sworn    to    before    me.    this   day 

of  ,  A.    1).   in—. 

Note. — The  fee  for  filin;,'  this  certificate  is  one  dollar    ($1). 


OKLAIIO^rA. 

Chapter  82,   Statutis,  Oklahoma,    1903. 

SIection  fi728.  That  all  mnmifaotnrors  or  dealers  in  carbon- 
ated pjoods,  soda  waters,  mineral  or  al-ratcd  waters,  porter,  ale, 
beer,  cider  or  other  beverages,  rt'<|iiiriii^'  tlif  use  of  kegs,  casks, 
liarn'Is,  boxes,  sii)hoiis,  bottles  or  any  otiier  vessels  for  con- 
taiiit-rs,  on  whieh  the  names,  brands,  mark.s  or  trademarks  or 
other  desijjnation  of  ownershij)  or  i)roi>riet()rshi|)  is  stamped, 
engraved,  etched,  blown  in,  impressed  or  otherwise  produced 
upon  such  kegs,  casks,  barrels,  boxes,  siphons.  l)ottles  or  any 
other  vessels  for  containers,  may  file  in  the  oflice  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Territory  of  Oklahoma  a  fac-simile  or  description  of  the 
name  or  names,  marks  or  devices,  so  used  by  such  manufacturer 
or  dealer  in  any  such  wares  herein  enumerated  and  cause  such 
description  to  be  published  in  a  public  newspaper  published 
at  th<'  caf>ital  of  said  territory  for  two  successive  weeks  and 
the  fact  of  so  filintr  and  causing  to  be  recorded  oy  said  Secre- 
tary of  the  Territory  of  Oklahoma  and  nublisbintr  shall  operate 
as  a  trademark,  entitlintr  the  said  manufacturer  to  the  sole  and 


(>KI,\II()M.V   STATUTES,  M-) 

oxcliisivc    use    ill    ( )kliili()iiia   Territory    of  .sui«l    iimrk,    naiin!    or 
(li'vicc. 

Section  GT'Jl.  Kvory  siicli  porson,  assooiation  m-  union  tliat 
has  Iicrctororc  adopted  or  use(|.  oc  shall  hereafter  adopt  or  use, 
a  lalx'K  trademark,  term.  desit,'ii.  device  or  form  of  advertisn- 
meiil  as  provided  in  section  1  of  this  act.  .shall  file  the  >-ami'  for 
record  in  the  otTice  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Territory  of  Okla- 
homa, hy  leavini,'  tvo  co|)ies,  coiiiiter|)ai'ts  or  t'ac-similes  thereof 
with  said  soeretary.  and  liy  Tiling'  therewith  a  sworn  application 
speeifyinjr  the  name  and  names  of  the  person,  association,  or 
union  on  whose  hehalf  such  lahel,  trademark,  term,  design, 
device  or  form  of  advei-tisement  shall  he  tiled,  ha.s  the  right  to 
the  use  of  the  same;  that  no  other  ix-rson,  firm,  association, 
union  or  corporation  lias  the  right  to  such  use,  either  in  the 
identical  I'orm  or  in  any  such  near  resemblance  thereto  as  may 
l)e  eatculatiMl  to  deceive,  and  that  the  fac-simile  or  counterparts 
filed  therewith  are  true  and  correct.  There  shall  he  paid  for 
such  filing  and  recording  a  fee  of  one  dollar.  Said  secretary 
shall  deliver  to  such  person,  association  or  union  so  filing  or 
causing  to  he  filed  any  such  lahel,  trademark,  term,  design, 
device  or  form  of  advertisement,  so  many  duly  attested  cer- 
tificates of  the  recording  of  the  same  as  such  person,  associa- 
tion or  union  may  a'pply  for,  for  each  of  which  certificates  said 
secretary  shall  receive  a  fee  of  one  dollar.  Any  such  certificate 
of  record  shall,  in  all  suits  and  ])rosecutions  under  this  act,  be 
sufficient  proof  of  the  adoption  of  such  label,  trademark,  term, 
device,  or  form  of  advertisement.  Said  Secretary  of  the  Ter- 
ritory shall  not  record  for  any  person,  union  or  association  any 
label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement 
that  would  probably  be  mistaken  for  any  label,  trademark,  term, 
design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement. 

Note. — No  official  form  of  application  is  provided. 


771")  ai-i'i:ni»ix  r. 

OKE(JON. 

('lia|it«i     "."T.    I-iiNvs     I'M  I. 

AN  ACT  to  provi.lr  for  tlu>  r.-^'iHtrutioM  l.y  any  piTHon.  partiuTrtliip. 
firm  or  private  rorpt>ration  (h-hiriiij;  tti  wfurc  witliin  tin-  Stat«' 
of  Orfjion  thi-  .xoluHivi-  uw  of  nuy  tratWnmrk ;  to  provid.  for 
tin-  nj-iKtrntioii  of  huoIi  tradi-mark*  with  tlw  Sccntary  of  Stat«' 
and  ff«'H  to  !.<•  (•liHr;;<<l  tlx-r.-for;  (It-finin;:  tmn  •tradrmark."  "alTix- 
inj;."  "article  of  in<Trliandis«'."  and  ••imitation."  niakin;.'  an  in- 
frin;.M'nn'nt  or  unantliori/.<'d  nw  of  a  tra<liiiiark  a  niisdrnn-anor 
and  providing  pmaltios  thcnfor,  and  n-pfalin--  Kfc-tionw  tiO.Vi.  (it)."in. 
r.o:)4.    m).").'>.    »5(l.')ti.    en:)?,    ••()■')«    and    ftO.V.t,    of    Lord's    Hnj^on    LawK. 

Be  it  oiactrd  h\i  fhr  People  of  the  Stnte  of  Oregon: 
lie  it  funrieil  h'l  the  Lnjislntive  Assembly  of  the  State  of 
Oregon: 
Section  1.  "Traokmark"  definf-d.  A  "tradomark"  is  a 
mark  used  tn  iiulicato  the  niakor,  owiior,  or  seller  of  an  article 
of  meix'handise  and  iiiclud.'s.  iiiiutiii:  ntlier  thin<:s.  any  name  (d" 
a  pei^on.  parttiership,  firm,  or  private  corporation,  or  any  letter. 
word,  device,  emblem,  fifjure.  seal,  stamp.  i)rand.  wrapper,  ticket. 
.stopper,  label  or  other  mark,  lawfnlly  adoi)ted  by  him.  and 
usually  affixed  to  any  article  of  merchandise  to  denote  that  the 
.same  was  imported,  manufactured,  produced,  sold,  compounded, 
bottled,  packed  or  otherwise  jirepared  by  him  ;  and  also  a  sit?- 
nature  or  mark,  used  or  commonly  placed  by  a  painter,  sculptor 
or  other  artist  upon  a  paintiuij.  drawinjr,  enf^ravin^'.  statue,  or 
other  work  of  art  to  indicate  that  the  same  was  desiprned  or 
executed  by  him 

Section  2.  "Affixinc!"  offined.  A  trademark  is  deemed  to 
}»e  affixed  to  an  article  of  merchanili.^o  when  it  is  placed  in  any 
maniwr  in  or  upon:  (U  the  article  itself;  or  (2)  a  box.  b.de. 
barrel,  bottle,  case,  cask,  platter,  or  other  vessel  or  packa^re,  or  a 
eov.-r,  wrapper,  stopper,  brand,  label,  or  other  thin^'  in.  by.  or 
with  which  the  poods  are  packed,  enclosed  or  otlierwise  prepared 
for  sale  or  di.spositif)n. 

Section  :{.  "Article  of  MERCHANmsE"  defined.  Tlie  ex- 
pression "article  of  merehandise."  a.s  used  in  this  act.  signifies 
any  poods,  wares,  works  of  art.  commodity,  cdinpouml.  nnxture 
or  other  jireparation  or  tbinp,  which  may  be  lawfully  kept  or 
offered  for  sale. 


OIUXiON    ST.VTCTKS.  /  i  < 

Section  4.  "T.mita  i'lox  of  th ai)i;mm(k"  defined.  An  "iini- 
liitiod  of  lr;i(lciiiiirk'"  is  thai  uliidi  so  iaf  njsonibles  a  K»*nuin<* 
tnulciiiark  as  to  tie  lik*  ly  to  induce  the  hdicr  that  it  is  ^fcniiinc. 
whether  hy  nse  of  wolds  or  letter,  siniihir  in  appearance  or  in 
soniid,  oi'  li.v  any  siirn,  devi'-e  m-  othei-  means  whatsoever. 

Six'TioN  .')  Ai'i'LiCA  rioN  Foi{  TH.\ni;.M  \KK.  Any  person,  part- 
nership, (inn,  or  |)rivate  corporation  desiring'  to  s(!cure  wit-liin 
the  state  of  Ore^'oii  (lie  exdnsive  ii.se  of  any  trademark  for  any 
article  of  merchandise,  shall  make  a{)plication  to  the  Secretary 
of  State  npon  a  blank  fnrnislied  for  that  purpose  for  the  re^jis- 
tration  of  sndi  trademark,  which  npplicatioji  .shall  be  accom- 
panied by  particular  description  or  a  fac-.simile  of  such  trade- 
mark as  he  may  desire  to  nse,  and  the  description  of  the  article 
or  articles  of  merchandise  to  whicli  such  trademark  is  to  be 
applied. 

Sl-fTTON    T).       SlMII.AR    TRADEMARKS   NOT    AIJ.OWED.       If    there   be 

not  already  a  claim  or  application  filed  with  the  Secretary  of 
State  for  the  same,  or  a  .similar  trademark,  or  a  trademark  so 
<'losely  resemblin<r  the  one  applied  for  as  to  cause  confusion, 
he  shall  immediately  file  such  application  and  record  the  same 
in  a  book,  to  be  especially  pi-ovided  and  kept  by  bim  for  sucli 
purpose,  whicli  book  shall  be  at  all  times  subject  to  public  in- 
spection and  examination.  Tf  there  be  already  filed  the  same  or 
any  similar  trademark,  or  a  trademark  so  closely  resembling 
same  as  to  he  likely  to  cause  confusion  or  be  misleadin?.  the 
•secretary  shall  .so  inform  the  applicant  and  shall  not  file  or 
record  the  same ;  provided,  that  no  trademark  shall  be  pjranted 
for  a  word  or  fjeneric  term,  which  by  preneral  or  common  use 
is  descriptive  of  or  characterizes  a  particular  article  to  which 
it  pertains  rather  than  its  origin  or  proprietorship. 

Section  X  Fee  for  filing  trademark.  Upon  filing:  a  trade- 
mark hy  the  Secretary  of  State  the  owner  or  person  offering 
the  same  for  filing  shall  pay  a  fee  of  five  dollars  for  filing  and 
recording  same.  And  no  tradeniai-k  shall  be  (ilcd  until  such  fee 
be  paid. 

Section  8.  Notice  of  filixh  trademark.  T'pon  the  filing  of 
a  trademark  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  the  owner  thereof  shall 
cause  to  be  jiublished  in  some  newspaper  published  in  the 
county  in  which  the  ])rincipal  office  or  place  of  business  of  such 
owner  is  located,  once  ?.  week  for  three  successive  weeks,  a  notice 


778  AiTENhix  r. 

setting  forth  llio  dospription  of  siioli  trndcninrk.  nnd  articl.'  or 
articles  of  nuTohnmliso  to  which  it  is  to  hf  applied,  to^'t'thor 
with  the  naiM(»  of  tho  person,  partnership,  firm  or  private  eor- 
poratioii  owiiiiijr  same;  after  muIi  rej:istration  and  puhlieation 
of  notiee  as  hereiiil)efore  |)r()vided  tlie  person,  partnersliip,  firm 
or  private  corporation  shall  thereupon  l)e  deemetl  the  profirietor 
of  siieh  trademark  ami  exclusive  owner  thereof. 

Section  \h  Coki-okation  namk  <'\n  not  hk  tskd  as  tkaoe- 
SIARK.  Xo  person,  partnersliip.  tirm.  or  private  corporation  can 
file  or  use  a.s  the  trad«'mark  the  name  of  any  foreij;n  or  domestic 
corporation  of  record  untlor  the  hiws  of  the  state  of  Oregon  at 
the  time  of  makin<r  such  application  for  tradenuirk.  and'  the 
Secretary  of  State,  if  in  his  opinion  any  trademark  offered  for 
filinfr  and  record  shall  so  closely  resemhle  the  name  of  a  foreign 
or  domestic  corporation  of  record  under  the  laws  of  the  state 
of  Oregon  as  to  he  likely  to  cause  confusio?i.  shall  so  inform 
the  applicant  and  shall  not  file  same. 

Section  Id.  lNrKiN(;KMi:NT  of  trademark.  Any  person, 
I)artnership.  firm,  or  private  corporation  tha*  shall  use  or  cause 
to  he  used  any  tradenuirk  owned  hy  aiK)ther.  or  use  words  or 
letters  similar  m  appearance  or  in  sound,  or  hy  any  sign,  device 
or  other  means  whatsoever  imitate  such  tradcinark  without  the 
owner's  consent,  or  shall  have  in  his  possession  a  counterfeit 
trademark,  knowing  it  to  in  a  counterfeit,  or  die.  plate,  brand 
or  anything  for  th<'  puri)ose  of  falsely  making  or  imitating  a 
trademark  without  the  owner's  consent,  or  shall  knowingly  sell 
or  expose  for  sale  any  article  of  merchandise  to  which  such  false 
or  imitation  trademark  is  attached  without  the  consent  of  the 
owner  of  such  trademark  shall  he  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and 
upon  conviction  thereof  shall  he  punished  hy  a  fine  of  not  less 
than  fifty  dollars  or  more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  or  impris- 
onment  in  the  county  .ja'l  for  not  less  than  twenty  days,  nor 
more  than  fifty  days,  or  l)oth  such  fine  and  imprisonment. 

Section  11.  Forfeitukf,  of  imiopertv  iu:aijin(;  iniiungement 
OF  THAiuiMAKK.  Ally  pcrsou,  i)artnership.  firm  or  private  cor- 
poration that  shall  use  or  cause  to  he  used  any  name,  hranil, 
mark  or  ilescript ion,  wln-thcf  li>-  llir  use  of  words  o'  lettei-s 
similar  in  appearan<-e  or  sound,  or  ity  any  sign,  device  or  other 
means  uhat.soever  imitate  a  trademark  filed  and  recorde  1,  upon 
any  article  of  merchandise  for  tlir  pui-pose  of  deceptior.  o;  ju-ofit. 


ORF'XON    STATfTKR.  TTIJ 

shall  forfoit  to  llic  use  of  llic  owner  of  the  said  trademark  so 
taken  or  siil)stitute(l  tlie  property  or  artiele  ui)ori  wliieh  the 
same  is  i)lace(l  or  used,  or  the  value  thereof  to  he  recovered  hy 
said  owner  in  any  court  having  jurisdiction  of  the  suh.ject- 
niattor. 

Section  12.  Provisions  as  to  cpntTiFicATK  of  filing  trade- 
mark. The  Secretary  of  State  sliall,  upon  filing'  trademark  as 
heroinhefore  f)rovide(l.  deliver  to  the  person,  partnership,  firm 
or  |)rivate  corporation  so  filing  the  same  a  certificate,  under 
the  seal  of  the  state,  of  the  record  of  such  tradenuirk,  and  article 
or  articles  of  merchandise  to  which  it  is  applied.  Such  certifi- 
cate ^'ranted  hy  the  Sec-etary  of  State  under  this  act,  and  proof 
of  pul)lication  as  iiereiiihcrore  i)rovided.  shall  he  prima  facie 
evidence  of  the  owju-rship  of  any  such  trademark  therein  de- 
scrihed  named  in  any  prosecution  or  action  under  any  of  the 
statutes  of  this  state,  wlicn'  proof  of  such  ownership  and  use 
is  necessary,  and  any  action  or  proceedinii:  Itrou^dit  for  the  i)ur- 
pose  of  recovering;  damajres  for  the  violation  of  said  trademark, 
or  of  preventing  infringement  thereof.  This  statute,  however, 
shall  not  he  construed  as  preventing  the  proof  of  any  such  trade- 
mark, and  the  use  thereof  in  any  other  lawful  manner  in  use 
prior  to  the  passage  of  this  act.  The  Secretary  of  State  shall 
hot  record,  regi.ster.  or  file  any  trademark  so  similar  to  any 
other  trademark  heretofore  filed  or  registered  as  would  he  cal- 
culated to  deceive,  unless  it  should  he  proven  to  his  satisfac- 
tion that  the  person,  partnership,  firm,  or  private  corporation 
last  applying  for  the  registration  of  such  trademark  shall  he 
entitled  thereto  and  the  rightful  owner  thereof  hy  prior  adop- 
tion, in  which  case  the  date  of  the  adoption  shall  determine  the 
ownership  and  shall  he  proven  hy  affidavits  of  persons  conver- 
sant with  such  dates.  In  case  the  Secretary  of  State  becomes 
satisfied  after  hearing  the  said  affidavits  that  the  person,  part- 
nership, firm,  or  private  corporation  last  applying  for  registry 
is  entitled  hy  priority  of  adoption  to  register  snch  trademark, 
he  shall  revoke  the  first  registry'  and  re-register  the  same  in  the 
name  of  the  person  last  applying  therefor.  Any  court  of  com- 
petent jurisdiction  may  also  in  an  action  brought  for  that  pur- 
pose by  any  person  aggrieved  thereby  against  any  person, 
partnership,  firm,  or  private  corporation,  who  has  already  filed 


780  Al'l'EKDIX    V. 

or  repistorod  any  sui-li  tnuU-inarU,  diri'i-t  the  revocation  of  any 
such  registration,  whoro  it  shall  (U'ti-rmiMr  that  thi'  person  who 
has  already  n-^'istered  the  s;nne  is  not  the  ri^'htful  ownrr  of 
such  trailcniark. 

Skctidn  ]'A.  TicxniMAKKs  iiKUKToroKK  ni.r.n.  Any  pt-rson, 
partnership,  tinn.  or  private  corporation  that  has  heretofore 
filed  under  the  provisions  of  law  existing'  at  the  time  of  such 
filinp  shall  not  he  recpiired  to  atjain  file  and  publish  such  de- 
seriptions.  to  he  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  this  act. 

Section  14.  IJicnr  to  kn.ioin  ini'kinckmknt  continues. 
Nothintr  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  so  as  to  affect  the  power 
of  courts  of  i'(piity  to  perpetually  restrain  by  injunction  the  im- 
proper use  of  any  trademark,  which  nuiy  have  been  secured  by 
the  jirovLions  of  this  act  or  other  jtrovisions  of  law. 

Section  1").  Ki:i'i:alixg  confi.k^tinc;  laws.  Sees.  6052,  6053, 
6054.  6055.  6056,  6057,  6058  and  OO^O  of  Lord's  Oregfon  I^aws 
are  hereby  repealed. 

Filed  in  the  ollicc  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  February  18,  1911. 

APPLICATION    TO    RKGISTER    A    TRAnKM.MtK    IN    TIIK    STATE    OF 

ORF.noX. 

,   10—. 

To    the   Secretary    of   State: 

,    whose    place    of    Imsiness    is    Street,    City    of    , 

County  of   ,  State  of  ,   desiring'   to   Hccure   witliin   tiie   State 

of  Orejion  the  boU*  and  exclusive  use  of  a  trademark  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  "An  Act  to  provide  for  the  registration  by  any  person, 
partniThhip,  firm  or  private  corporation,  desiring:  to  secure  within  the 
State  of  (►re^.'oii.  the  extluHive  use  of  any  trademark.  .Ic..'  tiled  in  the 
ofTice  of  tlie  Secretary  of  State,  Feliruary  IS,  IHII,  herel.y  presents  this 
apidication   for  tlie   re^'istration   of   such   traih-mark,  d.seril.ed    as   follows: 

,  a  farsimile  of  wliich   is  marked   '-Exliihit   A,"  hereto  attached. 

This  trademark,  as  slinwn  in  tlie  K.viiiliit.  is  t..  l.e  placed  upon  tlie  f(d- 
hiwin^'   articles   of   m'Tchandis*-:    . 

And  hy  reason  of  priority  of  adoption  of  tin-  tradtmark  lierein  d.scrihed 

and  shown  in  the  K.xliil.it  liereto  attached,  the  said  \nanif  of  person, 

partnrrHhip,  firm  or  priviite  rorpnriitioii]  luTetiy  claims  tlu-  ri;;ht  to  the 
Kole  ami  ..vclusive  uw  of  tlie  sani.-  within  the  Stati-  of  Orepm  for  the 
uws    and    imrpos.H    herein    stated.      A    fee    of    live    ($d.OUj     dollars    pro- 


OREGON'    STATITKS.  781 

vidcd   l>v    law    for    issiiiii;,'   (  t  rtilicutc  of    Rcgiutratiun    for    muli   trudi-iuurk 
is  tciidtrcd   licnwitli. 


jijOTE. — EncloHod  with  tlu-  njiplication  Hhould  Im-  two  (2)  t-xtru  fac- 
HimiliH  (if  tradtmark  jiriiiti-d.  iiiii)rcHH«'d,  or  niudt-  upon  tinn,  duraliU; 
jiaptr  for  attacliiii;,'  to  tlu-  liook  of  Itccords  of  'rrudcinarkH.  A  ft-e  of 
$5.00  mubt   bu  bfiit   with    tlic   upplicatioii. 


APPLICATION     TO     RKOISTER     A    TRADEMARK     1 V     TIIK     STATE 

OF  OREGON. 

TIUS    I'OKM    TO    HE    rSU)    WHEN    APPLICANT    IS    A    COKI'OUATION. 

,     10—. 

To  the  Secret  a  r;/  <>f  State  nf  the  f<tatc  i>f  Orrgon,  Salnn,  Oregon: 

-,  whose  place  of  Imainess  is  Street,  City  of  ,  County 


of ,  State  of  ,  desirinf?  to  secure  within  tlie  State  of  Oregon 

the  soh;  and  e.xchiHive  use  of  a  trademark  in  accordance  with  the  pro- 
visions of  "An  Act  to  provide  for  the  re^iistration  by  any  person,  part- 
nership, firm  or  ])rivate  corporation,  desirin^r  to  secure  witiiin  the  State 
of  Oregon,  the  exclusive  use  of  any  trademark,  etc.,"  fik-d  in  the  olTice 
of  the  the  Secretary  of  State,  February  IS,  1011,  Iierehy  presents  this 
api)lieation   for  the   registration  of   such  trademark,  described   aa   follows: 

,  a  fac-simile  of  which  is  marked  "Exhibit  A,"  hereto  attached. 

This  trademark,  as  shown  in  tlie  Exhibit,  is  to  be  j)laced  upon  tlie  fol- 
lowing   artieU'S   of    merchandise:    . 

And  by  reason  of  priority  of  adoption  of  the  trademark  herein  described 

and  siiown  in  tiie  Kxliibit  liereto  attaciied,  the  said  [name  of  private 

corporation]  hereliy  claims  the  right  to  the  sole  and  exclusive  use  of  the 
same  within  the  State  of  Oregon  for  the  uses  and  purposes  herein 
stated.  A  fee  of  five  ($5.00)  dollars  provided  by  law  for  issuing  Certifi- 
cate of  Registration  for  such  trademark  is  tendered  herewith. 

In    witness    wiiereof,    said    corporation    lias    caused    tliis    application    to 

be   executed   in    its   name   by   its   President   and   Secretary 

and  its  Corporate  Seal  to  be  hereto  affixed  the day  of  ,  19 — . 

[Corporate   Seal.] 


,    [Scan. 

,    President. 

,   Secretary. 

Note. — Enclosed  with  the  application  should  be  two  (2)  extra  fac- 
simUcs  of  trademark  printed,  impressed,  or  made  upon  thin,  durable 
paper  for  attaching  to  the  book  of  Records  of  Trademarks.  A  fee  of 
$5.00  must   be  sent  with  tiic   application. 


782  AITKNOIN    V. 

PKNNSVL\ANIA. 

Art    of    April    2  J.    VMK>,    No.    210. 

AN  ACT  ann-ndinj;  tho  tliird  wntion  of  tin-  not.  ontitl.'d  "An  net  to  pro- 
vide for  the  rc-j;ii*tration  of  lalielH.  trudiiiuirkH,  trailmiinifH, 
utampit,  de»i|tni».  dovin-H.  »ho|imnrkH,  terniH,  l.rnndrt,  dtrti^'iintionB, 
deivriptiojiH.  vt  forniH  of  ndviTtiHcment,  and  proti'ot  nnd  wcurt» 
the  ri^'litH,  projMTty  nnd  intrn-xtH  tlu-n-in  of  tlio  pcrHonH,  copart- 
niTHliipH  or  ror|M>rntionH  ndoptinj;  nnd  filin^j  tin-  Hamo,  nnd  pro- 
viding; jM-nnltifH  for  tlie  violntionn  of  tin*  not,"  nppn>vi'd  the 
twrntiftli  day  of  .Tiwn-,  Anno  Domini  one  tliouHnnd  nino  linndrod 
nnd  one:  w)  hh  to  fnrthor  i>n)toot  nnd  Hcouro  the  rijjhtH,  property 
and  interent  of  jM-rwins,  oorporntionrt  or  ooi)nrtncrHliiprt  ndoptinf; 
and  re>»i»t«'rin;:  naid  lalielH.  trndemnrkH,  trndennmos.  stnmps,  desi^s, 
dovicTH,  HliopniarkH,  terms,  lirnnds,  desi^'nationH,  deaoriptionB  or 
forms  of  advrrtisenient. 

Section  1.  lie  it  enacted,  etc..  That  the  third  section  of  the 
act,  entithnl  "An  act  to  provide  for  the  refjistration  of  lahels, 
trademarks,  tradenames,  stamps,  designs,  devices,  shopmarks. 
terms,  brands.  (N'^iu'nations.  de.seriptions  or  forms  of  advertise- 
ment, and  protect  and  secure  the  rights,  property  and  interest 
therein  of  tin  persons,  copartnerships  or  corporations  adopting 
an<l  filinp  tlie  same,  and  providinir  penalties  for  tlie  violation 
of  the  act."  approvi'd  the  twentieth  day  of  June,  Anno  Domini 
one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  one.  whieli  reads  as  follows: 

"Section  .'5.  That  whenever  person  or  persoTis,  copartner- 
ship or  corporations,  has  h'-retofore  adopted  and  filed  for  record 
or  registry,  or  shall  hereafter  adopt  and  lile  for  repristry.  any 
lahel,  traih-inark,  tradenaiiu\  device,  shopinark.  desijjfimtion,  or 
form  of  ailvertisement,  as  herein  provided,  it  shall  he  unlawful, 
and  a  violation  of  this  act,  for  any  other  person,  copartnership 
or  cori)oration  to  make  any  u.se,  sale,  oflTf^r  for  sale,  or  display 
of  the  penuine  lahel.  trademark,  tradename,  device,  shopmark, 
designation,  or  form  of  advertisement,  or  any  such  likeness  or 
imitation  thereof  as  shall  he  calculated  or  liable  to  deceive,  of 
any  such  person  or  persons,  copartnership  or  corporations, 
filing'  the  same;  or  to  sell,  olTer  to  sell,  or  dispose  of,  any  poods, 
wares  or  merchandise,  in  hulk,  or  in  any  liox.  ease.  can.  hottlc 
or  i)ackape  to  f»r  whi'h  any  sucli  peiniine  lahel,  trademark, 
tradename,  dcviee.  shopmark,  desipnatioti.  or  form  of  adver- 
tis«*ment,  fihd  for  record  as  aforesaid,  or  any  such  likeness  or 
imitation  thereof,  is  attached,  afTixed  or  <li:. played;  or  to  make 


PENNSYI.VANIA     ST\TrTF-S.  783 

any  wrnnj^iu!  iiso  wliatcvcr  of  iiuy  such  ^,'cn\iin('  hihcl,  trftdc- 
inark,  li-adciiaiiif.  (Icvicc.  .sliopiiiiirk.  dt-si^^tial  ion,  or  rurm  of 
advert isrmcnt,  or  any  such  likeness  or  iniitalion  lliereol";  or  to 
in  any  way  use  the  name  or  seal  of  any  such  person  or  persoiiH, 
copai'lnership  or  cor|ioral  i(tn,  or  any  such  likeness  or  imitation 
thereof,  in  .umI  aliout  the  sale  of  ^'oods  or  otlierwise,  without 
first  ohtainin^'  in  every  such  ease  the  license,  consent  or  author- 
ity of  the  person  or  persons,  eopartnership  or  corporation, 
adoptiiifr,  filinfr  and  retristerinpr  the  same;  and  it  shall  l)e  un- 
lawful for  any  other  person  or  persons,  firm,  copartnership,  or 
corporation  to  make  any  use  of  such  lahel.  trademark,  trade- 
names, device,  shopmark,  desifjnation,  or  form  of  advertise- 
ment, so  filed,  or  any  such  likeness  or  imitation  tliereof,  or 
utter  or  display  tlie  same  orally  or  in  any  printed  or  written 
form  in  the  conduct  of  his  business  or  in  any  business  transac- 
tion, attaelied  to  merchandise  or  products  of  labor,  or  detached 
from  and  independent  of  the  same,  on  invoice,  letterheads,  bills 
or  advertisements,  without  express  consent,  license  and  author- 
ity of  the  person  or  persons,  copartnership  or  corporation,  so 
filinfT  the  same ;  and  any  such  license,  consent  or  autliority  may 
be  revoked  and  terminated  at  any  time,  upon  notice,  and  there- 
after any  use  thereof  shall  be  a  violation  of  this  act.  and  sub- 
ject those  violating  the  same  to  all  the  liabilities  and  penalties 
herein  provided  against  any  violation  thereof.  He  shall  refuse 
to  file  or  rcfjister  any  label,  trademark,  tradename,  device,  .shop- 
mark,  desijrnation,  or  form  of  advertisement,  identical  with,  or 
so  similar  to  as  to  l)e  calculated  or  liable  to  deceive,  any  label, 
trademark,  tradename,  device,  shopmark,  desifjnation,  or  form 
of  advertisement,  filed  and  re<zistered,  uidess  it  shall  be  proved 
to  his  satisfaction  that  the  jierson  or  persons,  copartnership  or 
corporation,  lastly  applying:  for  the  registry  of  such  label,  trade- 
mark. trachMiames.  device,  shopmark,  desifjnation,  or  form  of 
advertisement,  shall  be  entitled  thereto,  and  the  owner  thereof 
by  ricfht  of  prior  adoption:  in  which  case  the  date  of  adoption 
shall  determine  the  owneiNhip.  and  shall  be  proved  liy  affidavits 
of  persons  conversant  witli  such  dates.  Tn  case  the  Secretary 
of  State  becomes  satisfied,  after  heariner  the  said  affidavits,  that 
the  person  or  persons,  copartnership  or  corporation,  last  apply- 
ing for  registry  is  entitled  to  priority  of  adoption  to  register 
such  trademark,  tradename,  device,  shopmark,  designation,  or 


784  APPENDIX    K. 

form  of  ailvortisoment.  lu'  .shall  rovoko  ihe  first  registry  thereof, 
and  re-rojrister  the  same  in  the  name  of  said  applying:  ptTson  or 
persons,  eopartnership  or  corporations."  he  and  the  same  is 
herehy  amendetl  so  as  to  read  as  follows: 

Skction  :^.     That  whenever  person  or  persons,  copartnership 
or  corporations,  has  heretofore"  adopted  and  filed  for  record  or 
registry,   or   shall    hereafter   adopt   and    file    for   registry,   any 
lahel.  trademark,  tradename,  device,  shopmark.  designation,  or 
form  of  advertisement,  as  herein  provided,  it  shall  he  unlawful 
and  a  violation  of  this  act  for  any  other  person,  copartnership, 
or  corporation  to  make  any  use,  sale,  offer  for  sale,  or  display 
of  the  genuine  lahel,  -trademark,  tradename,  device,  shopmark, 
designation,  or  form  of  advertisement,  or  any  such  likeness  or 
imitation  thereof,  as  shall  l)e  calculated  or  liahle  to  deceive,  of 
any    such    person    or    persons,    copartnership    or    corporations, 
filing  the  same;  or  to  sell,  offer  to  sell,  or  dispose  of  any  goods, 
wares,  or  merchandise,  in  hulk,  or  in   box,  case,  can,  bottle  or 
package  to  or  which  any  geiniine  lahel,  trademark,  tradename, 
device,  shopmark,  designation,  or  form  of  advertisement,  filed 
for  record  as  aforesaid,  or  any  such  likeness  or  imitation  thereof, 
is  attached,  affixed  or  displayed  ;  or  to  make  any  wrongful  use 
whatever  of  any  such  genuine  label,  trademark,  tradeiuune,  de- 
vice, shopmark.  designation,  or  form  of  advertisement,  or  any 
such  likeness  or  imitation  thereof;  or  to.  in  any  way,  use  the 
name  or  seal  of  any  such  person  or  jx-rsons.  copartnership  or 
corporation,  or  any  other  likeness  or  imitation  thereof,  in  and 
about  the  sale  of  goods,  or  otherwise,   without   first  obtaining, 
in  every  such  case,  the  license,  consent  or  authority  of  the  person 
or  persons,   copartnership   or   corporation    adopting,    filing   and 
registering  the  same;  and  it  shall  be  unlawful    for  any  other 
person  or  persons,  firm,  copartnership,  or  corporation  to  remove 
any  such  label,  trademark,  tradename,  device,  shopmark,  desig- 
nation, or  form  of  advertisement,  so  registerrd  as  aforesaid  and 
attached  to  merchandise  or  products  of  labor,  for  the  purpose 
of  using  surli    merchandise  or  products  of  lal>or  as  a  pattern 
for  the  reproduction  of  the  same:  Provided  houu  V(  r.  That  noth- 
ing herein  contained  shall  he  taken  to  prohibit  the  using  of  such 
merchandise  or  products  of  labor  as  a  pattern  for  the  reproduc- 
tion of  *he  same,  in  individual  cases  of  emergencg  repair.     And 
it  shall  be  unlaw  fid  for  amj  other  person  o>-  persons,  firm,  co- 


PENNSYLVANIA     STATUTES. 


785 


parincrship,  or  rorporaiion  to  make  any  use  of  sucli  la])fl,  trade- 
mark,   tradeiianu',    tlevieo,    sliopnuirk,   designation,   or   form   of 
advertisement,  so  filed,  or  any  such  likeness  or  imitation  thereof, 
or  utter  or  display  the  same  orally  or  in  any  printed  or  written 
form   in  the  eonduot  of  his  husiness  or  in  any  business  trans- 
action,  attached   lo   merchandise   or   products   of   labor,    or   de- 
tached   from   and   independent  of   the  same,   on   invoice,   letter- 
heads, bills,  or  advertisements,  without  express  consent,  license 
and  authority  of  the  person  or  persons,  copartnership  or  cor- 
poration, so  filing  th(>  same;  and  any  sneh  license,   consent  or 
authority  may  be  revoked  and  terminated  at  any  time,  upon 
notice,  and  thereafter  any  use  thereof  shall   be  a  violation  of 
this  act,  and  subject  those  violatinfj  the  same  to  all  the  liabilities 
and    penalties   herein    provided   ap:ainst    any   violation    thereof. 
He  shall  refuse  to  file  or  register  any  label,  trademark,  trade- 
name, device,  shopmark,  designation,  or  form  of  advertisement, 
identical  with,  or  so  similar  to  as  to  be  calculated  or  liable  to 
deceive,    any    label,    trademark,    tradename,    device,    shopmark, 
designation,  or  form  of  advertisement,  filed  or  registered,  unle-ss 
it  shall  be  proved  to  his  satisfaction  that  the  person  or  persons, 
copartnership  or  corporation,  lastly  applying   for  the  registry 
of  such  label,  trademark,  tradename,  device,  shopmark,   desig- 
nation, or  form  of  advertisement,  shall  be  entitled  thereto,  and 
the  owner  thereof  by  rigiit  of  prior  adoption;   in  which  case 
the  date  of  adoption  shall  determine  the  ownership,  and  shall 
be  proved  by  affidavits  of  persons  conversant  with  such  dates. 
In  the  case  the  Secretary  of  State  becomes  satisfied,  after  hear- 
ing the  said  affidavits,  that  tlie  person  or  persons,  copartnership 
or  corporation    last  applying  for  registry  is  entitled  to  priority 
of  adoption  to  register  such  trademark,  tradename,  device,  shop- 
mark,  designation,  or  foi-m  of  advertisement,  he  shall  revoke  the 
first  registry  thereof,  and   re-register  the  same  in  the  name  of 
said  applying  person  or  persons,  copartnership  or  corporations. 

To    the    Secrctari/    of    the    CommonirraJth    of    Pennsijlvania  : 

Sir:  — 

In  complianoo  uitli  tlic  icquircmciits  of  an  Act  of  the  General  Asscmbly 
of  tlie  Commonwealth  of  JVnns.vlvania.  entitled  "An  Act  to  provide  for 
the  rejristration  of  lahels,  trademarks,  tradi-names,  stamps,  desipn^. 
devices,  shopmarks,  terms,  brands,  desi<.'nations,  descriptions,  or  forms 
of  advertisement,  and  protect  and   secure  the  rights,  property   and   inter- 


7Sn  APPEN'DIX    K. 

r.t  tii.nin  of  tl.o  porm.nrt.  c.iiiirtmTshii.H  or  .•orporatiouH  adopting'  nml 
tilinj;   til.-    H«ni.-.    and    provitlin;?    prnultif«    for    th.-    violation    of    th»«    act," 

npprov.Hl  th.-  JOtl.  .lay  of  .lun.-.  A.   1).    1001.  th.-  un.l.THiKiud,  rosi- 

a.-nt  or  .h.itiK  l.iiMiu-HH  in  th.-  Init.-.l  StuU-H.  hftvin^  ht-ri'tofon-  adopted  or 

UH.ll.  or  d.•^.irin^:  to  adopt  or  u«.-  a .   for  tlu-  purport.-^  providi-d  in 

H«id  ait.  and  d.-sirin^  to  tU.-  th.-  wim."  for  rword  in  th.-  oHK-f  of  th.- 
S«Trt-tary    ..f    Stnt.-   of    tin-    Stat.-   .>f    IVnnwylvania.   do    h.r.-l.y    c.-rtify: 

l^t.  Th.-  nam.-  of  th.-  p.rs..n  or  ju-rsonH.  .-opartnt-rnhip  or  i-orp..ra- 
tion  80  filing'.  i» [«7  a  corporation  give  8tatr  under  which  organized]. 

2nd.     11  iH   or    itt*    r.-Hid.-nc.-,    l.K-ation    or    jdat-.'  of   hiisin.-sH,  . 

:Jrd.  Th.-  ohiHH  of  m.-nhandis.-.  and  th.-  particular  description  of  k^mxI* 
comi>riw-<l    tli.-r.-in    . 

Th.-  tra.l.-mark  conBiats  of  . 

4th.      Th««   cla»s   to    which    it    has   Ix-.-n    or    is   intended    to   »><-    appropri- 


ated 


.Hh.     The  lenjjth  of  tim.-.  if  any.  d\irin;i  wiiieli  it  has  been  in  use 


[Signature  of  applicant.] 


Stat*"    of    - 
("ountv    of 


Personally  appeared  before  me,  this  day  of  ,  A.   D.   10—, 

-,  who,   beinn  duly  sworn,  accordinjj  to    law.  deposes  and  says  that 


the    statements    contained    in    the    forejioinp    instrument    are    tru.-;    that 

tl,p  so  filin;;  sueli  ,  has  a   ri^'ht  to  use  the  same,  and  that 

HO  other  person  or  persons,  eopartn.-rship  or  corporation,  has  the  right 
to  such  us.',  either  in  th.-  id.-ntieal  form  or  in  any  sueli  near  r«'s.-mhlance 
thereto  as  may  be  cak-uhit.-d  to  d.-ceive,  and  that  tli.-  facsimiles,  copies 
or  count4'rpart8  filed  henwith  are  true  and  corn-ct. 

Sworn   and   subscribed   Ix-fore   m.-.  the  day    and   y.ar   afor.-said.   ss: 

IS.-al.] 


\i^ignaturc   of   affiant.] 

>,oTE.— Two  copi.-s  of  th.-  trad.-mark  must  b.-  fil.d  with  the  applica- 
tion. The  api)lieation  its.-lf  should  not  b.-  in  duplicate.  Fee  for  filing 
and    ..-rtificat.-.    two    .loUars. 


KIIUDK   ISLAND. 

C.-n.-ral    Laws.    \'M)'.K  Cliapt.r    100. 
Public   Laws  of    1000- 1.  Chapter   7:5'>. 
\N    A(  T    for    tl..-    prot.-ction    of    lab.-ls    and    seals   of    labor    or^mni/alions, 
usHo.iati..ns   and  H..ei.-ti -s   in   tb.-    Stat--   of   Kiiod.-    Island   and    Provi- 
dence   Plantations. 
Skc'TION  1.    Wlicncvor  any  person,  or  any  a.s.stH*iati.)n  or  union 
of  workingnien,  hu.s  heretofore  atl(»pt(!d  or  used,  or  .shall  here- 


RIIODK     ISLAM)     STATl  TF-S.  787 

after  adopt  or  use,  any  label,  tratlomark,  term,  desipn,  device, 
or  form  of  advertisement  for  the  purpose  of  designating',  mak- 
ing known,  or  distinf^'uishing  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  or 
other  product  of  labor  as  iiaving  been  made,  manufactured, 
produced,  prepared,  packed,  or  put  on  sale  by  such  person,  or 
association  or  union  of  workingmen,  or  by  a  member,  or  mem- 
bers, of  such  association  or  union,  it  shall  be  unlawful  to  coun- 
terfeit or  imitate  such  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device, 
or  form  of  advertisement,  or  to  use,  sell,  offer  for  sale,  or  in 
any  way  utter  or  circulate  any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any 
such  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device,  or  form  of  adver- 
tisement. 

Section  2.  Whoever  knowingly  counterfeits  or  imitates  any 
such  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device,  or  form  of  adver- 
tisement which  has  been  filed  and  recorded  in  the  office  of  the 
Secretary  of  State  as  hereinafter  provided;  or  knowingly  sells, 
offers  for  sale,  or  in  any  way  utters  or  circulates  any  counter- 
feit or  imitation  of  any  such  label,  trademark,  terra,  design, 
device  or  form  of  advertisement ;  or  knowingly  keeps  or  has 
in  his  possession,  with  intent  that  the  same  .shall  be  sold  or 
disposed  of,  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  or  other  product 
of  labor  to  which  or  on  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation 
is  printed,  painted,  stamped,  or  impressed;  or  knowingly  .sells 
or  disposes  of  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  or  other  product 
of  labor  contained  in  any  box,  case,  can,  or  package  to  which  or 
on  whicli  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached,  affixed, 
printed,  painted,  stamped,  or  impressed ;  or  knowingly  keeps  or 
has  in  his  pos.session  with  intent  tliat  the  same  .shall  be  sold  or 
disposed  of,  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  or  other  product 
of  labor  in  any  box,  case,  can,  or  package  to  which  or  on  which 
any  .such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached,  affixed,  printed, 
painted,  stamped,  or  impressed,  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of 
not  more  than  one  hundred  dollai-s  or  by  imprisonment  for  not 
more  than  three  months. 

Section  3.  Every  such  person,  association,  or  union  that  has 
heretofore  adopted  or  ii.sed,  or  shall  hereafter  adopt  or  use,  a  label, 
trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  as 
provided  in  section  1  of  this  act,  shall  file  the  same  for  record  in 
the  office  of  the  Secretarj^  of  State  by  leaving  two  eopies.  counter- 


7S8  APPKNnix  F. 

parts,  or  Joc:<imilc.<  tlion^nf.  with  snid  soorotnry.  and  by  filinp 
tluTfwith  a  sworn  applitatioii  specifying  the  nnjuo  or  names  of 
the  piTNon.  association,  or  union  on  whose  helialf  such  label, 
tra.b'inark.  term,  (h'si^rn.  ilcvicc.  or  form  of  atlvertisement 
sluiU  lu'  liK'tl;  the  chiss  of  inercliandise.  and  a  descri[)tion  of  the 
pooils  to  wliich  it  has  been  or  is  inten(b'd  to  l»e  appropriated, 
statiiif.'  that  tlie  party  so  tiling',  or  on  wliose  l)ehalf  such  hil)cl, 
trademark,  term,  desi^rn.  (h'viee.  or  form  of  advertisement  shall 
he  file<l  has  the  ripht  to  tlie  use  of  the  same,  that  no  other  per- 
son, firm,  association,  union,  or  corporation  has  the  ripht  to 
such  use,  either  in  the  identical  form  or  in  any  snob  near  re- 
semblance thereto  as  may  be  calculated  to  deceive,  aiul  tliat  the 
facsimile  or  counterparts  fded  therewith  are  true  and  correct. 
before  there  shall  be  any  liability  to  any  suit  or  proceedinf:  for 
any  violation  of  this  act.  There  shall  be  paid  for  such  filinf? 
and  recordinjr  a  fee  of  one  dollar.  S.-iid  Secretary  of  State  shall 
cause  a  description  of  .such  lal)ei,  tradenmrk.  term,  desi}?n,  de- 
vice, or  form  of  advertisement  to  be  published  onee  a  week  for 
three  successive  weeks,  at  the  expense  of  the  applicant,  in  some 
newspai>er  published  in  the  city  of  Providence.  After  such  pub- 
lication said  secretary  shall  deliver  to  such  person,  association, 
or  union  so  filing  or  causinfj  to  be  filed  any  such  label,  trade- 
mark, term,  design,  device  or  forin  of  advertisement  so  many 
duly  attested  certificates  of  the  recordinjr  of  the  same  as  such 
person,  association,  or  union  may  apply  for.  for. each  of  which 
certificates  said  secretary  shall  receive  a  fee  of  one  dollar.  Any 
such  certificate  of  record  shall  in  suits  and  prosecutions  under 
this  act  be  sufTicieiit  proof  of  the  adoption  of  such  laliel.  trade- 
mark, term,  desij^n.  device,  or  form  of  advertisement.  Said 
Secn-tary  of  State  shall  not  record  for  any  person,  union,  or 
association  any  laliel.  trademark,  term,  desipri.  device,  or  form 
of  advertisement  that  would  probably  be  mistaken  for  any 
label,  trademark,  term,  desipn,  device,  or  form  of  advertisement 
theretofore  filed  by  <ir  on  behalf  of  any  other  person,  union. 
or  association. 

Skction'  4.  Any  person  who  shall,  for  himself  or  on  lu^half 
of  any  other  person,  association,  or  union,  jirocure  the  filinpr 
of  any  label,  trademark,  term,  desicrn.  or  forin  of  advertisement 
in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  Statr  under  the   provisions  of 


UIIODi:     ISLAND    STATf'I'KS.  789 

this  not  l)y  makinpr  anj'  false  or  fraudulent  representations  or 
(ieclarations,  vei-hally  or  in  writing,  or  liy  any  fiaudulent  means, 
shall  he  liahle  to  i»ay  any  tiiiina^es  sustained  in  consequence  of 
any  such  filinj;,  to  l)e  recovered  l)y  or  on  hdialf  of  thf  party 
injured  therehy  \u  any  court  having'  jurisdiction,  and  shall 
he  punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars,  or 
l)y  iniiirisonnu'nt  not  exc(>edinrr  three  niontiis.  In  any  suit  or 
prosecution  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  the  defendant 
may  show  that  he  or  it  was  the  owner  of  such  lahel.  trademark, 
term,  design,  device,  or  form  of  advertisement  prior  to  its  being 
filed  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  that  it  had  been  filed 
wrongfully  or  without  right  by  some  other  person,  association 
or  union. 

Section  5.  Every  such  person,  association,  or  union  adopt- 
ing or  using  a  lahel.  trademark,  term,  design,  device,  or  fonn 
of  advertisement,  as  aforesaid,  may  proceed  hy  suit  to  enjoin 
the  manufacture,  u.se,  display,  or  sale  of  any  counterfeits  or 
imitations  thereof,  and  all  courts  of  competent  jurisdiction  may 
grant  injunctions  to  restrain  such  manufacture,  use.  display, 
or  sale,  and  may  award  the  complainant  in  any  such  suit  dam- 
ages resulting  from  such  manufacture,  use,  sale,  or  display^ 
as  may  he  hy  the  said  court  deemed  just  and  reasonahle.  and 
may  require  the  defendants  to  pay  such  person,  association  or 
union  all  profits  derived  from  such  wrongful  manufacture,  use, 
display,  or  sale;  and  such  court  may  also  order  that  all  such 
counterfeits  or  iinitatioTis  in  the  possession  or  imder  the  control 
of  any  defendant  in  such  cause  he  delivered  to  an  officer  of  the 
court,  or  to  the  complainant,  to  he  destroyed. 

In  all  cases  where  such  association  or  union  is  not  incorpo- 
rated, suits  under  this  act  may  he  commenced  and  prosecuted 
hy  an  officer  or  meniher  of  such  association  or  union  on  behalf 
of  and  for  the  use  of  such  association  or  union. 

Section  6.  Any  person  or  persons  who  shall  in  any  way  use 
the  name  or  .seal  of  any  such  person,  association,  or  union,  or 
officer  thereof,  in  and  about  the  sale  of  goods  or  otherwise,  not 
heing  authorized  to  use  the  same,  shall  he  guilty  of  a  misde- 
meanor, and  sliall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  for  not  more 
than  three  months  or  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  one  hundred, 
dollars. 


790  APPENPIX    F. 

Section  7.  Tho  provisions  of  this  act  slioll  not  nbridpo  any 
ripht.s  to  any  trailciiiarks  ^'xistin^r  at  tlu-  tiini'  of  tho  passa^'c  of 
this  act,  whothor  the  sann"  shall  he  rt'corded  or  luit.  nor  aii\ 
roniodios  or  riphts  of  action  otherwise  or  tliorotofun'  cxistiiit;  in 
favor  of  owners  of  tradeiiiarks. 

Section  v*^.  The  district  cnurt.s  of  the  several  judiciiil  dis- 
tricts shall  have  jurisdiction  o\'  all  complaints  for  violation  of 
this  act. 

Skction  9.  This  act  shall  take  elToet  and  he  in  force  from 
and  aftor  the  first  day  of  June.  A.  I).  ll)(H).  and  all  acts  and 
parts  of  acts  inconsistent  herewith  are  hereby  repealed. 

Chapter  (i'JT.  Pul).  Laws  1898-189!).  rehites  to  the  protection 
of  bottles,  barrels,  ke^s,  casks,  cans,  etc.,  of  manufacturers,  bot- 
tlers, and  vendors  of  soda  water,  nuneral  water,  ale,  beer,  or 
other  licpiids  that  may  be  used  as  foods  or  beverajzes.  or  nuvli- 
cines,  perfumery,  oils,  compounds,  etc. 

Rhode  Island'  Laws  190!l.  chap.  19S.  "Of  the  protection  of 
owners  of  cans,  bottles,  and  other  vessels  used  in  the  sale  of 
mineral  waters,  milk.  beer,  cider,  wine,  or  other  beverajjes  and 
compfiunds"  is  constitutioiud.  State  f.  Hand  lireuiiuj  Co.,  32 
R.  1.  5G,  78  Atl.  Hep.  499. 

ST.VTE  OF  RHODE  ISLAND,  ETC. 

Application,   acconipnnvin;.'  ii [insert  label,  trademark,  term,  'li siyn, 

dcviee,  or  form  of  advrrtittement  as  the  ease  may  be\  tiled  in  accordance 
with  tin*  provifiions  of  Cliapti-r  llUi  of  tin-  (Icncral  Laws  of  Hliodc  Island, 
llKiJt.  entitled  "Of  the  I'rntfction  of  Lalu-ls  and  Seals  of  Labor  Organi/.a- 
tions." 

Name  of  pcrwin.  assoj-iation  <ir  iinion . 

C'laan  of  incrcliandisf  and  description  of  the  pooda  to  which  the  

[itiHcrt  label,  trademark,  term,  deriee,  or  form  of  advertisement,  as  the  ease 
map    be]    has    hccii    or    is    intindt-d    ti>    In-    apjjropriatcd,   . 

Tin-  cHwntial  fcatnn-  of  said  [insert  label,  trademark-,  term,  deviee, 

or  form  of  ailvertisement,  as  the  ease  may  be"]  consists  of [gire  tehat 

if   considered   to    be    the  essential  feature    or   features   thereof]. 

Tlic  Btyle  and  size  of  typo,  and  color  of  ink  and  paper [use  the  word 

"may"  or  the  irords  "trill  not"  aa  the  case  may  hi  \   Ik-  varied  at  pleasure. 

I,    ,    do    hereby    di-clare,    in    accordance    witli    the    provisions    of 

uid  Chapter  100  of  the  fnuiTal   Laws  of   Hhode  Island,   100(1.   that  

lia —    {have  or  has]   a   ri;.'ht  to  the  use  of  the  same  referred  to  in 

the  forepoinp  application,  that  no  other  person,  firm,  asHociation,  union 
or  corporation   has  the  ripht  to  such  use,  either   in  the   identical   form  or 


SOUTH   <AU()MN'  \   siATrncs.  791 

in  any  fiuoh  near  rosrmlilnncc  tlicrctn  hk  mny  \»-  oiilciilHtiil  to  <l<'Cfiv«-, 
and  tliiit  tin-  fdi-Himilr  nr  ciniiitrrpiirtH  ftl<-<l  tlii-rr-witli  an*  triit-  and 
corn-c't. 

In    witiu'Hs   wliiTfof,    I    have    liiiciinli)    Hi;,'inil    iii_\    iiuiin'    tliin day 

of   ,    in   tliu  }fur    iiinctccn    liiindrfd   — . 


—    [Hiyn   htri\. 
,    19—. 


State    of   , 

County   of   ,   hs: 

Tlien  pprHoimlly  ap|)iarcd  tin-  aliovc  iiamrd  and   madi-  oatli   tliat 

till'   for('j,'oiii{^   di'claratioii    by    liini    HuliHcrilicd    is   trin-   aiKJ   correct. 
Before  me. 


Notary  Public. 


SOUTH    CAROLINA. 


AN    ACT    for    the   protection    of    labels   and    seals    of    laltor    orjranizations, 
associations  and   societies   in   the  State  of  South   Carolina. 

Section  1.  Be  it  enacted  \)\  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
State  of  Soutii  Carolina,  Whenever  any  per.son,  or  any  associa- 
tion or  union  of  workin^nien,  has  lieretofore  adopted  or  used, 
or  sluill  hrri'aftcr  adopt  or  use,  any  label,  tradt'inark.  term, 
design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  for  the  purpase  of  desig- 
nation, makint;  known,  or  distiufruisliing  any  goods,  wares,  mer- 
chandise, or  other  product  of  labor  a.s  having  been  made,  manu- 
factured, jinxbiccd,  prepare<l,  packed,  or  put  on  sab-  by  such 
person,  or  a.ssociatiou,  or  union  of  workiugmen,  or  l)y  a  member, 
or  mend)ers,  of  such  association  or  union,  it  shall  be  uidawful  to 
counterfeit  or  imitate  such  bibel.  trademark,  term,  design,  device, 
or  form  of  advertisement,  or  to  u.se,  sell,  offer  for  sale,  or  in 
any  way  utter  or  circulate  any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any 
such  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device,  or  form  of  adver- 
tisement. 

Section  2.  Whoever  knowingly  counterfeits  or  imitates  any 
such  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device,  or  form  of  adver- 
tisement which  has  been  filed  and  recorded  in  the  office  of 
Secretary  of  State,  as  hereinafter  provided,  or  knowingly  sells, 
oflfers  for  sale,  or  in  any  way  utters  or  circulates  any  counter- 
feit or  imitation  of  any  such  label,  trademark,  term,  design, 
device,  or  form  of  advertisement,  or  knowingly  keeps  or  has  in 


79'J  AITF.NOIX    K. 

his  J>o^is^'ssioll.  with  iiiii-iii  that  the  same  shall  l>o  sold  or  dis- 
posi'd  of.  any  ^'oods.  warfs.  MU'rehandiso  or  otht-r  product  of 
lal»or  to  \\hi«h  or  on  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation 
is  printed,  painted,  .stamped,  or  impressed;  or  knowingly  sells 
or  dispuses  of  any  j;oods.  wares,  merchandise,  or  other  jirodiict 
of  lahor  containcii  in  any  l>ox.  ease,  can,  or  paekape  to  which 
or  on  which  any  sucli  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached,  af- 
fixed, printed.  |)ainfed.  stamju'd.  or  impressed,  or  knowingly 
keeps  or  lias  in  liis  possession  with  intent  that  the  same  shall 
he  sold  or  disposed  of,  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  or  other 
product  of  lal)or  in  any  box.  case  or  packat;e  to  which  or  on 
wliich  any  such  couiilerrcit  or  imitation  is  altaelicd.  affixed, 
printed,  painted,  stamped,  or  impressed,  shall  he  punished  by 
a  fine  of  not  more  than  one  hundred  dollars  or  by  imi)risonment 
for  not  more  than  three  months. 

Section  3.  Kvery  such  person,  association,  or  union,  that 
has  heretofore  adopted  or  used,  or  shall  hereafter  adopt  or  use, 
a  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device,  or  form  of  advertise- 
ment, as  provided  in  .section  1  of  this  act.  siuill  tile  the  same  for 
record  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  by  leaving  two 
copies,  connteri)arts  or  facsimiles  thereof  with  said  secretary, 
and  by  filing  therewith  a  sworn  application  specifying  the  name 
or  names  of  the  person,  association,  or  union  on  whase  behalf 
such  label,  trademark,  ti'rm,  design,  device,  or  form  of  adver- 
tisement shall  be  fileil,  the  class  of  merchandise  and  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  goods  to  which  it  has  been  or  is  intended  to  be 
a|ipropriat«*d.  .stating  the  parties  so  filing,  or  on  whose  behalf 
such  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device,  or  form  of  adver- 
tisement shall  be  filed,  has  the  right  to  the  use  of  the  same: 
that  no  (»tber  person,  firm,  association,  union  or  corporation  has 
the  right  to  such  use.  either  in  the  identical  form  or  in  any  such 
near  resemblance  thereto  as  nu«y  be  calculated  to  deceive,  and 
that  the  fdi-sitnilr  or  counterparts  filed  then-with  are  true  ami 
correct,  before  there  shall  be  any  liability  to  any  suit  or  pro- 
ceeding for  any  violation  of  this  act.  There  shall  be  paid  for 
such  filing  and  recording  a  fee  of  one  dollar.  Said  Secretary 
of  State  shall  cause  a  description  of  stich  label,  trademark,  term, 
design,  device,  or  form  of  ailvcrtisemeiit  to  be  published  once 
a  week  for  three  successive  weeks,  at  the  expense  of  the  appli- 


SOITII     CMJttl.lN  \     STATITKS.  "!•:{ 

cant,  in  soiiio  no^vspapor  pnlilislif-d  in  tlio  city  of  Columbia. 
After  siu-li  ijiihlicalion  said  .secretary  shall  deliver  to  siieh  per- 
son, as.s<K'iati()n.  or  iiiiioii.  so  filing'  or  caiisid}.'  to  Iw  lile.l  any 
such  label,  trademark,  term.  desi^Mi,  device,  or  form  of  advcT- 
tisement,  so  many  duly  attested  cert  ideates  of  the  recordiiiK  of 
the  same  a.s  such  |)ersoii,  association.  <»r  union  may  ajiply  for. 
for  each  of  which  certificates  said  secretary  shall  receive  a  fee 
of  one  dollar.  Any  such  certificate  of  record  .shall  in  all  suits 
and  prosecutions  under  this  act  be  sufTicient  i)roof  of  the  adop- 
tion of  such  label,  tradenuirk.  desi<;ii.  term,  device,  or  form  of 
advertisement.  Said  Secretary  of  State  shall  not  record  for  any 
person,  union  or  association  any  label,  trademark,  term,  design, 
device,  or  form  of  advertisement  that  would  prol)ably  be  mi.s- 
taken  for  any  label,  trademark,  term,  desiprn,  device,  or  form 
of  advertisement  theretofore  filed  by  or  on  behalf  of  any  other 
person,  union,  or  association. 

Section  4.  Any  person  who  shall,  for  himself  or  on  behalf  of 
any  other  person,  a.ssociation  or  union,  procure  the  filing'  of  any 
label,  trademark,  term,  de^sign,  device,  or  form  or  advertisement 
in  the  ofTfice  of  the  said  Secretary  of  State,  under  the  provisions 
of  this  act,  by  makinfr  any  false  or  fraudulent  representations 
or  declarations,  verbally  or  in  writing,  or  by  any  fraudulent 
means,  shall  be  liable  to  pay  any  damafjes  .sustained  in  conse- 
quence of  any  such  filing,  to  be  recovered  by  or  on  behalf  of  the 
party  injured  thereby  in  any  court  having  jurisdiction,  and 
.shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars 
or  by  imprisonment  not  exceedinj?  three  months.  In  any  suit 
or  prosecution  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  the  defendant 
may  show  that  he  or  it  was  the  owner  of  such  label,  trademark, 
term,  desiirn  device,  or  form  of  advertisement  prior  to  its  being 
filed  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  that  it  has  been  filed 
wrongfully  or  without  riuht  by  some  other  person,  association 
or  union. 

Section  5.  Every  such  person,  association,  or  union,  adopt- 
ing or  using  a  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device,  or  form 
of  adverti.sement  as  aforesaid,  may  proceed  by  suit  to  enjoin 
the  manufacture,  use,  display,  or  sale  of  any  counterfeits  or 
imitations  thereof,  and  all  courts  of  competent  jurisdiction  may 
grant  injunctions  to   restrain  such   manufacture,  use,   display, 


7fV4  AITKNMMX    V. 

or  «ilo.  nnd  mny  nwartl  tlio  oomplainnnt  In  nny  jnicli  siiit  dam- 
apes  rcsultinn  from  such  iiuimifacturc.  use.  salr  or  display, 
as  may  bo  hy  said  court  iloemcd  just  and  rcasonal)le.  and  may 
riMjuirc  tl\c  defendants  to  pay  to  such  person,  association,  or 
union,  all  profits  derived  from  .such  wrongful  manufacture,  use, 
display  or  sal*';  and  such  court  may  also  order  that  all  su<'h  coun- 
terfeits or  imitations  in  the  possession  or  under  the  control  of  any 
defeinlants  in  such  case  to  he  delivered  to  an  odicer  of  the  court, 
or  to  the  complainant,  to  be  destroyed.  In  all  eases  where  such 
a-ssociation  or  union  is  not  incorporated,  suits  under  thi.s  act 
Miay  be  conimcnced  and  i)rosecuted  by  an  ofTicer  or  member  of 
such  as.sociation  or  union,  on  beiialf  of  and  fur  the  use  of  such 
association  or  union. 

Skction  0.  Any  person  or  persons  who  shall  in  any  way  use 
the  name  or  seal  of  any  such  person,  association,  or  union,  or 
officer  thereof,  in  and  about  the  sale  of  goods  or  otherwise,  not 
being  authori/.e<l  to  use  same,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor, 
and  shall  be  punished  ))y  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  three 
months,  or  bv  a  line  of  not  more  than  one  hundred  dollars. 

Section  7.  The  provisions  of  this  act  shall  not  abridge  any 
rights  to  any  tradenuirk  existing  at  the  tim(>  of  the  pa.ssage  of 
this  act,  whether  the  same  shall  be  recorded  or  not.  nor  any 
remedies  or  rights  of  action  otherwise  or  tlieretofore  existing  in 
favor  of  owners  of  tradenuirks. 

Section  S.  The  judici«l  courts  of  the  .several  judicial  dis- 
tricts shall  iiave  jurisdiction  of  all  complaints  for  violatioas  of 

this  act. 

Approved  the  24th  day  of  February.  A.  1).  IDIO. 

APPLICATION    Tn    KKCoKl)    VNION"    LABKL    (>U    TRADEMARK. 


.Stat*'    of    , 

County    of    >    hh: 

To    thr  Rrrrctarj/   of  the  Htatr   i>f  South   Carolina: 

l^  [inHCit  nav»r  „f  peruon  making  the  affidavit},  Itoinj;  first  duly 

Mwo'rn,  on   oatli   nay,   1    um  the [iusrrt   prrsou.  prrsi,lrnl.   Hrrrctartf. 

or    managrr]     of    the    [intirrt    namv    »f    aHSoriation    or    union    of 

trorkingmrn]    and    that    ( i""  rt    namr    of   asnoriation    or    union    of 

,rorhingm,n]    Iihh    lulopti-d    iind    .i-'i    as    .i    \inHrrt    trhcthrr    labrl. 

trademark,    l.rw,    drnign,    or   form    of    ndr.rtiHrmrul],   iirt    jTovid.-l    by    an 


SOI'TII     I)\K<)T\     STVriTKS.  795 

Act  of  tho  C,onorn\  Asflomhly  of  Ihr  Stato  r»f  South  f'nrolinft,  ontitl<*<l 
"An  Act  for  tlic  protection  of  ItiltdH  uiul  hcuIh  of  liilior  ort/niii/atioiiH, 
UHHuciutioiiK  and  HocicticH   in   tin*  State  of   Soiitli   Carolina,  "  ajiprovcd    Ffh- 

ruary    24,    1010,    tlic    following   [insert    ichfthrr    lulu  I,    trademark, 

term,  design,  or  form  of  «*/icrM'«»'mc«< )   two  [inncrt  trademark  or 

lahfl\   of  wliidi  arc  luTcwith   filed  in   the  oflico  of  tlic  Secretary  of  State; 

that  the  name  of  the  [insert   uhether  person,  aHBociation,  or  union 

of   irorkinyttun]   niakin;^'  thiH  application   for   such  [insert    uhether 

label,    trademark,    term,    design,    or    form    of    advertisement]     iu    

I  insert    natiie    of    assoi-iation    or   union    of    irorkingmen]  ;    that    the    cIehh 

of  nicrchandiHc  and  (lcHcrii)tion  of  tlic  poods  to  which  Huch  [insert 

whether    label,    trademark,    term,    design,   or   form    of   advertisement  [    han 

been  and   ia  intended  to  he  appropriated,  and  tho  [insert    whether 

copies,  counterparts,  or  fac-aimiles]  are  ad  follows,  to  wit:  [insert 

class  of  merchandise  and  a  description  of  the  goods  to  which  the  trademark, 

etc.,  is  to  be  appropriated]  [insert  trademark  or  label]  and  that  the 

[insert  whether  person,  association,  or  union  of  tcorkingmcn]   filinj^ 

this  application  has  tlie  sole  rij^iit  to  use  said  [insert  whether  label, 

trademark,  term,  design,  or  form  of  advertisement],  and  tliat  no  other  per- 
son,   firm,    association,    union,    or   corporation    has    the    rij,'ht    to    use   the 

said  [insert    uhether   label,    trademark,    term,   design,    or  form   of 

advertisement]  either  in  the  identical  form  of  the  copies  or  fac-himilcs 
herewith  filed  with  the  said  Secretary  of  State,  or  in  any  such  near 
resemblance  tliereto  as  may  he  calculated  to  deceive,  and   that  the  copies 

or   facsimiles    of    said    ■ [insert    whether    label,    trademark,    term, 

design,   or  form    of  advertisement]    t'lUd    hircwitli,    are   true    and    correct. 


[Insert  name  of  person  making  the  affidavit.] 


[Insert  person,  president,   secretary,   or  manager.] 
Subscribed   and    sworn    to    liefore   me    tliis  day   of   ,    lit — . 


yotari/  Public  in   and  for  the  State  of  . 

Send    copy    or    facsimile    of    label    or    trademark    for    each    certificate 
re<juired. 

Applications  must  be  filed  in  duplicate. 


SOUTH    DAKOTA. 

POLITICAL  CODE,  1903. 

Sectton  3190.  It.  shall  bo  lawful  for  associations  and  unions 
of  workingmcn  to  adopt,  for  their  protection,  labels,  trademarks, 
and  advertisements,  used  by  .sueh  unions  or  associations,  an- 
nouncing that  goods  mainifactured  by  members  of  such  asso- 
ciations or  unions  are  so  manufactured  hy  such  members. 


796  ArrKNi>i\  r. 

Section  .1101.  Amv  ;iini  iili  j>t  r.-M.ns  usiiip  snoh  union  or  as- 
soiMutioM  tnulonmrks.  Inluls  or  advortist-nu'iit.  wliollior  exactly 
like  such  Inlu'ls.  tradeiuarks  or  advfrtiscnu'nts  or  not,  if  with 
the  intention  to.  nr  likely  to,  deeeive  the  publie,  shall  be  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor  and  on  oonvietion  thereof  siiall  1h'  punished 
hy  imprisonment  of  not  less  than  ten  days  nor  more  than  thirty 
days,  or  a  fine  of  n(»t  less  than  twenty-five  dollars  nor  inori'  tiiaii 
«»ne  Jiundred  dollars,  or  both. 

Section  :niVJ.  I'.vrry  i»erson  who  shall  ust-  any  such  counter- 
feited trademark,  label  or  advertisements  of  suth  a  union  or 
association,  after  having  been  notified  that  the  same  is  so  coun- 
ti'rfeited,  sliail  be  iruilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  on  eonvietion 
thereof  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  of  not  less  than  ten 
days  nor  more  than  thirty  days,  or  hy  fine  of  not  less  than 
twenty-tive  dollars  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  or  both. 

Sf.ction  'UWA.  Every  association  of  workiiifrmen  or  labor 
union  adoptinj;  a  label,  trademark  or  advertisement  of  the  kind 
specified  in  .section  'WW,  shall  record  the  same  in  the  office  of  th.* 
Secretary  of  State  by  leavinpr  two  copies  of  said  labels  or  adver- 
tisenu'nts  with  said  Secretary  of  State,  wlio  shall,  under  his 
hand  and  seal,  deliver  to  the  association  or  union  reeordinjj  such 
label  or  advertisenu'uts  a  certificate  of  record  for  which  he  shall 
receive  a  fee  of  one  dollar. 

Section  '.WM.  Every  association  or  labor  union  adopting  a 
label,  trademark  or  atlvertiseim-nt  of  tlie  kind  specified  in  section 
:niK)  nuiy  proceed  by  suit  in  any  of  the  courts  of  the  state  to 
♦•njoin  the  jinjnufaetur*'.  us-4>,  display  or  sale  of  counterfeits  or 
imitations  of  such  labels,  trademarks,  or  advertisements,  and 
that  all  courts  having  jurisdiction  of  the  jx'rsons.  and  upon 
satisfactory  i)roof  of  huch  wrongful  use,  shall  grant  an  injunc- 
tion for  such  wrongful  use  of  such  counterfeits,  and  shall  award 
the  comi)lainant  such  damages  resulting  from  such  wrongful 
use  BR  may  be  proved,  and  shall  recpiire  the  defendants  to  pay 
to  the  complainant  the  profits  derived  from  sucji  wrongful  use. 
<ir  Itoth  profits  and  damages;  and  the  court  shall  also  order  all 
counterfeit  labels  and  advertisements  in  the  possession  or  under 
th**  control  of  the  defendant  in  such  cause  to  be  delivered  to 
an  officer  of  the  court  or  to  the  complaiiuuits.  to  lie  destroyed. 


SOUTH     DAKOTA     STATI'TES.  TUT 

Section  .110.').  In  like  manner  siicli  unions  or  jLssooiations  of 
svorkiii^iiicn  shall  Ix-  authorized  tf)  f)rocee(l  against  nil  persons 
who  shall  w  rnii'jfiilly  use  or  display  the  iri'iiuiiif  lalicis  or  ad- 
vert isttiifnts  it\'  tlie  respeefive  associations  or  unions,  imt  heini^ 
authorized  liy  sueli  associations  or  iitiions  to  use  or  display  the 
same,  in  any  court  havini^  jurisdietiou  thereof. 

CIVH.    COOK,    1903. 

Section  18.'-?.  There  may  lie  ownership  of  all  inanimate  thinprs 
which  are  capahle  of  ap[)ropriation.  or  of  manual  delivery;  of 
all  domestic  animals;  of  all  obligations;  of  such  products  of 
labor  or  skill,  as  the  composition  of  an  author,  the  frf><^)dwill  of 
a  business,  trademarks  aud  signs,  and  of  rights  created  or 
granted  by  statute. 

Section  802.  One  who  prndiiee.«;  or  deals  in  a  particular  thing, 
or  conducts  a  particular  business,  may  ap[)ro|)riate  to  liis  ex- 
clusive use,  as  a  trademark,  any  form,  symbol  or  name  which 
has  not  been  so  appropriated  by  another,  to  designate  the  origin 
or  ownership  thereof;  but  he  can  not  exclusively  appropriate 
any  designation,  or  part  of  a  designation,  which  relates  only  to 
the  name,  quality  or  description  of  the  thing  or  i)usiness,  or  the 
place  where  th(»  thing  is  i)rnduced  or  the  business  is  carried  on. 

Section  13.31.  One  who  sells  or  agrees  to  sell  any  article  to 
which  there  is  atfixed  or  attached  a  trademark,  thereby  warrants 
that  mark  to  be  genuine  and  lawfully  used. 

PENAL  CODE,  1903. 

Section  421.  Every  person  who  wilfully  forges,  counter- 
feits or  procures  to  be  forged  or  counterfeited  any  trademark 
usually  affixed  by  any  person  to  any  goods  of  such  person,  with 
intent  to  pass  off  any  goods  to  which  such  forged  or  counterfeit 
trademark  is  affixed,  or  intended  to  be  affixed,  as  the  goods  of 
sudi  person,  is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor. 

Section  422.  Every  person  who.  with  intent  to  defraud,  has 
in  his  possession  any  die.  plate  or  brand,  or  any  imitation  of 
the  trademark  of  any  person,  for  the  purpose  of  makincr  any 
•counterfeit  or   imitation   of  any   description    whatever   of  such 


7ns  APPKN'niX   K. 

trHilrmnrk.  or  of  si'llinj;  tlif  ^\mv  wlu-n  matlc.  or  afTixirifr  the 
sanu>  to  liny  jrixMls.  and  s«'llinj;  or  olTrrin^  the  same  f«>r  salo  or 
disposal  as  tlu-  original  jroods  of  any  othor  person.  mikI  every 
person  who  so  uses  or  sells  the  same,  or  who  fraudulently  uses 
the  genuine  tradenuirk  of  another  with  intent  to  sell  or  offer 
for  sale  or  disposed,  any  L'Ood'^  not  the  ^joods  of  the  person  to 
whoii'  such  tradenuirk  properly  heloiif/s,  jus  trenuine  and  orig- 
inal, is  fjuilty  of  a  misdemeanor. 

Section  423.  livery  person  who  sells  or  keeps  for  sale  any 
poods  upon  whieh  any  eounterfeited  tradenuirk  has  heen  affixed, 
intended  to  represent  sueh  ^oods  as  the  genuine  ^oods  of  an- 
other, knowinp  the  same  to  Ik*  eounterfeited,  is  fjuilty  of  a  mis- 
demeanor. 

Skction  424.  Every  person  who.  with  intent  to  defraud, 
affixes  or  causes  to  he  affixed  to  any  ijoods.  or  to  any  hottle.  ease, 
hox  or  other  [iacka<;e  containin<r  any  troods.  any  deseription  of 
lahel,  stamp,  brand,  imprint,  printed  wrai)jier.  label  or  mark, 
which  desi<rnates  such  <:oo(ls  hy  any  word  or  token  which  is 
wholly  (U*  in  |)art  the  same  to  the  eye,  or  to  the  ear.  as  the  word 
or  any  of  the  words  or  tokens  \ised  by  any  other  person  <is  his 
trademark,  and  any  pei'son  wlio  knowinprly  sells,  or  keeps  or 
offers  for  sale,  any  such  bottle,  case,  box  or  othor  i)ackapre,  witii 
any  such  label,  stamp,  brand,  imprint,  printed  wrapper,  ticket 
or  mark  affixed  to  or  upon  it.  in  case  the  person  affixinj;  or 
causinj;  to  be  affixed  s.ich  mark,  or  so  sellinLT.  or  exposing,  or 
offeriiur  for  sale  such  bottle,  case,  box  or  other  packatre.  was  not 
the  first  to  emi)loy  or  use  such  words  as  his  trademark,  is  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor,  and,  in  addition  to  the  puni.shment  prescribed 
therefor,  is  lia])le  to  the  party  acrprrieved  in  the  penal  sum  of 
one  humlred  dollars  for  each  and  every  offense,  to  be  recovered 
hy  him  in  a  civil  action. 

Section  42;').  The  word  ''trademark."  as  us.-d  in  the  .sections 
procedintr.  includes  every  (lescri|)tion  (tf  word,  letter,  device, 
emblem,  stamp.  im[)rint.  brand,  printe<l  ticket,  label  or  wrapper, 
usually  affixed  by  any  mechanic,  numufacturer.  druirtrist.  mer- 
chant or  tra<lesman,  to  denote  any  </oods  to  be  t'oods  import«'d. 
manufactured,  produced,  compounded  or  .sold  by  him.  other  than 
any  name,  word  or  expression  ^'enerally  denoting:  any  jroods  to 
be  of  .some  particular  class  or  description. 


SOI  "I'll     I)\K()'I'\     -■r\TiTi-,s.  I'M) 

Section  420.  The  word  "floods."  as  iisod  in  tlic  sections  i)re- 
eedinf?,  includes  every  kind  of  ^'(X)d.s.  wares,  merchandise,  com- 
pound or  i)rei)aration,  wliicli  may  lie  lawfully  kept  or  ofTered 
for  sale. 

Skction  427.  The  ofTense  of  alTixiiit,'  a  false  trademark  to 
j):ood.s  is  e(pudly  complele  within  the  iiicjiniiiL'  of  sections  421,  42:^ 
and  424,  whether  such  mark  is  aflixrd  to  tlir  ^rootls  themselves, 
or  to  any  hox,  hale,  harrel,  liottle,  c«i.se,  ca.sk,  wrap[)er.  or  other 
package  or  vessel,  or  any  cover  or  stopper  thereof,  in  which  such 
goods  are  put  up. 

Section  428.  Whenever  any  person  enpa^f'd  in  inanufactur- 
inpr,  l)ottIinfr,  selling  in  bottles,  soda,  mineral  waters,  porter,  ale, 
cider  or  small  beer,  has  filed  and  published,  in  the  maimer  au- 
thorized liy  law.  a  description  of  a  name,  mark  or  hibtl  usually 
stamped  l)y  liim  in  the  bottles  containinj;  such  heverafre,  every 
other  person  who.  without  the  written  consent  of  such  manu- 
facturer or  dealer,  refills  with  any  heverapre,  whether  genuine 
or  otherwise,  with  the  intent  to  sell  tlie  same,  any  bottles  stamped 
with  such  name,  mark  or  label,  and  every  person  who  sells,  dis- 
poses of,  pnrchases  or  traffics  in  such  hottles.  is  liable  to  a  pen- 
alty of  fifty  cents  for  each  and  every  liottle  so  filled,  sold.  1)ouerht, 
disposed  of.  or  trafficked  in,  for  the  first  ofTense,  and  five  dollars 
for  each  and  every  bottle  so  filled,  bought,  disposed  of,  or  traf- 
ficked in,  for  ever\^  subsequent  offense. 

Section  429.  Every  person  who  keeps  any  bottles  snch  as  are 
designated  in  the  last  section,  without  the  written  consent  of 
the  manufacturer  so  to  do.  with  intent  to  refill  or  use  or  sell 
them  in  violation  of  the  last  section,  is  liable  to  the  penalty 
therein  prescribed. 

Section  430.  Whenever  any  manufacturer  or  dealer  desig- 
nated by  section  428,  or  his  agent,  shall  make  oath  or  affirma- 
tion before  any  magistrate  that  he  has  reason  to  believe  and 
does  believe,  that  any  of  his  bottles  stamped  and  registered  as 
mentioned  in  said  section  are  being  unlawfully  used  by  any 
person  or  persons  selling  or  manufacturing  mineral  water  or 
other  beverages,  or  that  any  .iunk  dealer  or  vendor  of  bottles, 
has  any  such  bottles  secreted  in  any  place,  such  magistrate  shall 
thereupon  issue  a  search   warrant   to  discover  and  obtain   the 


SOO  API'KN'OIX    K. 

saint-  iiiulrr  tin-  provisions  of  tin-  law  upon  scarcli  warrants, 
wliirh  arr  lu-rrliy  tlfclarfd  to  fully  relate  to  the  purposes  of 
this  chapter;  ami  the  nuijristrato  nuiy  snnnnariiy  bring  or  cause 
to  ho  hroupht  before  him  the  person  in  \vhos<>  possession  the 
Uittles  are  foun«i.  to  examine  into  the  eireumstanees  of  his  pos- 
session, ami  if  suili  inaifistrate  on  snnnmar>'  exjinrMUitinn  finds 
that  such  person  has  been  jruilty  of  a  violation  of  section  42S,  such 
majristrate  shall  proceed  to  im|)oso  the  fine  therein  prescribed, 
and.  if  the  same  be  not  paid,  to  comniit  such  j)ersun  to  j)rison 
for  a  term  not  exeeedinj?  tifteen  days. 

ArPMCATIoN    KOU     KKOISTRA  TION'    OK    TKADK.MAKK. 
To    thr    Svrntnrti   of   Sl<il<  .    I'irrrr.    S.    D. 

SUto    of . 

County  of  ,  sh: 

,   iK'in^   (hil.v    sworn,    <h'pos«'rt    and    HnVh    that   he    is    the    Prcsidt'nt 


of   tlio  Company   located    in   tlic  City  of  ,  State  of   . 

That  tlje  naid  Company   is   the  exclusive  owner  of  the  trademark 

described  in  tlie  s|>ecificatii>n  accompanying'  this  aflidavit  and  he  peti- 
tions that  the  said  trademark  may  lie  filed  in  the  olVice  of  tiie  Secretary 
of  State  of  South  Dakota,  in  accordance  with  the  law  in  sucli  casea 
made   and    provided. 


Subscribed    and    sworn    to    before    me    tliia    dav    of    If) — . 


yotary    I'ltblic. 


SPECIFICATION'. 


To    nil    irhom    it    may    concern : 

Be   it   known   that   the  Company  of  the  City   of  ,   State  of 

Soiitii    Dakota,    lieinj:    en},'a^ed    in    the    li\isiness    of    manufacturinn,    adver- 

tisin);   and    wdlin^ adopted    for    their   use    a    trademark   of   which 

the  foUowin^;   is   a   dewription :    . 

The   Btyle  and    si/.e  of   type   atid   color   of   ink    and    paper   may    he   Miried 
at   pleasure. 

The   trademark    has   been    used    in    its  liusiness   since   aiiout  .     The 

clasH  of  nierchandim-  and   the   particular  ;;oo<ls  upon   which    the  trademark 

waH  utM'd  are:   . 

By . 

President. 

(File  two  ropie<*  of  the  Iriidijniirk  with   tin-  ajiplication  and   n  mit  $1.00 
fllinj;    fef    to    the    Secretary   of   State.) 


TENNKKSKK   STATITKS,  801 

TENNESSEE. 

CIiaptT    21.    Act   of    I'.m:.. 

AN    ACT  to   repijlatc   trndomnrkH   ami    tu    |in»vi<li'    ntncdirH   nn<l    pcnalt'u-B 

for    tin-    violation    of    tliis    ac',. 

Section  1.  lie  it  cuarted  h]i  the  (Icnrral  AssrmbUj  of  the 
State  of  Tenue.'<see,  That  witliiii  the  incimiii^r  of  this  act  a  trade- 
iiiju'k  shall  Itc  const  riled  to  he  any  seal,  hihel,  term,  dcsitrii.  (l(!vice, 
or  form  of  advertisement  used  for  the  iiur[)os('  of  dcsifrnating, 
making  known,  oi-  distin^niishin^'  any  jroods.  wares,  merchan- 
dise, or  other  product  of  lahor,  as  having'  heen  made,  manufac- 
tured, produced,  prepared,  packed,  or  [)ut  on  snUt  hy  any 
person,  firm,  corporation,  as.sociation,  or  union  of  workin^'men, 
or  by  any  member  or  member.s  of  such  as.sociation  or  union. 

Section  2.  Be  it  further  enacted.  That  whenever  any  per- 
son, firm,  or  corporation  or  any  association  or  union  of  work- 
ingmen  has  heretofore  adopted  or  used  or  shall  hereafter  adopt 
or  use  any  trademark,  it  shall  be  unlawful  to  counterfeit  or 
imitate  the  .same;  or  to  use.  sell,  or  to  offer  for  sale,  or  in  any 
way  utter  or  circulate  any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  such 
trademark  provided  such  trademark  has  been  filed  and  recorded 
in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  as  provided  in  .section  4  of 
this  act. 

Section  3.  Be  it  further  etiactecl,  That  whoever  knowingly 
counterfeits  any  such  trademarks,  or  knowing  said  trademark 
to  be  counterfeit,  sells,  offers  for  sale,  or  in  any  way  utters  or 
circulates  any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of  such  trademark,  or 
knowing  such  trademark  to  be  counterfeit,  keeps,  or  has  in  his 
possession,  with  the  intent  that  the  same  shall  be  sold  or  dis- 
posed of,  any  goods,  \vares.  merchandise,  or  other  product  of 
labor  to  which  or  on  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is 
printed,  painted,  stamped,  or  impressed;  or  knowing  said  trade- 
mark .so  i)rinted,  painted,  .stamped,  or  impressed  thereon,  sells 
or  disposes  of  such  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  or  other  product 
of  lahor  contained  in  any  box.  case,  can,  or  package,  to  which 
or  on  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached,  fixed, 
printed,  painted,  .stamped  or  impressed,  or  knowing  such  trade- 
mark to  be  counterfeit,  keeps  or  has  in  his  possession  with  the 
intent  that  the  same  shall  be  sold  or  disposed  of,  any  goods, 


802  APPENPIX    F. 

wnres.  niorchandiso.  or  other  proilnot  of  labor,  in  any  liox.  oase, 
can,  or  packaj;*'  to  which  or  on  wh'u-h  any  siu-h  counterfeit  or 
imitation  is  attached,  aflixcd.  jtrinted.  painted,  stamped,  or 
impre«is.Hl,  shall  l»e  pnnisht'd  hy  a  tim-  of  not  more  than  one 
hundrod  ($100)  dollars. 

Section  4.     lie  it  further  enacted.  That  evpr>'   person,  firm, 
corporation,  or  association,  or  union  of  \vorkinf?mon   that  haa 
heretofore  adopted  or  used,  or  shall  hereafter  adopt  or  use,  any 
trademark  mentioned  and  provided  in  section  1  of  this  act.  may 
file  the  same  for  record  in  the  oflRce  of  the  Secretar\'  of  State 
hy  leaving;  two  copit\s,  eounterparts.  or  fac-similes  tliereof  with 
said   secretary,   and   by    filinp   therewith    a   sworn    application, 
spccifyinp  the  name  or  names  of  the  person,  firm,  corporation, 
association,  or  union  on  whose  liehalf  such  trademark  shall  be 
filed,  the  class  of  merchandise  and  a  description  of  the  poods 
to  which  it  has  been  or  is  intended  to  he  appropriated,  statinp 
that  the  party  so  filinfi.  or  on  whose  behalf  such  trademark  shall 
have  been  filed,  has  the  ri^'ht   to  use  the  same;  that  no  other 
person,    firm,   corporation,   association,   or   union    has  the   right 
to  such   use,  either  in  the  identical   form  or  in  any  such  near 
resemblance  thereto  as  may  I)e  calculated  to  deceive,  and  that 
the  fac-simile  or  counterparts  filed  therewith  are  true  and  cor- 
rect    There  shall  be  paid  for  such  filing:  and  recording  a  fee 
of  five  dollars.    Said  secretary  shall  deliver  to  such  person,  firm, 
corporation,    association,   or   union    so   filing,   or  causing?   to  be 
filed,  any  such  trademark,  so  many  duly  attested  certificates  of 
the   recording   of   the   same   as   such    person,    fimi,    corporation, 
association,  or  union  nuiy  ai>i)ly  for,  for  each  of  which  certificates 
said  secretary-  shall  receive  a  fee  of  one  dollar.     Any  such  cer- 
tificates of  record  shall  in  all  suits  and  prosecutions  under  this 
act  be  jirima  facie  evidence  of  the  adoption  of  such  trademark. 
Said  Secretary  of  State  shall  not  record  for  any  person,  firm, 
or  corporation,  as.sociation,  or  union  any  trademark  heretofore 
filed   by  or  on   behalf  of   any   othfr   person,   firm,   corporation, 
association,  or  union. 

Skction  .').  Be  it  further  enacted,  That  any  person  who  shall 
for  himself,  on  behalf  c)f  any  other  person,  firm,  corporation, 
association,  or  union,  [)rocure  the  filintr  of  any  trademark  in 
the  office  nf  the  Secretary  of  State,  under  the  provisions  of  this 


ti;nni;ssi;i-;  stxtitks.  so; 

act,  hy  kno\viii<:ly  making'  any  falso  or  fraiidnlfiit  representa- 
tion or  declaration,  V('rl)ally  or  in  writing',  or  by  any  niearw 
known  to  !)('  fraudulent,  shall  Ix-  liable  to  pay  any  damages 
sustained  in  consequence  of  such  filinjr.  to  Im;  recovered  by  or 
on  I)ehalf  of  the  party  injured  tliereby,  in  any  court  having 
jurisdiction,  and  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  exeoedintr  one 
Inindfi'd  dollai'.s  or  by  iiiiprisonnieiit  not  exeeediriLr  three  nidiifhs. 

Section  G.  Be  it  fxrthn-  cnfiried.  That  ever\'  such  person, 
firm,  corj)oration,  association,  or  union  adopting;  or  usinfr  a  trade- 
mark may  i)roceed  by  suit  to  enjoin  th(>  iiiainifacture,  use,  dis- 
play, or  sale  of  any  counterfeits  uv  imitations  thereof,  and  all 
courts  of  competent  jurisdiction  .shall  prrant  injunctions  to  re- 
strain such  manufacture,  use,  display,  or  sale,  and  may  award 
the  complainant  in  a?iy  such  suit,  the  court  ha\nng  jurisdiction, 
such  damafres  resultinpr  from  such  fraudulent  manufacture,  use, 
display,  or  sale  as  may  be  by  the  court  or  jury  deemed  just  and 
reasonable:  and  shall  require  the  defendants  to  pay  to  such 
person,  firm,  corporation,  as.sociation.  or  union  all  profits  de- 
rived from  such  wronfjful  manufacture,  use.  display,  or  sale; 
and  such  court  shall  also  order  that  all  such  counterfeits  or  imi- 
tations in  the  possession  or  under  the  control  of  any  defendant 
in  such  case  be  delivered  to  an  oflficer  of  the  court,  or  to  the 
complainant,  to  be  destroyed. 

Section  7.  Be  it  further  enacted,  That  every  person  who 
shall  use  or  display  the  genuine  trademark  for  the  purpose  of 
fraud  of  anj-  such  person,  firm,  corporation,  association,  or 
union,  in  any  manner  not  being  authori/ced  so  to  do  by  such 
person,  firm,  corporation,  association,  or  union,  shall  be  deemed 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall  be  punished  by  imprison- 
ment for  not  less  than  three  months,  or  by  a  fine  of  not  more 
than  one  hundred  dollars.  In  all  cases  where  such  association 
or  union  is  not  incorporated,  suits  under  this  act  may  be  com- 
menced and  prosecuted  by  an  oificer  or  member  of  such  asso- 
ciation or  union,  in  behalf  of  and  for  the  use  of  such  associa- 
tion or  union. 

Section  8.  Be  it  further  enacted.  That  none  of  the  provisions 
of  this  act  shall  affect  or  apply  to  persons,  firms,  or  corjiora- 
tions  who  shall  in   good  faith   buy  or  come  into   possession   of 


S04  M-I'IINPIX    I". 

u'cmhIs  with  a  f()iintorf<^it  tradoinark  tlioronn,  wlion  sndi  person. 
firm,  or  corporation  iliil  not  know  at  tin*  time  he  or  tliey  obtained 
possession  of  sueh  jrootls  that  the  same  were  stamped  with  a 
••ounterfeit  tra<h'niark;  provided  such  person,  firm,  or  corpora- 
tion d(H's  not  knowin^jly  misrepresent  the  facts  re^'urding  the 
trademark  at  the  time  he  offers  such  iroods  for  sale. 

Section  *).     Il<    il  furtlnr  tuddid.  That    tliis  act  shall  take 
efTi'ct  from  and  after  its  passable,  the  puhlic  welfare  reipiirinp  it. 
I'assed  January  iU.  UK).'). 

APPLICATION    FOR    HKCISTUATION. 
To  thr  Uonnrahle  ,  Secretary  of  State,  ,  ; 


TIu*  prtitiitn   of  of  the   State  of  and  city  of  ,  for 

tlu'  ri'jjiHtration  of  a  trademark  under  tlie  lawH  of  the  State  of  Tenneflsee. 

The    nndi-rsi^Mied    rertpeetfully    reprenent    tiiat    they    are    a    —    or;,'anized 

under    tlie   laww   of   the    State   of  for    the    purpose    of    carrying;   on 

the   Iiu8ine88  of     ,    that    in    the   courHe   of   their   business   they    liave 

adopted  a  certain  lahel  or  tradt-mark,  desi^'n  and  device  or  form  of 
advertis«-ment    of    tln-ir    said    business,    whicli    de8if,'n    or    device    is    in    the 

following   words,    fijjures,  «-tc.,   to-wit:    [here  pante  a   copy  of  said 

Iradftnark]. 

Tliey    represent    tliat    tlie    sanie    is    intended    t<>    advertise    tlieir    

\lirrr  state  the   particular  (lass   of  goods   to    he    advertised]. 

That  they  alone  are  entitled  to  the  exclusive  use  and  benefit  of  said 
mark  or  device,  and  so  far  as  tliey  are  aware  it  is  no  infriiifj.-'ment  upon 
the  trademark  of  any  other  firm  or  corporation  and  no  others  are 
entitled  to  the  uw  of  the  same.  Tlicy  herewith  tendei  fac-similes  of 
said  mark  with  this  petiti«»n  whieli  an'  in  all  thin;;s  identical  with  that 
hereto   attached. 

They  respectfully  ask  that  this  petition  be  filed  and  that  their  said 
trademark  l»e  rej;istere«l  in  accordance  with  the  Act  of  the  (Jeneral 
Assemiily  of  the  State  of  Tennessee,  beinj^  Chapter  "21  of  the  Acts  of 
I'Mtrt;  and  that  they  In-  ;,'iven  a  certificate  showing  their  compliance 
with  said  act,  whereby  they  may  have  tlif  bmclit  and  pnitictioii  of  tin- 
laws   of  the   Stat«;  of   Tennessee. 


SubscrilK-d    in    my    presence    an<l   sworn    to    before    nie,    this   day 

of  ,   v.)—. 


(Tliis  p<iition  should  be  sworn  to  before  any  otiicer  authori/ed  to  admin- 
isUT  oaths,  and  a  fee  of  .'ji.'i.dO  Im-  sent  to  cover  cost,  lop-thcr  with  two 
ropies  of  the  Mark  in  addition  to  the  one  attached  to  the  petition.  If 
additional  certificates  are  wanted,  $1.00  extra  should  be  sent  for  each 
one  dcHired.) 


TKXA- 


805 


TEXAS. 

Cnicnri    LawM    IHU.'),  CliiiptiT   ftl. 

AN    ACT    to    prutrrt    piTHoiiH,    iiHuociationH,    private    corporationR    and 
unions    of    \vorkiii^,'nu'n,    incorporated    or    unincorporuted,    in    tlic-ir 
labc'lH,  tradcmarkH,  di-Hi^ms,  devicoB,  imprintH,  and   formn  of   adv<T 
tieinj,'    and    namcH;     and    to    proHcribo    pt-naltitH    for    violation    of 
same,  and  to  repeal  all  lawn  or  jjartn  of  laws  in  confliet  with   tliis 
act. 
Section  1.     That  whonovor  any  person,  association,  private 
corporations  or  union  of  workintrinon,  incorporatod  or  uninoor- 
poratod,  have  adopted  or  shall  hereafter  adoi)t  for  their  protec- 
tion any  lahel.  trademark,  desisrn,  device,  imprint   or   form   of 
advertisement,  indicating?  that  goods  to  whieli  such  lalx'l,  trade- 
mark, design,  device,  imprint  or  form  of  advertisement  shall  he 
attached,  were  manufactured  hy  such  person,  association,   pri- 
vate corporations  or  iiiiion,  or  by  a  memher  or  members  of  such 
association  or  union,  it  .shall  he  unlawful  for  any  person,  inelu- 
sive  of  officers,  agents,  receiver  or  receivers  of  corporations,  to 
counterfeit  or  imitate  such  label,  trademark,  design,  devioe,  im- 
print or  form  of  advertisement  or  to  use  such  counterfeit  or 
imitation  of  such  label,  trademark,   design,   device,   imprint   or 
form  of  advertisement.  kTiowiiig  the  same  to  be  counterfeit  or 
imitation,   or  to  aid,   assist,   countenance  or  knowingly  permit 
such  counterfeit  or  imitation  or  the  nse  of  sueh  counterfeit  or 
imitation  for  his  own  use  or  benefit,  or  for  th<'  use  or  benefit  of 
any  corporation  of  which  he  may  then  be  an   officer,  agent  or 
receiver.     Every  person,  whether  in  his  individual  capacity  or 
as  an  officer,  agent  or  receiver  of  a  corporation,  violating  this 
section,  shall,  upon  conviction,  be  puni.shed  by  a  fine  of  not  less 
than   twenty-five  nor  more  than   one   hundred    dollars.     Each 
day's  violation  of  this  section  shall   be  considered   a  separate 
offense. 

Section  2.  Every  person,  whether  in  his  individual  capacity 
or  as  the  officer,  agent  or  receiver  of  a  corporation,  who  .shall 
wilfully  and  knowingly  use  or  display  the  genuine  label,  trade 
mark,  design,  device,  imprint,  or  form  of  advertisement,  or  name 
of  any  such  person,  association  or  union,  incorporated  or  unin- 
corporated, not  being  authorized  to  use  or  display  the  same,  or 
shall  aid,  assist,  countenance  or  knowingly  permit  the  use  of 


^OG  APPENDIX   F. 

same,  not  ?»<'iii^;  autluiri/i'd  to  use  tlu>  saino.  shall,  upon  convic- 
tion, hv  \nu\is\u'i\  l»y  tint'  of  not  less  tlum  twenty-live  nor  more 
than  one  himdred  dollars. 

Section  3.  Every  person,  nwociation  or  union  of  working- 
men,  ineorpornted  or  unincorporated,  havinjr  adopted  a  label, 
trademark,  (ie.si^!i.  device,  imprint  or  form  of  advertisement,  a8 
aforesaid,  may  proceed  liy  suit  to  enjoin  tlic  uroiitirni  manufac- 
ture, use.  display  or  sale  of  any  such  lal)el.  trademark,  design, 
(leviee,  imj)rint  or  form  of  atlvertisement  and  the  maiuifacture, 
use.  display  or  .sale  of  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation,  and 
all  courts  havinpr  jurisdiction  thereof  shall  prant  injunctions 
to  restrain  such  maiuifacture,  use.  display  or  sale,  and  .shall 
award  the  plaintifT  in  such  sruit  such  damans  resulting  from 
such  wronpful  mainifaeture,  use,  display  or  sale  as  by  him  may 
have  been  sustained.  Where  such  a.s.sociation  or  union  is  not 
incorporated  suits  under  this  act  may  be  commenced  and  prose- 
cuted by  any  officer  or  member  of  such  association  or  union  ir 
his  own  name.  t"or  himself  and  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  sucl 
association  or  union. 

Section  4.  Every  person.  as.sociation  or  union  of  working- 
men.  incori)orate(l  or  unincorporated,  that  has  heretofore  or 
shall  hereafter  adopt  a  label,  trademark,  design,  device,  imprint 
or  form  of  advertisement,  shall  file  the  same  in  the  office  of  the 
Seeretary  of  State  by  leaving  two  copies,  countorparts  or  fac- 
siwilrs  thereof.  Avith  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  said  .secretary 
shall  deliver  back  to  such  person,  association  or  union  so  filing 
the  same  one  of  said  eopies.  counterparts  or  facsimiles,  along 
vnth  and  attached  to  a  duly  attested  certificate  of  the  filing  of 
same,  for  which  he  shall  receive  a  fee  of  one  dollar  from  such 
person,  association  or  union.  Such  certificate  of  filing  shall 
in  all  suits  and  prosecutions  under  this  act  be  sufficient  proof 
of  the  adoption  of  such  label,  trademark,  design.  deAnce, 
imprint  or  form  of  advertisement,  and  of  the  right  of  such 
person,  {ussociation  or  union  to  adopt  the  same.  No  label,  trade- 
mark, de  .ign,  device,  imprint  or  form  of  advertisements  .shall 
T)e  fijefl  i\^  aforesaid  that  would  probably  be  mistaken  for  a 
lahel,  trademark,  design,  device,  imprint  or  form  of  advertise- 
ment already  of  record:  provided,  that  no  person  or  Association 
shall  be  permitted  to  register  as  a  label,  trademark,   design, 


iTAir  statutFhS,  fi07 

device,  iinpiiiit  or  foiiii  of  advertisement,  any  emblem,  design 
or  rosciiihhiiicc  tlici-do  thai  lias  been  adopted  or  used  by  any 
charitable,  bfiicvoh'iit  or  rdifrious  society  or  association  with- 
out their  consent:  and  provich'd,  i'uilhcr.  that  all  persons, 
institutions  oi*  associations  now  usin^'  a  bibel,  trach'inark,  (k'sign, 
(h'vice,  imprint  or  roriii  of  advert iscnient  sliall  have  thirty 
<biys'  time  after  iliis  a<1  takes  ofTect  in  wliich  to  fib'  such 
bd)el,  tra(bMnark.  (h'si^rn.  device,  imprint  or  form  of  advertise- 
ment nn(bM'  the  provisions  of  this  act,  ])efore  the  .same  can 
l)e  registered  by  others. 

Section  5.  All  laws  and  parts  of  laws  in  conflict  with  the 
provisions  of  this  act  bo  and  the  same  are  hereby  rei)ealed. 

Section  G.  Tt  being  important  that  the  benefits  of  this  act 
be  realized  at  once,  becanse  the  parties  to  be  benefited  by  this 
act  have  no  adequate  protection  nnder  existing  laws,  creates 
an  emergency  and  an  imperative  public  necessity  that  the 
constitutional  lule  reqniring  ])ills  to  l)e  read  on  three  several 
days  be  suspended,  and  that  this  act  take  effect  and  be  in  force 
from  and  after  its  passage,  and  it  is  so  enacted. 

Approved.  April  20,  1895. 

Sayles'  Civ.  St.,  Articles  318a,  318b,  p.  148  relate  to  the 
protection  of  bottles,  boxes,  siphons,  etc.,  of  manufacturers  and 
dealers  in  mineral  wat(^r  and  other  beverages,  and  manufac- 
turers of  medicines  or  other  compounds. 

XoTE — There  is  no  official  form  of  application  for  registra- 
tion in  Texas. 

UTAH. 

Compiled  Laws,  1007,  Title  S:?,  Trademarks. 

Section  2720.  Defined.  The  phrase  "trademark,"  as  used 
in  this  title,  includes  every  description  of  word,  letter,  device, 
emblem,  stamp,  imprint,  brand,  printed  ticket,  label,  or  wrapper 
usually'  affixed  by  any  mechanic,  manufacturer,  druggist,  mer- 
chant, tradesman,  as.sociation,  or  union,  whether  incorporated 
or  unincorporated,  to  denote  any  goods  to  be  goods  imported, 
manufactured,  produced,  compounded,  or  sold  by  him.  or  by 
such  association  or  union,  other  than  any  name,  word,  or  expres- 
sion generally  denoting  any  goods  to  be  of  some  particular 
class  or  description. 


^OS  \I-I'IM>I\     V. 

Skction  2721.  Hr.coKOKn  with  Si.ckktary  ov  j>tvti:.  Any 
penion,  assuointinn,  or  union  may  n-rord  any  trademark  or 
name  ^y  filing  with  the  Sooretary  of  State  his  or  its  chiim  to 
the  sanip,  and  a  i'«)py  or  drscriptio!!  of  such  trademark  or  name, 
with  his  affidavit  attached  tliereto.  eertilied  to  l»y  any  <»ffieer 
authorized  to  take  aeknowW'd^nients  of  eon\e\  aiiecs.  setting,'  forth 
that  ho.  or  tlie  finn.  corporation.  as.s(Miation,  or  union  of 
whieh  he  is  a  niem})er,  is  the  exclusive  owner,  or  a}.'ent  of  the 
owner,  of  .sueh  tradenuirk  or  nam*'. 

Skction  2722.  Kkooki)  •»n;N  to  itiu.ic  Tin-  Secretary  of 
State  nuist  keep  for  public  examination  a  record  of  all  trade- 
marks or  names  f-led  in  his  office,  witli  the  date  when  filed  and 
name  of  claimant;  and  must  at  tlic  time  of  filinp  colleet  from 
each  claimant  the  nuthori/ed   fee. 

Section  272:?.  OwNKKsiin'— transfer — damages  for  in- 
FRINOK.MKNT.  Auv  person  who  lia.s  first  adopted  and  used  a 
trademark  or  name,  whether  within  (»r  lieyond  the  Umit.s  of 
this  state,  is  its  original  owner.  Such  ownerstiip  may  he  trans- 
ferred in  the  same  nuuiner  as  personal  property,  and  is  entitled 
to  the  siime  protection  by  suits  at  law;  and  any  court  of 
competent  jurisdiction  may  restrain,  by  injunction,  and  award 
dama^'es  for,  any  use  of  trademarks  or  luimes  in  violation  of 
this  title. 

APPLICATION    FOR   TIIADKMAKK. 


Sut<-    of , 

County  of  ,  bb: 

,  hoinj:  duly   Bworn,  doposfs  and  says  that  he  is  ,  located 

and   doinj,'  liUHin«'HB  in  County   «f   ,   State  of  .      Tliat 

the  said  ia  the  exeluwive  owner  of  the  Irademark  <>r  name  deserihed 

in  the  Hp-cifieation  neeompanyinj;  tliia  aflidavit,  and  lie  pctitionH  tliat  the 
Kaid  trademark  may  Ik-  reeorded  in  tlie  ofliee  of  the  S«'cn'tary  of  State 
of    the    Stat"'    of    I'tah.    in    aceordaiiee    witli    Title    Hit.    Compiled    Laws    of 

ruh.  imt7. 


.Suhnerilxd    and   Hworn    to    Iwforr    me    this    <iay    of   ,    10 — . 

Notary  Public. 


viiK.Mo.NT  .-T\riTi:s,  809 

SI'KCincA'IHt.V. 

'I'd   (ill    iilioiii    il    111(11/    ((luccnt : 

Uv     it     kiinwii.     I  lint     ,    of     ,     (  ininly     of    ,    Stiiti-     of 

,  Iiciii;,'   i'ii;.'ii;.'f(l    in    tin-   liiisiiicHH  of a<lo|>t<'cl    for   uh4« 

a  trudcmark,  of  wliich  tin-   followiii;^   ih  n   (IcKcriptioii,  or  fncHitnilr: 

Said    tradrnuirk    to    \tc    iirt<'d    },'riirrally    an    follown: 

Note. — Tin-  ntututory  irv  iti  $:{.()((  and  tliri'o  fac-similiH  niiiHt  accomjiany 
ap|dic-atioii. 


YKRMONT. 

AX  ACT  to  uiiii'iul  sfiliniis  A'.Url,  VM>:{.  4!tii:).   4;M;t;  jiikI    I'.iilT   ..f   til.'   i)ul)lic 
statutiM,    ri'latirif,'    to    tradtmarks. 

//   Is  Inrrhij  cn.icicd  hij   the   (Icncral   Asscnthhj  of  the  State  of 
Vermont : 

SlX'TloN  1.  Sri'tioii  \\){')'.\  of  tlif  I'uhlic  Stntutrs  is  In-n'hy 
amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows: 

Section  49G2.  A  person,  partnership  or  corporation,  or  an 
association  or  union  of  workingnien,  may  adopt  as  and  for  a 
trademark  or  tradename  any  particular  name,  term,  design, 
device,  label,  stamp  or  form  of  advertisement  not  previously 
owned  or  adopted  hy  another  person,  partnership  or  corporation, 
or  as.sociation  or  union  of  workin^nen,  to  designate  or  dis- 
tinguish goods,  wares  or  merchandise  by  him  or  them  manu- 
factured or  prepared,  or  on  which  the  labor  of  persons  Ix'longing 
to  such  association  or  union  of  working-men  has  been  put,  and 
may  file  the  same  for  record  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  by  leaving  two  copies,  counterparts  or  fnc-similes  thereof 
with  said  secretary,  and  shall  also  file  therewith  an  accurate  de- 
scription of  such  name,  term,  design,  device,  label,  stamp  or  form 
of  advertisement,  verified  under  oath  by  the  person  or  some 
officer  of  the  partnership,  corporation  or  association  or  union 
of  workingnien  by  wliom  it  is  filed. 

The  fee  for  such  filing  shall  be  two  dollars. 

The  Secretary  of  State  nuiy  make  such  rules  and  regrnlations 
and  prescribe  such  forms  as  may  be  necessary  to  carry  out  the 
provisions  of  this  chapter. 

Shction  2.  Section  4963  of  the  Public  Statutes  is  hereby 
amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows : 


810  APrENDIX    F. 

Section  49G3.  Tho  Socrrtary  of  State  shall  dolivor  to  the 
person,  partnership,  corporation  or  jussociatioii  <>r  uiiimi  of  work- 
inirnirn  so  filinj:  such  tra<itMiiark  or  tradciiainr.  a  <iiily  attested 
rortitioate  of  the  mord  ihctfof.  for  which  he  shall  receive  a 
fee  of  two  dollars. 

Such  certificate  shall,  in  all  suits  and  prosecutions  under  this 
chapter,  he  suflicient  proof  <>f  tlie  adop.ion  of  such  trademark 
or  tradename. 

No  name.  term,  (h'si^rn.  device,  lalu-l,  stanij)  or  form  of  advcr- 
tisoment  shall  he  recorded  that  in  any  way  reseMdjlcs  or  would 
he  reasonahly  mistaken  for  a  name,  t«'rni,  desi^i,  device,  label, 
stamp  or  form  of  advertisement  already  on  record. 

Skctuin  :i.  Section  4Wr}  of  the  Pu])li<-  Statutes  is  hereby- 
amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows: 

Section  4Wi'^.  A  person  who  knowinirly  and  wilfully  sells 
or  keeps  for  .sale  floods  upon  which  or  in  connection  with  which 
is  affixed  a  fnrpery.  imitation  or  counterfeit  of  a  trademark  or 
tradename  adopted  and  recorded  as  provided  in  this  chapter, 
and  intended  to  represent  such  goods  as  the  frcnuine  ffoods  of 
another  person,  or  as  poods  upon  which  the  labor  of  a  member 
or  members  of  such  association  or  union  of  workinpnnen  has 
been  put  .shall  be  punished  as  provided  in  the  preceding  section. 

Section  4.  Section  40r)G  of  the  Pul)lic  Statutes  is  hereby 
amended  so  as  to  reati  as  follows : 

Section  4066.  A  person  who.  with  intent  to  defraud  another 
person,  partnershij).  corporation,  or  a.ssociation  or  union  of 
workinpmen.  knowingly  affixes  or  causes  to  be  affixed  to  or 
u[)on  a  [)ackafre  or  bottle  containing  goods,  ware.s  or  merchan- 
dise, a  name,  term,  design,  device,  laitel.  stamp  or  form  of 
advertisement,  which  designates  .such  goods,  wares  or  merchan- 
dise either  wholly  or  in  part,  by  a  word  or  words,  or  by  general 
design,  which  is  wholly  f)r  in  part  the  same,  either  in  appcar- 
nnco  or  in  sound,  as  the  word  or  words  or  the  general  design 
of  a  trademark  or  tradename  adopted  and  recorded  as  provided 
in  this  chai)ter.  or  who  knowingly  sells  or  expo.ses  for  side  .such 
f»ackage  or  bottle  with  such  imitating  or  counterfeit  namt*, 
term,  desiftn.  device,  lahel.  stamp  or  form  of  advertisement, 
may  also  he  impri.soned  not  more  than  one  year  or  fined  not 
more  than  five  hundred  dollars,  or  both. 


VJ-.U.MUNI'  SI. Ml    IKS.  fill 

Sfctiox  5.  Sootion  40fi7  of  tlif  Piihlir  StntntoR  is  horchy 
anu'iulcd  so  as  to  read  as  follows: 

Section  4i)f)7.  The  eourt  of  chancery  may.  dii  coiiiphiiiit  of 
the  owner  of  a  trademark  or  tradename  a(lo|)ted  and  recf)rded 
as  provided  in  tliis  eliapter,  enjoin  other  persons,  partner.shif)s, 
corporations,  or  associations  or  unions  of  workin^men,  from  tlie 
mainifaeture,  use  or  sale,  without  the  authority  of  the  owner,  of 
all  likenesses,  similitudes,  coi)ies,  imitations  or  counterfeits 
thereof,  and  also  from  selling  or  exposint;  for  sale  floods,  com- 
pounds, or  preparations,  to  or  with  wliich  such  unauthorized 
likenesses,  similitudes,  copies,  imitations  or  cf»unterfeits  are 
affixed  or  coTuiected,  and  may  award  to  such  complainant  such 
a  sum  of  money  as  shall  be  just  and  reasonable  compensation 
for  the  damajre  to  the  rejiutation  of  the  complainant's  genuine 
goods,  comjiounds.  pref)arati()ns,  trademark  or  tradename,  by 
reason  of  such  wronp^ftil  manufacture,  use,  sale  or  exposure 
for  sale,  and  may  also  require  the  defendant  to  pay  to  the 
complainant  in  such  cause  a  sum  erpuil  to  the  amount  which 
the  eom|)lainant  would  have  received  for  the  same  (piantity  of 
genuine  iroods.  c()mi)ounds  or  preparations,  and  may  also  order 
that  all  such  likenesses,  similitudes,  copies,  imitations  or  counter- 
feits in  the  possession  or  under  the  control  of  the  defendant  be 
delivered  to  an  officer  of  the  court  or  to  the  complainant,  to  be 
destroyed. 

Approved  December  17,  1908. 

APPLTCATIOX    FOR    REGISTRATION. 

Certificate  accompanyinfj  a  [insert     name,  term,  design,  device, 

label,  stamp   or  form   of  advertisement,  as   the   ease  may   he\    adopted  as 

a    I  insert    trademark,    or    tradename,    as    the    ease    may    fee]    and 

filed  in  accordance  with  Chapter  212  of  tlie  Pulilic  Statutes  and  the 
amendments  thereto,  entitled  "Trademarks;  rrotection  of  Dealers  in  Milk 
and  Bevera<j:es." 

Name    or    names   of    the    persons.    Partnership    or    Corporation    

[foUoio  regulations,  p.  812,  at  A.]. 

Residence,   location   or   place  of   business   . 

Class  of  merchandise  and  the  particular  description  of  poods  com- 
prised   in    such    class    to    which    the    [insert    name,    term,    design. 

deviec,   label,  stamp,  or  form    of  ddvertisinient.   as   the  ease   may  be]    has 

been  or  is  intended  to  be  appropriated  [follow  regulations,  p.  812, 

at  B.]. 


S12  ATrENoix  r. 

IHnc  iitxiil  tht  tntdtmttik  <>,  traihiiattir  ail„ptnl  atui  srml  three  extra 
ropirn,  fac-»imilint  or  counlrrpnrtH  of   the  trademark  or   name]. 

I^n^'th  of   tim.'.  if   any.  durinn   wliioli    tlu-  [hisrri    name,    term, 

iletttgti.  ttrvici.  laUel,  stamit.  <ir  form  of  aitvrrtiKemettt,  >ih  the  ritue  maij  be] 

luiH  I..VH  ill  urn-.     Siiuv  [give  month,  tlai/  of   mouth   ami  i/rar  when 

adopted,  or  give  date  since  irhen   in   uae\. 

1.  [if  a  person,  innert  name;  if  an  offierr  of  a  partnership  or  eorpora- 
tion,  insert  name,  tttle  of  ofjiee,  and  name  of  the  partnership  or  eorpura- 
tion.  Outside  of  Vermont,  oath  should  he  administered  hi)  a  Com- 
missioner for    Vermont    or   Sotari/    I'uhlie,    irith    seal]    (In   li-n'l>y   •l«'clarp, 

that  [insert    the   name  of   the  person,   partnership,  or   eorporation 

adopting    the   trademark    or    tradename]    has    a    ri^'lit    to    tin-    uw    of    the 

|iH«.'r/    trademark,   or    tradename,    as    the   rase    mat/    be]    referred 

to  in  tin-  for.-p)in^'  (•.■rtificatf,  and  tliat  no  otlu-r  p.Tson.  partm-rHhip 
or  corporation  lias  tlu-  ri;;lit  to  unci)  usi-.  ritlHT  in  tli.-  i<l«-ntiral  form  or 
in    any    suili    near    ns.inl.lancf    tlwnto    as    may    he    calculat.'"!    to   d.-c.-ivi'. 

and, 

I  furtlur  d.-ilan-  that  the  fon-fjoin;:  di'soriptionn  and  thi-  facsimiles, 
copi.-K  or  fonntrrparts  lih-d  with  tlir  fon';.'oinj,'  cTtitifutc  an-  trur.  cor- 
r«ft   and   acrnratf. 

In   witm'88  wluT.of.    1    liavc  luTi-unto  .si-^n.-d   my    nam.'  this  day 

of   ,    1!>— . 

[iiiyn   here]. 


Stat<-    of 


-,    89: 


10—. 


Tlicn    personally    appeared    the    above    named    ,    and    made    oath 

tliat  th     .ore^'oin-:  declaration  hy   him   suljticrihed   is  true. 
Before   me. 


[Here  write  offieial  title.] 


REGri.ATTOXP. 


A.  If  a  eorporation.  state  jinder  tlw  laws  of  what  state  incorporated. 
If  one  or  more  persons  are  doin;,'  hiisiness  under  a  partnersliip  name, 
htate  the  name  of  such  person  or  persons  and  add  the  words  "doing  buai- 
nesH  under  tiie  name  and  style  of."  then  {.'ivc  tlie  partnersiiip  name  under 
which    the    liusiness   is   conducted. 

B.  State,  first,  as  near  as  possible  in  one  or  two  words,  the  p-neral 
class  of  mirclian«lise  to  which  the  name.  term,  desi^'ii.  device,  label,  stamp 
or  form  of  adv.rtisement  has  been  or  is  intended  to  be  apjtropriated; 
second,  as  near  as  p(.ssible  in  one  or  tw..  words,  the  jmrticular  descrip- 
tion or  designation  of  such  freneral  class  of  m.rciiandise.  Do  not  describe 
the  composition,  or  name  tin-  parts  which  comprise  the  f(.rmulu  of  which 
tin-  mercliatidis«-  is  compose<l;  thtnl,  by  usinj,'  the  foMowinf,'  words:  "the 
eswntial    feature    of    tin-     (trademark    or    tradename)     is."    ^-iveii    what    is 


VIRGIN'! \  stati:t>:s.  9\i 

conHidorod  to  l)o  tlio  ORHi-ntial  fcatiiri'  or  f.-atiin-K  Hiin-of.  If  an  illuH- 
tration  or  pictorial  roprcBi-ntation  iH  uw-d  for  a  trademark,  it  iH  vi-ry  d«- 
8iral)U'  that  a  word  or  words  Hliall  also  form  a  part  of  the  "c-Hwntial  f"^- 
turi's"  of  Hucli  trademark;  fourth,  Jiy  UHin^  tlie  following  wordn,  that: 
"Tli«'  style  and  si/.f  of  typt-  and  tin-  color  of  ink  and  papi-r  may  be  varied 
at    nifaHurc." 

JS'OTE. — The    rc'MBtration    fee    in    .$4.00. 


VIRGINIA. 

Act   of   Ajiril    :!0,    I'.tO.I. 

AN  ACT  to  protect  persons,  firms,  corporations,  associations,  or  unions 
of  workin;,'men  in  the  use  of  their  labels,  trademarks,  terms,  de- 
signs, devices,  and  forms  of  advertisements,  and  to  provide  f.ir 
the   registry  thereof.      Approved   April  30,   l!to:5. 

Section  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assemhhj  of 
Virginia,  That  whenever  any  person,  firm,  corporation,  or  any 
association  or  union  of  Avorkingmen  has  hcrctoforo  adopted  or 
used,  or  shall  hereafter  adopt  or  use,  any  label,  trademark, 
term,  desigTi,  device,  or  form  of  advertisement  for  the  purpose 
of  designating,  making  known,  or  distinguishing  any  goods, 
•wares,  merchandise,  or  otlier  product  of  labor,  a.s  having  been 
made,  manufactured,  produced,  prepared,  packed,  or  put  on 
sale  Iry  such  person,  firm  or  corporation,  or  association,  or 
union  of  wt)rkingmen,  by  a  member  or  members  of  such  associa- 
tion or  union,  and  has.  filed  the  same  for  registry  as  hereinafter 
provided,  it  shall  be  unlawful  to  counterfeif  or  imitate  such 
label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertise- 
ment, or  to  use,  sell,  offer  for  sale  or  in  any  way  utter  or 
circulate  any  counterfeit  or  imitation  of  any  such  label,  trade- 
mark, term,  design,  de\-ice  or  form  of  advertisement. 

Section  2.  Whoever  counterfeits  or  imitates  any  such  regis- 
tered label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device,  or  form  of  adver- 
tisement, or  knowingly  and  with  intent  to  deceive,  sells,  offers 
for  sale,  or  in  any  way  utters  or  circulates  any  counterfeit  or 
imitation  of  any  such  registered  label,  trademark,  term,  design, 
device,  or  form  of  advertisement,  or  knowingly  and  with  intent 
to  deceive,  keeps,  or  has  in  his  possession,  with  the  intent  that 
the  same  shall  be  sold  or  disposed  of,  any  goods,  wares, 
merehandise,  or  other  product  of  labor  to  which,  or  on  which, 


S14  Ai'pi  \i>i\   r. 

nny  surh  coiintortrii  or  imitation  is  printt^tl.  pniiitt^d.  stamped 
nr  impress*«d;  or  knowiii^'ly  and  with  intent  to  dci-oive, 
knowin(;ly  sells  or  disposes  of  any  jjoods.  wares,  niereliandise 
or  otlier  produet  of  labor  contained  in  any  box.  ease,  ean,  or 
|ia»-ka>;«'  to  whieh,  or  on  wiiich,  any  sucii  eoiinterfi'it  or  imita- 
tion is  attflclied,  affixed,  printed.  paiiif<'<l.  stamped  or  imi)rossed, 
or  knowin^rly  an<l  with  intent  to  decrive.  keeps  or  lias  in  his 
possession  with  intent  that  the  same  shall  be  sold  or  disposed  of, 
any  jrood.s,  wares,  merehandise,  or  other  prodiut  of  lalwr  in 
nny  box.  ease,  e;in.  or  paekajje  to  which,  or  on  wliich  any  such 
counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attacheil,  aHixed.  printed,  painted, 
stamped  or  impressed,  shall  he  punished  liy  a  line  of  not  more 
than  one  hundred  dollars,  or  by  imprlsoinnent  for  not  more 
than  three  months.  All  such  applications  for  registry  shall  be 
made  on  forms  prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Common- 
wealth, and  any  person  ap[)lyinpr  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Com- 
monwealth for  a  certificate  of  rejiistry  of  any  label,  trademark, 
term,  desipn,  device  or  form  of  advertisement,  shall  furnish 
to  the  s;iid  secretary  a  copy  f<i<-sin)ilr.  or  counterpart  thereof. 

Section  n.  Every  such  person,  firm,  corporation,  associa- 
tion or  union  that  has  luM'etofore  adopted  or  used,  or  shall 
hereafter  adopt  or  use  a  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device, 
or  form  of  advertisement,  as  jirovided  in  section  one  of  this 
act.  may  file  the  same  for  repristr>'  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Commonwealth  by  leaving  six  copies,  counterparts,  or 
fac-simihs  thereof,  with  the  said  secretary,  and  by  filing'  here- 
with a  sworn  application,  specifyinj;  (1)  the  name  or  names 
of  the  person,  firm,  corporation,  a-ssociaiion  or  union,  on  whose 
behalf  such  label,  trademark,  term,  desipii.  dence,  or  form  of 
advertisement  shall  be  filed;  (2),  the  class  of  merchandise  and 
the  descrii)tion  of  the  poods  to  which  it  has  been,  or  is-  intended 
to  be  appropriated,  statinp  that  the  party  so  filinfr,  or  on  whose 
behalf  such  label,  tradenuirk.  term,  desipn.  device,  or  form  of 
advertisement  shall  be  filed,  has  a  riplit  to  tise  the  sr.me;  {^), 
that  no  other  person,  firm.  a.s.sociation.  union,  oi  corporation- 
ha>i  the  ripht  to  such  use,  either  in  the  identical  form  or  in 
any  such  near  resemblance  thereto  as  nmy  be  calculated  to 
deceive.  an<l  (41.  that  the  fnr-sinn'lr  or  counteri>ai'ts  filed  there- 
with are  tnie  and  correct.     There  sliall  be  paid  for  such  filing 


VIRGINIA  STATUTES.  81'> 

and  rpgistry  to  tlio  Secretary  nf  Die  Commonwoallh  a  fee  of 
two  dollars  juid  (iffy  cents.  Said  secretary  sliall  deliver  to 
such  person,  firm,  corporation.  associatiotJ,  or  union  so  lilinK, 
or  causing'  to  l)e  tiled,  any  such  lahel,  trademark,  term,  desifjn, 
device,  or  form  of  advertisement,  so  many  duly  attested  certifi- 
cates of  the  registry  of  the  same  as  such  jjej-son,  firm,  corpora- 
tion, jussociation,  or  union  may  apply  for.  for  each  of  whicji 
certificates  said  secretary  sludl  receive  a  fee  of  two  dollars  and 
fifty  ceTits.  Any  such  certificate  of  registry  shall  in  all  suits 
and  prosecutions  under  this  act  be  sufficient  proof  of  the 
adoption  and  repi.stry  of  such  label,  trademark,  term,  design, 
device,  or  form  of  advertisement.  Said  Secretary  of  the  Com- 
monwealth shall  not  record  for  any  person,  firm,  corporation, 
union,  or  association  any  label,  trademark,  dcsijzn.  term,  device, 
or  form  of  advertisement  that  would  probal)ly  be  mistaken  for 
any  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertise- 
ment that  would  probably  be  mistaken  for  any  label,  trademark, 
term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  heretofore  filed 
by  or  on  behalf  of  any  other  person,  firm,  corporation,  union 
or  association. 

Section  4.  Any  person  who  shall  for  himself,  or  on  behalf 
of  any  other  person,  firm,  corporation,  association,  or  union, 
procure  the  filing  and  registry  of  any  label,  trademark,  term, 
design,  or  form  of  advertisement  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary- 
of  the  Commonwealth,  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  by 
making  any  false  or  fraudulent  representations  or  declaration 
verbally  or  in  writing,  or  by  any  fraudulent  mean.s.  shall  be 
liable  to  pay  any  damages  sustained  in  consequence  of  any 
such  filing,  to  be  recovered  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  party  injured 
thereby,  in  any  court  having  jurisdiction,  and  shall  be  punished 
by  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars  or  by  imprisonment 
not  exceeding  three  months. 

Section  5.  Every  such  penson.  firm,  corporation,  association, 
or  union,  which  has  adopted  and  registered  a  label,  trademark, 
term',  design,  device,  or  form  of  advertisement  as  aforesaid, 
may  proceed  by  suit  to  enjoin  the  manufacture,  use,  display, 
or  sale  of  any  counterfeits  or  imitations  thereof,  and  all  courts 
of  competent  jurisdiction  shall  grant  injunctions  to  restrain 
such  manufacture,  use,  display,  or  sale,  as  may  be  by  the  said 


sir.  Al'PENDIX    K, 

riturt  iltvinotl  just  nnd  roasoimbU*.  and  shall  iv<iuiro  Iho  tlcft'iul- 
ants  to  pay  to  siu'h  pfisoii.  Jinn,  lorporatioii,  assoi'iatioii.  or 
union,  all  protits  tlrriv»'«l  from  such  wroiifjful  nianufarturf. 
use.  ilisplay.  or  sjilr;  and  siu-h  court  shall  also  order  that  any 
such  t'ounttM-fcits  or  imitations  in  the  possession,  or  under  th«» 
control  of  any  tlefendant  in  smh  cause  he  delivered  to  an 
officer  of  the  i-ourl.  or  to  the  complainant,   to  he  destroyed. 

SicTioN  t).  I'^very  person  who  shall  use  or  display  the 
p-nuine  rejristered  lahel.  trademark,  term,  design,  device,  or 
form  of  advertisement,  of  any  such  jx-rson,  linn,  corporation, 
as.soeiation  or  union  in  any  numner.  not  heint;  authori/.ed  so 
to  do  by  sucli  person,  firm,  corporation,  union,  or  association, 
shall  bo  deeniwl  puilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall  he  punished 
by  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  three  months,  or  hy  a  fine 
of  not  more  than  one  hundred  dollars.  In  all  cases  where 
such  a.s.sociation.  or  union,  is  not  incorporated,  suits  under  this 
act  may  be  commenced  and  i)rosecuted  by  an  officer,  or  member 
of  as.sociation  or  union,  on  behalf  of,  antl  for  the  use  of,  such 
a.s.sociation  or  union. 

Section  7.  Any  person,  or  persons,  who  shall  in  any  way 
use  the  name  or  .seal  of  any  such  pei^son.  iirm.  corporation. 
as.sociation,  or  union,  or  officer  thereof,  in  and  about  the  sale 
of  poods,  or  otherwise,  not  beiuf;  authorized  to  .so  use  the  same, 
shall  be  puilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall  be  punishable  by 
ii«prisoinnent  for  not  more  than  three  months,  or  hy  fine  of 
not  more  than  one  hundi'ed  dollars. 

Section  R.  This  act  shall  take  elTect  and  he  in  fon-c  from 
and  after  its  passajre. 

l-OK.M    (•!•■    .VIM'IJIATION    Foil    UKCIIS  rit.VllOX. 

7'o  till    Sirrrlnry   uf   tin    Cumnionircnhh   of   \  irrfinia: 

,    [nainr   nud   tiihlnss]    in    wtiow    name    iiiul    Ix'lmlf    ttiis    npjilicn- 

tioii  for  tin-  n^OHtry  in  tin-  StJito  of  Vir^'inia,  of  tlu-  lalirl,  trademark, 
t<-rni,  (Irni^'n,  device  or  form  of  advertinin;,'  liereiiiaftcr  indicated  is  nuuk', 
in  order  to  wcure  to  tlie  ap]>licant  tlie  excluHive  nw  of  the  same  for 
the  pur|>oMc  of  di-Hij^natin^',  makin;;  known  and  diHtin;n>i>*l*in;,'  tlie  artieles 
Iiereinaft4'r  deHoril»e<l,  do  de<'lare,  tliat : 

The  name  of  the  applicant  in  whuHc  name  and  IK-Iiaif  thiH  re;;iHtry  it 
made,  iH  UH  alwvc  **>-t  forth : 


\vasmin(;T()N  stati  ri-:ii.  S17 

TIio  nppljpnnt  linH  InTrtoforo  adopted  nnd  UKod,  nnd  hnw  tlio  ri(,'lit  to 
UHc,  wiid  IhIm'I,  tradciiiurk,  dcsifrn,  device  or  form  (>(  ndvertiHinj/.  for 
the  purpoHe  of  d«-Higiintinj;,  makinj,'  known  or  diHtin^nuHliiiif,'  tlie  artideK 
hereinafter  deBipnated,  and  that  no  other  person,  firm,  UHHotiation,  union 
or  corporation,  has  the  ripht  to  wuh  uw,  either  in  the  identical  form, 
or  in  any  such  near  resemhhinee  thereto  uh  may  he  calculated  in  deceive. 

Tlie  class  of  artieleH,  and  tlie  deHcrii)tion  tliereof,  to  which  mich  lalx-I, 
trademark,    term,   dcHipn,   device   or   form   of  advertinin;.'   is  appropriated, 

are    tlie    following,    to-wit:    [insert    fnrsimUc    or    cunntirixirt    of 

trademark  or  label \. 

The  facsimile  or  counterpart  herewitli  likd   is  true  and  correct. 


Witness  the   following  signature   this,   the  day  of  ,   19 — . 


State   of 


I,  a  Notary  ru1)lic  for  the  of  ,  in  tlie  State  afore- 
said,  do  hcrchy  certify   tluit  \if   officer    of   corporation   or   partnrr 

80   State]    this  day    personally   appeared    hefore    me    in    my    and 

state  aforesaid  and  made  oatli  tiuit  the  statements  contained  in  the  fore- 
going writing  bearing  date  on  the  day  of  ,   1!) — ,  are  true 

and  that  he  is  duly  authorized  to  make  this  oath. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  oflicial  seal,  this,  the  day  of  , 

10—. 


j^^OTE. — Five  additional  fae-sitniles  of  counterparts  of  the  trademark  or 
label  should  accompany   tlie  application. 


WASHINGTON. 

§§9402-0500,  Remington  &  Ballinger's  Code  of  the  Laws  of  Washington. 

(Section  9492)  1.  Counterfeiting  trademarks  prohibited. 
-Wlienever  any  person,  or  any  association  or  union  of  working- 
men  has  heretofore  adopted  or  used,  or  shall  hereafter  adopt 
or  use,  and  has  filed  as  hereinafter  provided  any  lal)el.  trade- 
mark, term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  for  the 
purpose  of  designating,  making  kno\m,  or  distinguishing  any 
goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  product  of  labor,  as  liaving 
been  made,  manufactured,  produced,  prepared,  packed  or  put 
on  sale  by  such  person  or  association  or  union  of  workinginen 
or  by  a  member  or  members  of  such  association  or  union,  it 
shall  be  unlawful  to  counterfeit  or  imitate  such  label,  trade- 


818  ArrENDix  f. 

mark,  tonn,  ilo.'^ipn.  dovico  or  form  of  adviTtisonu'iit,  or  to 
iisi*.  soil.  otTiM-  for  iisiU\  or  in  any  way  utter  or  cirt'ulatt'  any 
fountorfoit  or  imitation  of  any  such  laht'l.  tni(lrm;irl;,  term, 
tU»sign.  iK'vii't'.  or  form  of  advert  isi'iucnt. 

(^^K^TIO^•  049.1')  12.  Pknai-ty.  Wlioev(>r  eounterfeit.s  or  iini 
tntt*s  any  .suoh  lalnM,  trademark,  term,  desiirn.  devie(>  or  form  of 
advert isomcnt.  or  soils,  offers  for  .sale,  or  in  any  way  utters  or 
eireulates  any  counterfeit  or  imit-jition  of  any  sueli  label,  trado- 
mark.  term,  dosipni.  devioe  or  form  of  advertisement;  or  keeps 
or  has  in  his  pos.sossion.  with  intent  that  the  same  sliall  be  sold 
or  disposed  of,  any  ?oods,  wares,  inerehandis(>  or  otlK^r  product 
of  labor  to  which  or  on  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation 
is  printed,  painted,  stamped  or  impres.sed  :  or  knowincly  sells 
or  disposes  of  anv  roods,  wares.  Triercliaudise  or  other  product 
of  labor  contained  in  anv  box.  case,  can  or  packa^re.  to  which 
or  on  which  any  sueh  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached, 
affixed,  printed,  painted,  stamped  or  impressed;  or  keeps  or  has 
in  his  possession,  with  intent  that  the  same  shall  be  sold  or 
disposed  of.  any  poods,  wares,  mercliandisc  or  other  pro<lnrt 
of  labor,  in  any  box.  case,  can  or  jiackaijre,  to  wliich  or  on 
whieh  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitatioti  is  attaclKMl.  affixed, 
printed,  painted,  .stamped  or  impressed,  .shall  be  punished  by 
a  fine  of  not  more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment 
for  not  more  than  three  months. 

CSfottav  0404'i  H.  Fn-ivn  wn  RF.roRnrN'n.  Ever>'  such 
person,  association  or  union,  that  has  hercloforc  adopted  or 
used,  or  shall  hereafter  adopt  or  use.  a  label,  trademark  term, 
design,  device  or  ff»rm  of  adviTtisrment.  as  provided  in  section 
one  of  this  act.  may  file  the  same  for  record  in  the  office  of  the 
Se.->retary  of  State  by  leaviuir  two  copies,  counterparts  or  far- 
.^iitnlff!  thereof,  with  said  secretary,  and  by  filingr  therewitli  a 
sworn  application  specifvintr  the  name  or  names  of  the  person. 
nssneiation  or  union  on  whase  behalf  such  label,  trademark, 
term,  desipn.  dexice  or  form  of  advertisement  shall  be  filed, 
the  class  of  merchandise,  and  a  de.scription  of  the  poods  to 
whieh  it  has  been,  or  is  intended  to  l>e  appropriated,  statinp 
that  the  party  so  filinp.  or  on  whase  behalf  such  label,  trade- 
mark, term,  desipn.  device  or  form  of  advertiseni'^nt  shall  be 
filed,  hay  the  right  to  the  use  of  the  same,  that  no  other  person, 


WASHINGTOX  STATITKS.  SH) 

firm,   association,    union    or   corporation    lias    tlio    riu'lit   to   such 
use  eitlier  in  the  identical  form  or  in  any  such  near  rc.semljlance 
thereto  as  may  Ik'  calculatcil  to  tlcccivc.  and  that  the  fa<  simile 
or   counterparts    tiled    therewith    are   true   and    correct.      There 
shall  he  paid,  for  such  filiuf^  and  recordiiifr,  a  fee  of  five  dollars. 
Said  secretary  shall  deliver  to  such  person,  association  or  union 
so  filing'  or  causinj;  to  he  filed  any  such  lahel,  trademark,  term, 
design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement,  so  many  duly  attested 
certificates  of  the  recording  of  the  same  as  such  person,  a.ssocia- 
tion  or  union  may  apply  for,  for  each  of  which  certificates  said 
secretary  shall  receive  a  fee  of  two  dollars.     Any  such  certifi- 
cate of  record  shall,  in  all  suits  and   prosecutions  under  this 
act,  he  sufficient  proof  of  the  adoption  of  such  lahel,  trademark, 
term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement.     Said  Secretary 
of  State  shall  not  record  for*  any  person,  union  or  as-sociation, 
any  lahel,  trademark,   term,   design,   device  or   form   of  adver- 
tisement that  would  prohahly  he  mistaken  for  any  lahel,  trade- 
mark, term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  theretofore 
filed  hy  or  on  hehalf  of  any  other  person,  union  or  association. 
(Section   949r))    4.      FRAini-LrxT     i-^ii-ing,    etc. — Pen.\lty. 
Any  person  who  shall,  for  himself  or  on  hehalf  of  any  other 
person,   association   or  union,   procure  the  filing  of  any   label, 
trademark,  term,  design  or  form  of  advertisement  in  the  office 
of  the  Secretary  of  State,  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  by 
making   any    false    or    fraudulent    representations   or    declara- 
tion, verbally  or  in  writing,  or  by  any  fraudulent  means,  shall 
he  liable  to  pay  any  damages  sustained  in  consequence  of  any 
such  filing,  to  he  recovered  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  party  injured 
thereby,  in  any  court  having  jurisdiction,  and  shall  be  punished 
by  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars  or  by  imprison- 
ment not  exceeding  three  months. 

(Section  0400)  f).  En.ioin  upe,  etc.  Every  such  person, 
a&sociation  or  union  adopting  or  using  a  label,  trademark, 
terra,  design,  device  or  fonn  of  advertisement  as  aforesaid,  may 
proceed  by  suit  to  enjoin  the  manufacture,  use,  display  or 
sale  of  any  counterfeits  or  imitations  thereof,  and  all  courts 
of  competent  jurisdiction  shall  grant  injunctions  to  re.strain 
such  manufacture,  use,  display  or  sale,  and  may  award  the 
eomplaiuant    in   any   such   suit    damages   resulting   from   such 


S-20  Ari'KNDlX    F. 

manufnctnrc,  use.  sale  or  ilisplay.  as  may  be  by  the  said  court 
•  liH'im'cl  just  aiul  reasonable,  and  shall  reiiuire  the  delVudaiits 
to  pay  to  such  person,  association  (»r  union  all  profits  (lcrive<l 
from  such  wronpful  i.ianiifafturr.  use.  display  or  si\]o\  and 
such  court  shall  also  order  that  all  sjich  fount(>rfcits  or  imita- 
tions in  tho  possession  or  under  thr  control  of  any  dt-fendant  in 
.sueh  cause  be  delivered  to  an  officer  of  the  court,  or  to  the 
complainant  to  be  destroyed. 

^SkcTION    9M^~)    <».       rKNM.TY    KOK   rXArTIIOHIZKO   I'SK.       Kvcrj' 

person  who  shall  use  or  display  the  penuine  laiiel.  trademark, 
term,  desi^m.  device  or  form  of  advertisement  of  any  such 
person,  a.ssociation  or  union  in  any  manner,  not  beinp  author- 
ized so  to  do  by  such  person,  union  or  a.ssociation.  shall  be 
deemed  puilty  of  a  misdemeanor,,  and  shall  be  punishcMl  by 
imprisonment  for  not  more  than  three  months,  or  liy  a  fine 
of  not  more  than  one  hundred  ($100)  dollars.  Tii  all  cases 
where  such  association  or  union  is  not  incorporated,  suits  under 
this  act  may  be  commenced  and  prosecuted  liy  an  officer  or 
member  of  such  association  or  nnion  on  behalf  of  and  for  the 
use  of  such  association  or  union. 

( Section'  0498^  7.  Penalty  for  i:se  of  name  or  seal. 
Any  person  or  persons  who  shall,  in  any  way,  nse  the  name  or 
seal  of  any  such  person,  association  or  union  or  officer  thereof, 
in  and  al>out  the  sale  of  poods  or  other  wise,  not  IxMup  author- 
ized to  so  use  the  same,  .shall  be  puilty  of  a  niisdoiiieanor.  and 
.shall  be  punishable  by  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  three 
Dwnths,  or  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  one  l\undred  dollars. 

(Section  0400)  S.  Pfjs'.vltv  for  DFFAriNd  or  removing 
TRADEMARK,  ETC.  Any  pcrson  usinp  the  trademark  so  adopted 
and  filed  by  any  such  person,  or  any  imitation  of  such  trade- 
mark, or  any  counterfeit  thereof;  or  who  shall,  in  any  manner 
mutilate,  deface,  destroy  or  remove  such  trademark  from  any 
PocmIs.  NN'jires,  merchandise,  article  or  articles,  or  from  aiiy  pack- 
ape  or  packapes  containinp  the  same,  or  from  any  empty  or 
second  hand  packape  which  has  contained  the  same  or  been  used 
therefor,  wth  the  intention  of  \isinp  sueh  empty  or  second  hand 
package,   or  of  the   same   being  used   to   cont^iin    poods,   wares, 


\vv.siiin(;t<)N  sT\TrTi>;.  821 

morf'liandiso,  article  or  artiflos  of  tlic  samn  Ronoral  fharacter 
iis  I  hose  for  whicli  tlicv  were  first  used;  and  any  person  wlio 
shall  use  any  eiuiity  or  second  liaml  packfiKC  for  tlit-  |tur|)080 
aforesaid,  witliowt  the  consent  in  writing'  of  the  i)erson  whoso 
trach-mark  was  first  applied  thereto  or  phiced  thereon  shall, 
npoii  conviction  thereof,  he  liinMl  in  any  sum  not  h-ss  than  oiu; 
hnndrcd  dollais,  or  hy  inii)risonnient  for  not  more  than  three 
niontlis.  and  the  p;oods.  wares,  niereliandise,  article  or  articles, 
contained  in  any  second  hand  paekape  or  packages  shall  ho. 
forfeited  to  the  original  user  of  such  paekajjo  or  packacres  whoso 
trademark  was  first  applied  thereto  or  placed  thereon.  The 
violation  of  any  of  the  almve  j)rovisions  as  to  each  particular 
article  or  package  shall  he  held  to  he  a  separate  offense. 

(Section  9500)  0.  "Pkrson"  defined.  The  word  "person" 
in  this  act  shall  he  construed  to  include  a  person,  co-partner- 
ship, corporation,  association  or  union  of  workingnien. 

"Where  the  mark  in  litigation  has  not  heen  registered  under 
section  '.W'2^.  Hallinirer's  Annotated  Todes.  the  sufficiency  of  a 
<wmplaint  for  tlie  infringement  of  the  mark  mu.st  he  adjudged 
upon  the  princi[)les  of  common  law.  Woodcock  v.  Ouy,  '.V-i 
Wash.  234,  74  Pac.  Rep.  858. 

This  act  Ls  sufficiently  entitled  to  support  its  penal  provisions. 
:\Iore  than  one  lahel  may  he  covered  by  one  application.  A 
conviction  under  the  act  sustained.  State  v.  Montgomery,  100 
Pac.  Rep.  771,  57  Wash.  192. 

APPLICATION  FOPt  REGISTRATION  OF  TRADEMARK. 

Know  all  Men  by  These  Presents:  That ,  of  the  City  of . 

County    of  ,    Stato    of    ,    has    heretofore    adopted    and    doi's 

hereby  adopt  the  followin-,'  trademark,  term,  device,  design  or  form  of 
advertisement,  and  does  herein-  make  application  for  the  registration 
of  said  trademark  in  tlie  oflice  of  tlie  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State 
oi  Washington,  said  trademark,  term  or  form  of  advertisement  being 
described  as  follows,  to-wit:  ,  as  shown  by  the  accompanying  fac- 
similes or  counterparts  thereof,  filed  herewith,  which  are  true  and  cor 
rect  copies  of  said  original.  Tlic  class  of  merchandise  or  goods  to  whicl 
this  label,  trademark,  term  or  form  of  advertisement  ia  appropriated 
and  on  which  it  is  to  l)e  used  is  . 

Your  applicant  has  the  right  to  the  use  of  such  lalx-l,  trademark,  term, 
device,  design  or  form  of  advertisement,  and  no  other  person,  firm,  ass  >- 
ciation,   union   or   corporation   has   the   right   to    such    use,   either    in   the 


<^22  AIM'KNPIX    K. 

iilcDticH]    form    t«r    in    niiy    siuh    iwiir    rrwrnliluiHi-   tluTrtu   as    may    In-   tul- 
rulntod    to   d«vfiv«>. 


SubscrilK'.l  antl    sw.irn    t<>   Ixfori-    ni.-   this «!ny   of   ,    A.    I> 

19—. 

llnipri-HH  Siul  Inn-.  1  • 


Xotart/  Pulilir  in  ami  for  thr  Stntr  of ,  rcsiitiiiij  at  . 

INMianioN     In    AITT.KWNT. 

(  FiH-   for  filing',  $.">.00  for  t-aoli  a|)])lii-(ition.) 

Insert  in  tin"  fifht  Klank  tlif  nnmi>  of  the  jxTrton.  firm  or  oorporatioii 
on  wluti**'  lu-linlf  till'  lal>«-l  is  to  ht-  Hied,  fillinj;  in  name  of  city,  rU'.,  an 
indicated.  Dt-wriln'  tin-  trudrmark  fully.  ;:ivin;.'  form,  manm-r  and  urranj^r- 
mi-nt,  «'to.,  and  transmit  two  facsimiles  of  said  trademark  icith  thr 
application.  Dt-wrilu'  tlu'  class  of  j{oods,  mcrchundise  or  commodity  upon 
wiiich  sumo  is  to  Ik-  used,  indicatinjf  the  manner  in  which  it  shall  Im' 
shown,  whether  stamped,  painted.  lithoj.'rnphed,  pasted  or  otherwis*',  and 
whetln-r  same  may  he  varied  in  si/.e,  color,  etc.,  without  clianj,'in<,'  the 
}:eneral  form  and  wording  thereof,  etc.  No  application  will  he  filed  for 
a  trademark  covering;  a  specific  article  or  class  of  merchandise,  etc.,  on 
which  the  same  or  a  very  similar  one  is  of  record.*  The  same  term  may 
U-  us«'d  and  applied  to  one  class  of  merchandise  that  has  heen  adopti-d 
for  an  entirely  dilTerent  class,  hut  no  two  covering  the  same  class  can 
U-  filed,  under  tin-  trademark  law  of  1807,  which  can  be  found  upon 
paj,'e   Ci.'),  of  the   print«'d   session    laws  of  that  year. 

WEST  VIRGINIA. 

Alts   of    1001. 

SeCiiON  17.  WhoncvtT  any  pci'son,  firm  or  corporation,  or 
any  association  or  nnion  of  workingrmen,  has  heretofore  adopted 
or  used,  or  shall  herealt^'r  adopt  or  use,  any  label,  trademark, 
term,  dcsifni,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  for  the  u.se  of 
desi^rnatin^^  making'  known,  or  di.stiiifruishint,'  any  coods,  wares, 
merchandise  or  other  product  of  labor,  as  havinpr  been  made, 
manufactured,  produced,  prepared,  packed  or  put  on  sale,  by 
such  person,  firm,  coriioration  or  association  or  union  of  work- 
inffmen,  or  by  a  member  (tr  memliers  of  such  a.s.sociation  or 
union,  i  w\  sliall  rcL'ister  the  same  as  provided  in  siM-tion  tlnv' 
of  this  act,  it  .shall  be  uniawful  to  knowinply  counterfeit  or 
imitate  such  label,  trademark,  term,  desipi,  device  or  form  of 
advcrtiiscmcut.  or  to  knowingly  use,  bcll,  ofTcr  for  siiie,  or  in 


WKsr  \iKCiNi\  sivri  lis.  82:J 

any  way  utter  or  firciilali;  any  oouiilfrfcit  or  imitation  of  any 
such  label,  trademark,  term,  (lesit,'u,  deviee  or  form  of  adver- 
tisement. 

Section  18.  Whoovcr  so  knowiuRly  counterfeits  or  imitator 
any  sueh  repistorod  label,  trademark,  term,  desifjn,  device  or 
form  of  advertisement ;  or  knowingly  sells,  or  ofTers  for  sale, 
or  in  any  way  utters  or  circulates  any  counterfeit  or  imitation 
of  any  such  rop:istered  lahel,  trademark,  term,  design,  device  or 
form  of  advertisement;  or  knowingly  keeps  or  has  in  his  posses- 
sion, with  intent  that  the  same  shall  be  sold  or  dispased  of, 
any  goods  wares,  merchandise  or  other  product  of  lalior  to 
which  or  on  which  any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  printed, 
painted,  stamped  or  imi)res.sed  :  or  knowingly  sells  or  disposes 
of  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  product  of  labor 
contained  in  any  Iwx.  case,  can  or  package  to  wliich  or  on  which 
any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached,  affixed,  printed, 
painted  stamped  or  impressed  or  knowingly  keeps  or  has  in 
his  possession,  with  intent  that  the  same  siiall  he  sold  or  dis- 
posed of,  any  goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  product  of 
labor  in  any  box,  case,  can  or  package,  to  which  or  on  which 
any  such  counterfeit  or  imitation  is  attached,  affixed,  printed, 
stamped  or  impressed,  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more 
than  five  hundred  dollars  or  hy  imprisonment  for  not  more 
than  three  months,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment. 

Section  10.  Every'  such  person,  firm,  corporation,  associa- 
tion or  union  that  has  heretofore  adopted  or  used,  or  shall 
hereafter  adopt  or  use,  a  label,  trademark,  term,  design,  device 
or  form  of  advertisement  as  provided  in  section  one  of  this  act, 
shall  register  the  same  by  filing  the  same  for  record  m  the  office 
of  the  Secretary  of  State  by  leaving  two  copies.  c/)unterparts 
or  fac-similes  thereof,  with  said  secretary  and  by  filing  there- 
with a  sworn  ap'plication  specifying  the  name  or  names  of  the 
person,  association  or  union  on  whose  behalf  such  label,  trade- 
mark, term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement,  .shall  be 
filed ;  the  class  of  merchandise  and  a  description  of  the  goods 
to  which  it  has  been  or  is  intended  to  be  appropnated.  stating 
that  the  party  so  filing,  or  on  whose  behalf  such  label,  trade- 
mark, term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  shall  be 
filed,  has  the  right  to  use  the  same ;  that  no  other  person,  firm, 


S24  APPEN'mx  F. 

association  niiioii  or  rorporation  lia><  tli(^  rifrlit  to  sucli  ns^o, 
eithor  in  the  idtMitioal  form  or  iti  any  siuli  iioar  rosoinhlanee 
tltiTt'to  as  may  Im'  calciilatcd  to  (Icccivf,  and  that  tlif  fat'-siiiiilcs 
or  ooiintor|>arts  filiMl  tlu'nnvitli  ar<>  \r\io  and  correct.  There 
sliall  he  paid  for  siich  filing?  and  recording;  a  fee  of  one  (hiHar. 
Said  secri'tary  shall  (h'liv«'r  to  such  pciNon.  association,  or 
union,  so  tilinjr  or  causintr  to  he  filcHl  any  such  hihcl.  tradomark, 
term,  dcipn.  device  or  form  of  advertisement  so  nuiny  duly 
attested  certificates  of  tlie  reeortlinp  of  the  same  as  such  person, 
firm,  corporation,  association  or  union  may  apidy  for,  for  each 
of  which  certificates  said  secretary  shall  receive  a  fee  of  one 
<lollar.  Ativ  sucli  ctM'tificates  of  record  sliall  in  all  suits  and 
prosecutions  under  this  act  1)e  sufficient  proof  of  the  adoption 
of  such  labels,  trademarks,  terms,  desiprns.  devices  or  forms  of 
advertisement.  Said  secretary  of  state  shall  not  n^-ord  for  any 
person,  union  or  association,  anv  lahel.  trademark,  term,  desipm, 
device  or  form  of  advertisement,  that  would  probably  be 
mistaken  for  any  label,  trademark,  term,  desipni.  device  or  form 
of  advertisement  theretofore  filed  by  or  on  behalf  of  any  other 
person,  firm,  corporation,  union  or  association.  Rut  the  said 
secretary'  shall  file  and  record  under  this  act  any  label,  trade- 
mark, term.  desiLMi.  device  or  form  of  advertisement,  which  may 
Imve  been  previously  filed  by  any  person,  firm,  corporation  or 
any  .a.s.soeiation  or  union  of  workinsnuen.  pi-ovided  the  person, 
firm,  corporation,  association  or  union  seekinp:  to  file  and  record 
under  this  act  is  the  sanu'  person,  firm,  corporation,  a.s.sociation 
or  union  that  previously  filed  or  recorded  the  same  label,  trade- 
mark, term,  desifrn.  devic(^  or  form  of  advertisement. 

Seottox  20.  Any  person  who  shall  for  himself,  or  on  behalf 
of  any  other  person,  finn,  corporation,  association  or  union, 
procure  the  filinpr  of  any  label,  trademark,  term,  desiprn  or 
form  of  advertisement,  in  the  oflfiee  of  the  {Secretary  of  State 
under  the  provisions  of  this  act.  by  makinfr  any  known  false  or 
frauflulent  representations,  or  declarations,  verbally  or  in  writ- 
ine.  or  by  any  fraudulent  means,  shall  be  liable  to  pay  any 
damages  sustained  in  consefpience  of  any  such  filinq:  to  he 
recovered  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  party  injureil  thereby  in  any 
court  havintr  jurisfliction.  and  shall  he  punished  by  a  fine  not 
exeeedinp  five  hundred  dollars  or  by  imprisonment  not  exeeed- 
infT  three  months,  or  bv  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment. 


WKKT    \II«;1M\    ^lAll    IliS. 


825 


Section  21.  Every  such  person,  firin,  corporation,  associa- 
tion or  union  atloptmtr  or  usinj;  any  sticli  rej^istereil  label, 
trademark,  term,  desit^n,  device  i)r  fonii  oT  advertisement,  as 
jiforesaid.  may  proceed  by  suit  for  damages  to  enjoin  the  manu- 
facture, use.  display  or  sale  of  any  counterfeits  or  imitations 
thereof,  and  all  courts  of  competent  jurisdiction  shall  grant 
injunctions  to  restrain  such  maiiufact ure,  use,  display  or  sale, 
and  award  tlie  complainant  in  any  such  suit  damages  resulting 
from  such  nuunifacture,  use,  sale  or  display,  as  may  be  by  the 
said  court  deemed  just  and  reasonable,  Jind  shall  require  the 
defendants  to  pay  such  person,  as.sociation  or  union,  all  profits 
derived  from  such  wrongful  manufacture,  use,  sale  or  display; 
and  such  court  sliall  also  order  that  all  sucli  counterfeits  or 
imitations  in  the  possession  or  mider  the  control  of  any  defend- 
ant in  such  cause  be  delivered  to  an  officer  of  the  court,  or  to 
the  complainant,  to  be  destroyed. 

Section  22.  Every  person,  firm,  corporation  or  union,  who 
shall  knowingly  use  or  display  the  genuine  label,  trademark, 
term,  design,  device  or  form  of  advertisement  of  any  such  per- 
son, firm,  corporation,  association  or  union  when  registered  as 
aforesaid,  in  any  numner,  not  being  authorized  so  to  do  by  such 
person,  firm,  corporation,  a.ssociation  or  union,  shall  be  deemed 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment 
for  not  more  than  three  months  or  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than 
three  hundred  dollars.  In  all  ca.ses  where  such  association  or 
union  is  not  incorporated  suits  under  this  act  may  be  com- 
menced and  prosecuted  ])y  any  officer  or  member  of  such  asso- 
ciation or  union  on  behalf  of  and  for  the  use  of  such  association 
or  union. 

Section  23.  Any  person,  firm,  corporation,  a.ssoeiation,  or 
union,  who  shall  in  any  way  knowingly  use  the  name  or  seal  of 
any  such  person,  firm,  corporation,  association  or  union,  or 
officer  thereof,  in  and  about  the  sale  of  goods  or  otherwise,  not 
being  authorized  to  so  use  the  same,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misde- 
meanor and  shall  be  punished  by  imprisoinnent  for  not  more 
than  three  months  or  l)y  a  fine  of  not  more  than  five  hundred 
dollars. 

Section  24.  Nothing  contained  in  this  act  shall  be  construed 
as  affecting  or  impairing  any  right  or  remedy  at  law  or  in  equity 


»i-">t';  \riT;M>i\   K 


MOW  existinp:  for  tlu'  protection  oi'  any  lalu'l,  trademark,  torra, 
tU'siiJH,  ilfvii'i'  or  form  of  atlvt-rtiscmcut,  wlu'tht'r  or  not  the  same 
is  ropisteretl  iiiulfr  the  provisions  lu'reof. 

The  Aet  of  1SS2  relates  to  timl>er  trad.-. 

Another  Aet  of  18SI)  rehites  to  the  pnttcrtioii  ol"  i)ersoMs  and 
eorporations  enpi^'ed  in  mainifaeturinj;  and  sellinpr  mineral 
waters,  malt  licpiors  and  other  hcverapcs. 

XoTK. — No  ortifial  form  of  application  for  regi.stratiun. 

Fee  for  certilieate.  $').()(). 


WISCONSIN. 

LABKI-S    AM)    TK\ni;.MAHKS    HKGISTRATION. 
Cli.    1-27.    l'.M)!»;    ill    clT.Tt    May    i:i.    l!l()!i. 

Section'  1717a.  Trademarks  and  labels;  api'lication.  1. 
Any  person,  tinn.  copartnership,  corporation,  association, 
or  union  of  \Vi)rkin<?nien,  which  has  heretofore  j'dopted  or 
u.sed  or  sliall  hereafter  adopt  or  use  any  label,  trademark, 
tradename,  term,  desifjn,  pattern,  model,  device,  shopmark, 
drawing,  specification,  designation,  or  form  of  advei-tisement, 
for  the  purpose  of  designating,  making  known,  or  distinguish- 
ing any  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  or  other  product  of  labor 
or  manufacture  as  having  been  made,  manufactured,  produced, 
prepared,  packed  or  put  on  sale  by  such  person,  firm,  copartner- 
ship, corporation,  association,  or  union  of  workingmc^n,  or  by  a 
member  or  members  thereof,  he  or  they,  if  residents  of  this  or 
any  other  state  of  the  United  States,  and  such  foreign  corpora- 
tions as  may  have  heen  duly  licensed  to  transact  husiness  in 
the  State  of  Wisconsin,  may  file  an  original,  a  copy,  or  photo- 
graphs, or  cuts  with  specifications  of  the  same  for  record  in  the 
office  of  the  Secretary. of  State,  hy  leaving  two  such  originals, 
copies,  photographs,  or  cuts  with  specifications,  the  same  heing 
counterparts.  •  •  •  far-siwilfs,  or  drawings  thereof,  with 
said  secretary,  and  by  filing  ther(»witb  a  sworn  statement,  speci- 
fying the  name  of  the  i)erson.  firm,  copartnership,  corporation, 
associatioFL  or  union  of  workingmen,  on  whose  behalf  such  lahel, 
trademark,  term,  tr.idenaiiie,  patteriL  model,  design,  device, 
.vho[)Tnark,  drawing.  s[>ecification,  designation,  or  form  of  adver- 
tisement is  to  be  filed,  the  class  of  merchandise  and  a  separate 
description  of  the  goods  to  which  the  same  has  been  or  is  intended 


WISCONSIN   STATIITKS.  827 

to  1)0  appropriiiltMl,  tlic  residence,  location,  or  [)lace  of  businesH 
of  sucli  pai'ly,  that  the  party  on  whose  behalf  such  label,  trade- 
iiiai'k,  ti'adcnanic.  term,  de.sigii,  pattern  model,  device,  shop- 
inark.  drawing',  sjjecification,  designation  or  form  of  advntise- 
ment  is  to  l)e  filed,  has  the  ri<;bt  to  the  use  of  the  same,  and  that 
no  other  person,  or  persons,  firm,  copartnership,  corporation, 
association  or  union  of  vvorkingmen  •  *  *  has  such  right, 
either  in  the  i(hMitieal  form  or  in  any  such  near  resend)lance 
thereto  as  may  be  calculated  to  deceive,  and  that  the  originals, 
copies,  photographs,  or  t-uts,  counterparts,  *  *  *  facsimiles, 
or  drawings  filed  tluM-ewith  are  correct. 

Tradename;  several  i'arts.  2.  Where  the  several  parts  of 
a  single  unit  article  of  trade  or  commerce  are  severally  marked 
to  distinguish  them  by  the  person,  firm,  copartnership,  corpo- 
ration, association,  or  union  of  workingmen  having  the  right  to 
manufacture  such  single  unit  under  a  tradename  or  brand  used 
by  him  or  them,  such  person,  firm,  copartnership,  corporation, 
association,  or  union  may,  in  filing  under  this  section  the  desig- 
nation of  such  tradename  or  brand,  attach  thereto  photographs 
or  cuts  with  the  specifications  of  the  several  parts  of  the  unit 
to  which  it  is  attached  or  applied,  and  thereafter  no  further 
filing  or  registration  of  any  such  parts  so  used  shall  be  neces- 
sary to  protect  the  owner  or  lawful  use  of  the  tradename  or 
brand  of  the  unit  against  the  use  by  others  of  any  of  the  several 
parts  thereof,  and  any  such  filing  shall  be  construed  to  be  a 
single  filing,  and  but  one  filing  fee  shall  be  paid  therefor. 

Recording.  3.  The  papers  required  to  be  filed  hereunder 
shall  be  recorded  in  a  book  for  that  purpose,  and  there  shall  be 
paid  to  the  Secretary  of  State  for  such  recording  and  filing 
one  dollar. 

Ch.   127,  1000:   in  ofToct  May   13,   1000. 

Section  1747am.  Duplication  or  reproduction  prohibited. 
1.  It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person,  firm,  copartnei- 
ship,  corporation,  association,  or  union  of  workingmen,  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  o\mer  of  any  such  label,  trademark, 
tradename,  term,  design,  pattern,  model,  device,  shopmark, 
drawing,   specification,   designation,   or   form   of   advertisement 


328  \iTi.M>i\  V. 

ropistorod  in  acvonlaiu-i-  uitli  tlu>  provisions  of  the  preceding 
MH-tioii.  to  r.'movr  any  swell  lalu-l.  trademark,  tradcnami'.  design, 
shopinark.  or  otlicr  designation.  t)r  forni  of  advertisement  so 
r»'gistere<l  and  attaihed  to  nierchandisf  or  prodncts  of  Inhor,  for 
tlie  pnrpose  of  using  sncli  Tncrchandisc  or  products  of  lalmr  as 
a  pattern  for  tlie  duplie«ting  or  r.-|)rodii(tiitii  of  the  «Hne,  either 
in  the  identical  fonii  or  in  such  near  reseinhlance  thereto  a.s 
may  be  calculated  to  deceive. 

RKr.\nt.<5.  2.  Nothing  herein  contained  shall  he  taken  to  pro- 
hiliit  tlM'  using  (»f  such  merchandise  or  products  of  lal)or  as  a 
pattern  for  tlie  reproduction  of  the  same  in  individual  cases  of 
emergency  repairs. 

I^SE.  '^.  And  it  shall  he  unlawful  for  any  other  person  to 
make  ii.se  of  siu'h  lahel.  trademark,  tradename,  term,  design, 
pattern,  model,  de^^ce.  shopnrark,  drawing,  speeification,  desig- 
nation, or  form  of  advertisement  so  filed,  or  any  such  likeness 
or  imitation  thereof,  or  utter  or  display  the  same  orally,  or  in 
any  printed  or  written  form  in  the  coiKluct  of  lii.s  ])usine.ss  or 
any  business  transaction  without  the  express  consent,  license. 
and  authority  of  the  person,  firm,  copartnership,  corporation, 
association,  or  union  so  ov.-ning  the  same,  and  such  unauthorized 
and  unlawful  use  may  be  prohibited  and  prevented  by  injunc- 
tion or  other  proper  proceeding  in  a  court  of  competent  juris- 
diction without  resource  to  the  penal  statute  providing  a  punish- 
ment for  such  unlawful  use.  In  case  such  as.sociation  or  union 
of  w-orkingmen  is  not  incorporated,  such  actions  may  be  com- 
menee<l  and  prosecuted  by  «n  officer  or  memlier  of  such  asso- 
ciations or  union  on  behalf  of  and  for  the  use  of  .such  association 
or  union. 

Cli.  1-27,  r.iiHt;  in  clTrct  May  l.^.  lOltil. 
Sfxtkix  1747an.  Pknai-tv.  1.  Kvery  person  who  .shall 
knowingly  and  wilfully  violate  sections  lT4Ta  or  1747am.  except 
only  thos<>  provisions  relative  to  emergeiK-y  repairs,  shall  be 
guilty  of  a  ndsdemeanor.  and  upon  conviction  then'of  shall  be 
punished  by  impri.sonment  for  not  more  than  six  months  or  by 
a  fine  of  not  more  than  two  hundred  dollars. 


WYOMINf;    STATITKS. 


829 


Not  nETROArnvE.  12.  Xotliin^;  contaiiifd  in  swtimi.s  1747a, 
1747ain  and  1747an  shall  rcHjuire  a  new  filing  or  registration  in 
cases  to  which  this  act  api)lie.s  where  there  has  heretofore  been 
a  coniplianct'  with  section  1747a,  or  any  acts  anuMidatorv  thereof, 
l)y  any  person  or  persons,  fimu,  co{)artnership,  corporation,  as- 
sociation, or  union  ol  workingnieu. 


state    of    , 

County    of  ,  as: 

■ ,  licin}^  first  duly  Hworu,  doposcH  nnd  says  that  he  is  tho 

of   the   ,    located    and    doinj,'    husinesH    in    the    City    of    

State    of    ,    and    that    he    makes    this    sworn    statement    in 


and 


behalf,  and  that   the 


is   the   solo  owner   of   the   trademark   sought 


to   l)e  re<,'istered,  and  has  adopted  the  same  for  its  own  use. 
The    trademark    sought   to   be   registered   is   as    follows: 
The  class   of  merchandise  to  which  the  same   is   intended  to  l)e  appro- 
priated   is  ,  and   a   particular   description   of  the  goods   i.s   . 


That  the  said 


has  the  right  to  the  use  of   the   same,   and   that 


no  other  person  or  persons,  firm,  copartnership,  corporation,  association, 
or  union  of  workingmen  lias  such  right  either  in  the  identical  form  or 
in  any  such  near  resemblance  thereto  as  may  be  calculated  to  deceive, 
and  that  the  originals,  copies,  photographs  or  cut,  counterparts,  fac- 
similes  or   diawings   filed  herewith   are  correct. 


19- 


Subscril)ed  and    sworn    to  before   me  this 
» — . 
[Seal.] 

Note. — Fee   for  certificate  $1.00. 


By  

-  day  of 


-,  A.   D. 


Notary  Public. 


WYO^riNG. 

REGISTRATION   OP   TRADEMARKS. 
Section   3430.   Wyoming   Compiled    Statutes.    1010. 

Any  person,  association  or  union  may  adopt  a  label,  trade- 
mark, stamp  or  form  of  advertisement  not  previously  owned  or 
adopted  by  any  other  person,  association  or  union,  and  may  file 
the  same  for  record  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  by 
leaving:  two  copies,  counterparts  or  fac-siniiles  thereof,  with  said 
secretary;  and  .shall  file  therewith  a  certificate  specif>nnfr  the 
name  or  names  of  the  person,  association  or  union  so  filing  such 


830  apih^:kdix  p. 

label,  traileniark,  stamp  or  form  of  atlvortiscMuent,  his  or  its 
rf.sidenrc.  location  or  plaoo  of  husim'ss,  the  cIjuss  of  morchaiulise 
ami  till'  particular  dosrription  of  ^ooils  comprised  in  siK'h  class 
to  which  it  has  hccn  or  is  iiitvndi'd  to  ho  a])propriatctl,  aiul  the 
length  of  time,  if  any.  durinj?  which  it  has  hecn  in  use.  Such 
certificate  shall  he  acctmipanied  hy  a  writtiMi  decJaration,  verified 
under  oath  hy  the  person  or  5*mie  officer  of  the  association  or 
union  hy  whom  it  is  filed,  to  the  efTect  that  the  party  so  filing 
such  lahel,  trjhdemark  stamp  or  form  of  advertisement,  has  a 
ripht  to  the  use  of  the  sa/ine.  and  tlmt  no-  other  person,  firm, 
a.ssociation.  union  or  corporation  has  the  riiiht  to  such  use,  either 
in  the  i(l(>ntic;d  form  or  in  any  such  near  resemblance  thereto 
as  may  he  cah'uhitt'd  to  deceive  and  that  the  fa(vsimiles,  copies 
or  counterparts  filed  Hierewith  are  true  and  correct.  There  shall 
he  paid  for  such  filinir  the  fee  of  five  dollars.  Said  secretary 
shall  deliver  to  such  person,  association  or  union  so  filinp  the 
same,  a  duly  attested  certificate  of  the  record  of  the  same,  for 
which  he  shall  receive  the  fee  of  five  dollars.  Such  certificate 
of  record  shall,  in  all  suits  and  prosecutions  under  this  chapter, 
be  sufficient  proof  of  the  adoption  of  such  label,  stamp,  trade- 
mark or  form  of  advertisement.  No  label,  trademark,  .stamp  or 
form  of  advertisement  shall  be  recorded  that  would  rea.sonably 
be  mistaken  for  a  label,  trademark,  stamp  or  form  of  advertise- 
ment already  on  record.  (L.  1899,  ch.  5,  sec.  1;  R.  S.  1899, 
sec.  2526.) 

XoTF. — Forms  for  application  for  regristration  are  not  fur- 
nished. 

The  fees,  as  above  stated,  are :  For  registration,  $5  00 ;  for 
certificate  of  registration.  $5.00. 

Three  fac-similes  or  copies  of  the  label,  trademark,  .stamp  or 
form  of  advertisement  should  accompany  the  application  for 
registration;  one  to  be  attached  to  the  declaration,  one  for  use 
on  the  certificate  of  registration,  and  one  for  tlie  record. 


APPENDIX  G. 

CANADA. 

CIRCULAR  of  the  Department  of  A;4riculture  containing  "T]\c  Trade 
Mark  and  Design  Act"  and  "The  Timber  Marking  Act"  with 
Rulea  and  Fornin  luider  tlie  Harae,  approved  by  the  Cioveruor  Gen- 
eral   in   Cuuneil. 

IDlf). 

CHARTER  71. 
AN  ACT  roBpecting  Trade  Marks  and  Industrial  Designs. 

SHORT  TITLE, 

1.  Thi.9  act  may  ha  cited  as  the  Trade  Mark  and  Design  Act. 
(R.  S.,  c.  63,  s.  1.) 

GENERAL  INTERPRETATION. 
"[Minister." 

2.  Ill  this  act,  uiik's,s  the  context  other\vi.se  requires,  "Min- 
ister" means  the  Minister  of  Agriculture. 

DIVISION  OF  ACT. 

3.  This  act  is  divided  into  three  parts.  Part  I  applies  only 
to  trade  marks.  Part  II  applies  only  to  industrial  designs,  but 
does  not  apply  to  any  design  the  proprietor  of  which  is  not  a 
person  resident  within  Canada,  nor  to  any  design  which  is  not 
applied  to  a  subject-matter  manufactured  in  Canada.  Part  III 
is  general  and  applies  to  botli  trade  marks  and  industrial  de- 
signs.    (R.  S.,  c.  63,  ss.  2,  24  and  36.) 

PART   I.— TRADE  ^lARKS. 

INTERPRETATION. 

Definitions. 

'4.    In  this  part,  unless  the  context  other-\vise  requires — 

^(o)  "general  trade  mark"  means  a  trade  mark  ased  in  con- 
nection with  the  sale  of  various  articles  in  which  a  pro- 
prietor deals  in  liis  trade,  business,  occupation  or  call- 
ing generally ; 
(&)  "specific  trade  mark"  means  a  trade  mark  used  in  con- 
nection -with  the  sale  of  a  class  merchandise  of  a  par- 
ticular description.     (R.  S.,  c.  63,  s.  4.) 

831 


g32  AIM'KNDIX   G. 

W  tint    f-li«n   1m-  .1.-.  iiiiii   to   l.<-   tniilr  iiiaikH. 

.'».  All  marks,  iiainos.  Inlx-ls.  brands,  packatrcs  or  other  husi- 
tn'ss  tl»»vii'i>s  whirli  an'  adopted  for  use  by  any  person  in  liis 
tradf.  biisinos.s.  m'cupation  or  (•allin^^  for  tlie  piirpo.se  of  distin- 
piishinp  any  manufaetnre.  prodiiet  or  article  of  any  deseription 
niantifaetured.  pnxlneed.  eonipotind»*d.  packed  or  olTered  for 
salt^  by  hint.  applie<l  in  any  manner  \vhat«'ver  either  1o  such 
manufaetun'.  product  or  article,  or  to  any  j>ackafre.  parcel,  case, 
box  or  other  v«'ssel  or  receptacle  of  any  description  whatsoever 
eontaininjr  the  same,  shall,  for  the  purposes  of  this  act,  bo 
<-onsidered  and  known  as  tra<le  marks.      (  K.  S..  c.  G;J,  s.  3.) 

Aft   to   timtxT   or   lumtur. 

6.  Timber  or  lumber  of  any  kind  upon  which  labor  has  been 
expended  by  any  person  in  his  trade.  busin«'ss.  occupation  or 
calliufr.  shall,  for  the  pttrposes  of  this  act.  be  deeraetl  a  manu- 
facture, product  or  article.     (R.  S..  e.  63.  s.  3.) 

SEAL. 

Seal   and   itn  use. 

7.  The  minister  may  cause  a  seal  to  be  made  for  tlie  pur- 
l)oses  of  this  part,  and  may  cause  to  be  .sealed  therewith  trade 
marks  and  other  instruments,  and  copies  of  such  trade  iiuirks 
and  other  instruments,  proceediiifr  from  his  oflice  in  relation  to 
trade  marks.      (R.   S..  c  63.  s.  7.) 

RK(JISTU.\T!()N. 
RfgiBter   to   \<r   kept. 

S.  A  repi.ster  shall  be  kept  at  the  I)e|)ar1iiient  of  Aprriculture 
for  the  rejristration  of  trade  marks.      (  R.  S..  c.  63.  s.  5.) 

iti-jfiMtratioii    \>\    Minister. 

9.  Subject  to  the  |)rovisions  of  this  act.  the  minister  shall  on 
application  duly  made  in  that  behalf,  n^fjister  therein  the  trade 
mark  of  any  pro|)rietor  ajjplyinj:  for  stich  re«;istration  in  man- 
ner as  provided  by  this  a<-t  in  that  behalf  and  by  the  rules  and 
refrulations  mad.-  thereunder.      (l{.   S..  <•.  63.  ss.  5  and  8.) 


CANADIAN    TKADK.M  \|{K    AND    DESIGN    ACT.  833 

Nature   of   Iriidt;  mark    Ui  he   hjx  cif'ud. 

10.  Every  i)n)pri('tor  of  a  trade  mark  who  applies  for  its  ref?- 
istratioii  sliall  slate  in  his  application  whetlirr  tin-  s<ii(l  tnuJe 
mark  is  intended  to  l»e  used  as  a  ^M-neral  trade  mark  or  a  spe- 
citic  trade  mark.     (1{.  S.,  e.  li."},  s.  U.) 

MinihttT  may  nfust-  to  rogiBtcr  trade  mark    in   rcrtain   raHCB. 

11.  Tlie  mini.ster  may  refuse  to  register  any  trade  mark — 
(a)   if  he  is  not  satisfied  that  the  applicant  is  undoubtedly 

entitled  to  the  exclusive  use  of  sueh  trade  mark; 

{b)  if  the  trade  mark  propo.sed  for  registration  is  identical 
witii  or  resembles  a  trade  mark  already  rep-istered  ; 

(r)  if  it  ai)i)ears  that  the  trade  mark  is  calculated  to  deeeive 
or  mislead  the  public ; 

{(1)  if  the  trade  mark  contains  any  immorality  or  scandal- 
ous fifjfure ; 

(e)  if  the  so-called  trade  mark  does  not  contain  the  es-sen- 
tials  necessary  to  constitute  a  trade  mark,  properly 
speaking.     (54-55  V.,  c,  35,  s.  1.) 

T^cfiTpnce    to    the    Exclicqucr    Court. 

12.  The  minister  may,  in  any  ease  in  the  last  preceding  sec- 
tion mentioned,  if  he  thinks  fit,  refer  the  matter  to  the  Ex- 
checpier  Court  of  Canada,  and,  in  that  event,  such  court  shall 
have  juri.s<liction  to  hear  and  determine  the  matter,  and  to  make 
an  order  determining  whether  and  subject  to  what  conditions, 
if  any,  registration  is  to  be  permitted.     (54-55  V.,  c.  35,  s.  1.) 

How    ropistratioii    may    l)c    efTcctcd. 

13.  Subject  to  the  foregoing  provisions,  the  proprietor  of  a 
trade  mark  may,  on  forwarding  to  the  minister  a  drawing  and 
description  in  duplicate  of  sucii  trade  mark,  and  a  ilcclaration 
that  the  same  was  not  in  use  to  his  knowledge  by  any  other 
person  than  himself  at  the  time  of  his  adoption  thereof,  together 
with  the  fee  required  by  this  act  in  that  liehalf.  and  on  other- 
wise complying  with  the  provisions  of  this  act  in  relation  to 
trade  marks  and  with  the  rules  and  regulations  made  thereunder, 
have  sucji  trade  mark  registered  for  his  own  exclusive  use. 


S:U  AI'l'tNULX    <i 

KxcluHivp  rljrht  to  truilt'  nmrk. 

■J.  iluTi-aftfr  such  pn^prirtor  shall  have  tin-  rxclusivc 
rinht  to  usf  the  traiU'  mark  to  ih'sijfnatc  artirhs  maiiufai- 
turt'd  or  sold  liy  him.     ^  K.  S.,  c.  ('»:{.  ss.  .1,  ;"),  H  and  i:{.) 

t'rrtifloatf  of  r<  jjistrntion. 

]\.  rpoii  iiiiy  trade  mark  hoiiiff  rffjistorrd  under  this  ad.  the 
niiMist«'r  shall  n'tuni  to  the  proprietor  re^'isteriii}.:  the  same  one 
eopy  of  the  drawing'  and  de.seription  forwarded  to  him  with  & 
eertificate  signed  l»y  the  minister  to  the  effect  that  tiie  said 
trade  mark  has  heen  duly  reiristi-n^d  in  accordance  with  the  [>ro- 
visioiis  of  this  act ;  and  the  day,  month  and  year  of  the  entry 
of  the  trade  mark  in  the  repister  sliall  also  be  set  forth  in  such 
certificate.     (R.  S.,  c.  6.^  s.  13.) 

ASSIGNMENT. 

'I'radc  iiiarkH  may   In-  assi^MU'd. 

15.  Every  trade  mark  retristercd  in  the  office  of  the  minister 
shall  he  a.ssipnahle  in  law. 

Kntry. 

2.  On  the  a.s.sipnm<'nt  heinp  produced,  and  the  fee  hy 
this  act  prescrihed  therefor  heinp  paid,  the  minister  shall 
cause  the  name  of  the  assirrnee.  with  the  date  of  the  assign- 
ment and  such  other  detaik  as  he  sees  fit.  to  he  entered  in 
the  margin  of  the  register  of  trade  marks  on  the  folio  where 
such  trade  mark  is  registered.     (R.  IS.,  c.  iiii.  s.  10.) 

TIMK   I.I  .MIT. 
Duration    of  ^ciwral    tradr   mark. 

16.  A  general  tnide  mark  once  registen-d  and  destined  to 
be  the  sign  in  trade  of  the  |)roprietor  thereof,  shall  endure  with- 
out limitation.     (H.  S.,  c.  f).'{,  s.  14. ^ 

.•\inl    of    H|ti-cilii-    triuir    mark. 

17.  A  s[»ccific  tradi-  mark,  when  registered,  shall  endure  for 
the  term  of  twenty-five  years,  hut   may  be  renewed  before  the 


CANADIAN    TIIADKMAKK     AND    DKSICN    A(T.  8:J5 

oxpirntion  of  tho  said  tonn  hy  IIk-  projjrictor  tlicrcof,  or  hy  his 
\e^nl  ri'pri'soutativt',  for  anotlicr  term  of  twenty-five  years,  and 
so  on  from  time  to  time;  hut  every  such  renewal  shall  he  rejriK- 
tercd  hefore  the  expiration  of  the  current  term  of  twenty-five 
years.     (K.  S.,  e.  G3,  s.  14.) 

CANCELLATION. 
("iUK'tllation    of   trade   mark. 

18.  Any  person  who  has  registered  a  trado  mark  may  peti- 
tion for  the  oancfllation  of  the  same,  and  the  minister  may,  on 
re(^eivin^  such  petition,  cause  the  said  trade  mark  to  l)e  so  can- 
celled. 

KfTcct  of  cancellation. 

2.  Sueii  trade  mark  shall,  after  such  cancellation,  he 
considered  as  if  it  had  never  heen  registered  under  the  name 
of  the  said  person.     (K.  S.,  c.  68,  s.  15.) 

RIGHT  OF  ACTION 
Suit  l)y  proprietor. 

19.  An  action  or  suit  may  he  maintained  hy  any  proprietor 
of  a  trade  mark  against  any  i)erosn  who  uses  the  registered  trade 
mark  of  such  proprietor,  or  any  fraudulent  imitation  thereof, 
or  who  sells  any  article  hearing  .such  trade  mark  or  Any  sucJi 
imitation  thereof,  or  contained  in  any  package  of  such  proprietor 
or  purporting  to  be  his,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  act. 
(R.  S.,  c.  63,  s.  18.) 

Xo  suit  unless  trade  mark  is  registered. 

20.  No  person  shall  institute  any  proceeding  to  prevent  the 
infringement  of  any  trade  mark,  unless  such  trade  mark  is  regis- 
tered in  pursuance  of  this  act.     (R.  S.,  c.  63,  s.  10.) 

OFFENSES  AND  PENALTIES. 
Unlawful   use  of  trade   mark. 

21.  Every  p(M-son  other  than  the  proprietor  of  any  trade 
mark  who,  with  intent  to  deceive  and  to  induce  any  person  to 
believe  that  any  article  of  any  description  whatsoever  was  manu- 


s:{r>  AiM'KNnix  a. 

Pai'turecl,  pnnlin'o*!.  i-onipoiuult'd.  pjukod  or  sold  hy  the  pro- 
pru'tor  of  siirh  tnidc  iiwirk.— • 

(a)  marks  any  such  tirtioK'  with  any  tradf  mark  rt'^istrrcil 
under  tho  provisions  of  this  act,  or  with  any  part  of  such 
tradr  mark,  whether  hy  apply  iiij^'  sm-h  t  rade  mark  or  any 
part  thereof  to  the  article  itself  or  to  any  package  or 
tliinp  containinp  such  article,  or  hy  iisin<.r  any  jiackape 
or  thinpso  marked  wliich  lias  heen  used  l>y  the  i)roprie- 
tor  of  such  trade  mark;  or. 

(b)  knowinply  sells  or  offers  for  sale  any  such  article  marked 
with. such  trade  mark  or  with  any  part  thereof; 

I'nuilt  y. 

is  piiilty  of  an  indictable  offense  and  liable  for  each  offense  to 
a  fine  nf>t  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars  and  not  less  than 
twenty  dollars. 

To   wlmm    ])ayalilc. 

2.  Such  fine  shall  he  paid  to  the  proprietor  of  .such  trade 
mark,  together  with  liie  costs  incurred  in  cnftfrcinp  and 
recovering  the  same. 

Suit  liy    proprietor  or   his   ajrcnt. 

3.  Every  complaint  under  this  s<N'tion  siialJ  )»o  imide  hy 
the  proprietor  of  sui-h  trade  nuirk.  or  hy  some  one  ac^tinp  on 
his  behalf  i\U([  thereunto  Hul.\-  auttioi-i/h'd.    ( \i.  S..  c.  iV.\,  .s.  17.) 

WAKIJA.N'TV    ri'ON    SAIyE. 
Warranty   tliat   trade  mark   i«  piiuinc. 

22.  Upon  the  sale  or  in  tKe  contract  for  the  .sale  of  any  poody? 
to  which  a  trade  mark,  or  mark,  or  trade  dcs<'ripti(Tn  bus  been 
ai^I)lied,  the  vendor  shall,  unless  the  contrary-  is  expressed  in 
some  writinp,  sipiied  hy  or  on  behalf  of  the  vendor,  and  Jeliv- 
erf  d  at  the  time  of  the  sale  or  contract  to  and  accepted  by  the 
Vendee.  })c  deemed  to  warrant  that  the  n>ark  is  a  irenuine  trade 
mark  and  not  forced  or  falsely  applied,  or  that  the  trade  de- 
scription is  not  a  false  trade  description  within  the  mcauing  of 
Part  VII  of  the  Criminal  Code.     (51  V.,  c.  41,  s.  18.) 


TANADIAN     'IK  ADI M  AKK      \M)    DKsKiN     AC'l".  837 

I'AIM     11.      INDl  sriM.Al.    DKSIGNS. 
l{i:(;lSTI{.\Tli)N. 

Tll"j;iHt<T    of,     (<(    l(f    kept. 

!2H.  T]iv  minister  sliall  cause  1c)  he  kepi  a  hook  to  Ix-  calhMl 
llio  K(;<i;ist('r  of  liidnsti'lal  Desif^iis,  for  llie  rctrisi  rat  ion  therein 
of  iiulustrial   desij^iis.      (  H.  S..  c.  (h\.  s.  li'J.) 

1  )iitu  in;.'   iiiitl    di'script  i<iii    tn    he   (tcp<isitc<l. 

24.  'Vhv  proprietoi'  a|)|)lyin^'  lor  the  I'ej^ist ration  of  any  df-'si^n 
shall  deposit  with  the  minister  a  drawinfij  and  description  in 
duplifati^  of  tlui  sanui,  tot^i^lhei*  with  a  declaration  that  th<'  sain«r 
was  not  in  use  to  his  knowU^dge  hy  any  other  i)erson  than  him- 
self at  the  time  of  his  adoption  thereof.     (R.  S.,  c.  63,  s.  22.) 

]v\ainiiiati<iii    prior    to    rrjiistralioii. 

25.  On  receipt  of  tiie  fee  prescribed  hy  this  act  in  that 
behalf,  the  minister  shall  cause  any  design  for  which  the  pro- 
prietor has  made  application  for  registry  to  l)e  (examined  to 
ascertain  wh(^ther  it  r(^seinl)les  any  oilier  tlesign  already  regis- 
tered.     (K.  b.,  c.  63,  s.  22.) 

Registration   of  design — Proviso. 

26.  The  minister  shall  register  the  design  if  he  finds  that 
it  is  not  identical  witli  or  does  not  so  closely  re.s«nnble  any  other 
design  already  registered  as  to  be  confounded  therewith  ;  and 
he  shall  return  to  the  proprietor  thereof  one  copy  of  the  draw- 
ing and  description  with  the  certificate  required  by  tliis  part : 
Provided  that  he  may  refuse,  subject  to  appeal  to  the  Governor 
in  Council,  to  register  such  designs  as  do  not  appear  to  him  to 
be  within  the  provisions  of  this  part  or  any  design  which  is 
contrary  to  public  morality  or  order.     (R.  S.,  c.  63,  ss.  22  and  27. ) 

Certificate  of  Minister., 

27.  On  the  copy  of  the  drawing  and  description  returned  to 
the  person  registering,  a  certificate  shall  be  given,  signed  by  the 
Minister  or  the  Deputy  iMinister  of  Agriculture  to  the  effect 
that  such  design  has  been  duly  registered  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  this  act. 


^.i>  AITKNPIX    C. 

PnrtiruIiirH    tluTctif. 

2.  SiicJj  fortificat.'  sluill  show  the  (Lite  of  roRistration  in- 
oludiiif:  tlif  tiay.  moiitli  aiul  yt-ar  of  tlu'  ontry  tluTcof  in  the 
proper  resistor.  tlu>  naiiu-  and  atMross  of  the  rcjristonMl  pro- 
prietor, th.'  mim'u'r  of  sm-h  (h'sinii  and  the  iimidu'r  or  letter 
empl«»y»'il  to  denote  or  eorre.sl>oiid  to  the  n-pistratioii. 

('(•rtinontc  t«>  1h;  tvidniri'  of  imitiiitH. 
:{.  The  said  certifieato.  in  the  ahsence  of  proof  to  the  con- 
trary, shall  he  suflu'ient  evidence  of  the  dcsi^Mi.  of  the  origi- 
nality of  the  design,  of  the  name  of  the  proprietor,  of  the 
person  named  as  proprietor  heincr  proprietor,  of  the  eom- 
mencenient  and  term  of  repistry.  and  of  eomplianee  with 
the  provisions  of  this  act.     (R.  S.,  e.  (hi,  ss.  22  an.l  28.) 

Wlio    may    rr;:istfr. 

28.  Tf  the  author  of  any  design  shall,  for  i  good  and  valuable 
eonsidenition.  have  executed  the  same  for  some  other  person,  such 
other  person  shall  alone  be  entitled  to  register  it.  (R.  S.,  c.  63, 
s.  25.) 

EXCLUSIVE  RIGHT, 

■Rcpiatrntinn    ;;ivps. 

29.  'An  excliLsive  right  for  an  industrial  design  may  he  ac- 
quired hy  registration  of  the  same  under  this  part.  (R.  S.,  c.  63, 
s.  29.) 

rhiration   of   rijrht — Ronownl — Proviso. 

30.  Such  exclusive  right  shall  he  valid  for  the  term  of  five 
years,  hut  may  he  renewed,  at  or  hofore  the  expiration  of  the 
said  term  of  five  years,  for  a  further  period  of  five  yea  in  or  less 
on  payment  of  the  fee  in  this  act  prescrihed  for  extension  of 
time:  l'rovi<h<t  that  the  whole  dunition  of  the  exclusive  rijilit 
shall  not  exceed  ten  years  in  all.     (R.  S.,  c  63,  s.  29.) 

\]*\im  di'Hi^oi   witlioiit    Icnvi — rnliiwfjil. 

31.  During  the  oxistenre  of  such  exehisive  right,  whether  of 
the  entire  or  partial  use  of  such  design,  no  persoi\  shall,  without 
the   li.•en.s<^  in    writing  of   the   registered    proprietor,   or,   if   as- 


CANADIAN'    TKADKMAHK     AM)    nF-:KI<;N    ACT.  839 

signed,  of  liis  assiKnoc,  apply  for  tho  purposes  of  sale  sueh  design 
or  a  frauduli'iif  iiiiitation  tlicreof  to  the  oniarnenting  of  any 
urtiflc  of  iiiaimfiicttire  or  other  artiele  to  which  an  industrial 
design  iiuiy  lie  applitd  or  attached,  or  publish,  sell  or  expose  for 
sale  or  use,  any  such  article  as  aforesaid  to  whioh  such  design  or 
fraudulent  imitation  tliereof  has  been  ai)plied.  (R.  S.,  c.  G'i, 
s.  31.) 

PROPRIETOKSHIP. 

Who  sliall   111'  (Ici'iiifd   proprietor. 

32.  The  author  of  any  design  shall  be  considered  the  pro- 
prietor thereof  unless  he  has  executed  the  design  for  another 
person  for  a  good  or  valuable  consideration,  in  which  ease  such 
other  person  shall  be  considered  the  proprietor. 

Acquired  right. 

2.  The  right  of  such  other  person  to  the  property  shall 
only  be  co-extensive  with  the  right  whieh  he  has  ae(juired. 
{R.  S.,  e.  63,  s.  25.) 

ASSIGNMENTS. 
Design    to    he    assignable. 

33.  Every  design  shall  be  assignable  in  law,  either  as  to  the 
whole  interest  or  any  undivided  part  thereof,  by  an  instrument 
in  writing  which  shall  be  recorded  in  the  office  of  the  mini.ster 
on  payment  of  the  fees  prescribed  ])y  this  act  in  that  behalf. 

Right    to    use    design. 

2.  Every  proprietor  of  a  design  may  grant  and  oonvey 
an  exclusive  right  to  make,  use  and  vend  and  to  grant  to 
others  the  right  to  make,  u.se  and  vend  such  design  within 
and  throughout  Canada  or  any  part  thereof  for  the  unex- 
pired tenn  of  its  duration  or  any  part  thereof. 

License. 

3.  Such  exclusive  graiH  and  conveyance  shall  be  called  a 
license,  and  shall  be  recorded  in  like  manner  and  time  a.s 
assignments.     (R.  S.,  c.  63,  s.  30.) 


g40  ^'''■'  ^I'l^  '•■ 

PROTKlTlON   OF  IMISIGN. 
I  uiiilitioiis    of    rtvixtrutioii. 

:U.  In  ord.T  that  any  dcsi^'n  may  hr  |.rnt»M't(Ml.  it  shall  he 
ropistcred  boforo  puhlicntion.  and.  after  registration,  the  name 
of  the  proprietor  shall  appear  ijpon  the  artiele  to  which  his 
ilesijrn  applies  l»y  heinj;  marked,  if  the  manufaetnre  is  a  woven 
fnhrie.  on  one  end  thereof,  together  with  the  letters  /?'/.,  and, 
if  the  mainifacture  is  of  any  other  suhstanee.  with  the  letters 
Jul.,  and  the  year  of  registration  at  the  edge  or  upon  any  con- 
venient part  thereof. 

How    mark    sliall    lir    npjilird. 

2.  The  nKirk  may  he  put  upon  thf  manufacture  hy  niak- 
inp  it  on  the  material  itself,  or  hy  attaching  thereto  a  lal)el 
yr\t\\  the  proper  marks  thereon.     (J^    S..  c.  63,  s.  24.) 

RIGHT  OP  ACTION. 
Sjiit  by   proprii'tor. 

35.  If  any  person  applies  or  imitates  any  design  for  the 
purpose  of  sale,  being  aware  that  the  proprietor  of  such  de.sigii 
ha.s  not  given  his  consent  to  such  application,  an  action  may  be 
maintained  hy  the  proprietor  of  such  design,  against  such  person 
for  the  damages  such  proprietor  ha.s  sustained  hy  reason  of  such 
application  or  imitation.     ( H.  S..  c.  6:^,  s.  3.5.) 

OFFENSES  AND  PENALTIES. 
Violation  of  this  Part. 

.30.  Every  person  who,  in  \nolation  of  the  provisions  of  this 
part,  during  the  existence  of  the  exclusive  right  a(^piired  for 
any  industrial  design  by  the  registration  of  the  same  under  this 
part,  whether  of  the  entire  or  partial  use  of  such  design,  without 
the  license  in  writing  f>f  the  rct'istcrcd  projirictor.  or.  if  assigne<i. 
of  his  a.s8ignee, — 

hy   Hjtjilyin;.'   (IcHifru 

(a)  for  the  purposes  of  sale,  applies  or  attaches  such  design 
or  a  fraudulent  imitation  thereof  to  the  ornamenting  of 
any  article  of  manufacture  or  other  article  to  which  an 
industrial  design  may  be  ajtplicd  or  attached;  or, 


CANADMN    TK  \I)i:.M  \I(K     AND    l>I>;iriN    ACT.  841 

By  Holliny  iirticlc  with  (IcHi;;ii  irn|.r<i|Hrly  iipiilicil. 
(h)  puMishcs,  sells  or  exposes  for  sale  or  for  use,  any  artiffle 
of  iiiaiiiifaetiire  or  other  article  to  wliieli  an  industrial 
(losi{,Mi  may  he  ai^plied  or  atlaclnd  and  to  uhjeli  such 
desifzn  or  frauduh-nt  imitation  thereof  ha.s  heen  applied 
or  attached, 

T'riialty. 
shall  forfeit  a  sum  not  exceeding  one  hundred  and  twenty  dol- 
lars and  not  les.s  than  twenty   dollars  to  t)ie   proprietor  of  the 
desigri  so  applied. 

Rucovcry. 
2.     Su'ch  sum  shall  he  recoverahle  with  costs  on  summary 
conviction   under  Part  XV  of  the  Criminal   Code   by  the 
regristered  proprietor  or  assicrnee.     (R.  S.,  c.  63,  s.  31.) 

Falsely  roprescnting  an  article  as  liavin<r  a  registered  dosi^m. 
37.     Every  person  who, — 

(a)  places  the  word  licgisterefJ  or  the  letters  Rd.  upon  any 
article  for  which  no  design  has  heen  registered  under 
this  part  or  upon  any  article  for  the  design  of  which  the 
exclusive  right  has  expired  ;  or, 

(h)  advertises  for  sale  as  a  registered  article  any  article  for 
whicli  no  design  has  heen  registered  or  for  the  design 
of  which  the  exclusive  right  has  expired;  or, 

(c)  unlawfully  sells,  pnhlishes  or  exposes  for  sale  any  ar- 
ticle for  which  no  design  has  heen  registered,  or  for  the 
design  of  which  the  exclusive  right  has  expired,  and  on 
which  the  word  Beqisfprcrl  or  the  letters  7?^.  have  heen 
placed.  knoAving  the  said  article  to  have  heen  fraudu- 
lently marked  or  the  exclusive  right  to  such  design  to 
have  expired ; 

Penalty, 
shall  for  each  offense  be  liable  to  a  penalty  not  exceeding  thirty 
♦lollars  and  not  less  than  four  dollars. 

•  Recovery. 
2.     Such  penalty  shall  be  recoverable  on  summary  con- 
viction under  Part  XV  of  the  Criminal  Code  with  co.sts  by 
any  person  who  sues  for  the  same. 


842  A I '1  "UN  1)1  X  a. 

A|>|ilii'ation. 

.'{.  A  nioit'ty  of  such  pt'iialty  shall  lu-lon^  t^  the  jirose 
cutor.  and  the  other  moiety  to  His  Majesty  for  the  public 
uses  of  Canada      (K.  S..  c.  G'^,  s.  :V2.) 

LIMITATION  OK  ACTIONS. 

'riiiif. 

38.  All  .suits  under  this  part  and  all  proccedinps  thereunder 
for  ofTen.ses,  shall  he  brought  within  twelve  months  from  the 
eause  of  aetion  or  connnission  of  the  ofTense  and  not  afterwards. 
(R.  S.,  c.  63,  s.  36.) 

PART    HI.— GKN'KKAL. 

RULE.S,  REGULATIONS  AND  FX3RMS. 

Minister    may    make    rulrs    and    adojit    forms. 

.3f>.  Th(^  minister  may,  from  time  to  time,  subject  to  the 
approval  of  the  (iovernor  in  ("ouncil,  make  rules  and  regulations 
and  adojit  forms  for  the  purpo.ses  of  this  aet  respectinjjf  trade- 
marks and  industrial  desipns;  and  such  rules,  refrulations  and 
forms  circulated  in  print  for  the  use  of  the  public  shall  be 
deemed  to  be  correct  for  the  purposes  of  this  act, 

Doc'uiniiits    (liMincd    \ali(l. 

2.  All  documents  executed  according:  to  tbe  sjiid  rule.s, 
regulations  and  forniK,  and  accepted  by  the  minister,  .shall 
be  deemed  to  be  valid  so  far  as  i*elates  to  official  proceedings 

undr-r  this  act.     (K.  S.,  c.  (i3,  ss.  0  and  23.) 

CLERICAL  ERRORS. 

<  'iirri'ctidM. 

40.  Clerical  errors  which  occur  in  the  drau-inp  np  or  copy- 
ing of  any  in.strument  under  this  act  re.sj)ecting  trademarks 
or  industrial  designs  shall  not  be  construed  as  invalidating  the 
Hame,  but,  when  discovered,  may  be  corrected  under  the  author- 
it  v  of  the  minister.     (H.  S.,  c.  63,  ss.  21  and  38.) 


CANADIVN    TK Al)i;.M  AKK      \M)    DUSION    ACT.  843 

INSI'ECTION. 

InsiJC'ctioii    of    rcji'iHtrrH. 

41.  Any  person  may  bo  allowed  to  inspect  tlie  re^'ister  of 
trademarks  or  the  register  of  industrial  designs. 

Copiofl. 
2.  The  minister  ma\-  cause  copies  fd'  representations  of 
trade  marks  or  copies  of  representations  of  industrial  de- 
signs to  he  delivered  on  the  a|)f)lieant  for  the  same  f)aying 
the  fee  or  fees  |)rescrihed  hy  this  act  in  that  behalf.  (K.  S., 
c.  63,  ss.  'JO  and  :{7.) 

PROCEDURE   AS   TO   Rp:CTIFICATION   AND   ALTERATION. 
Exclu'<iucr  Court  may  rectify  entries. 

42.  The  Exchequer  Court  of  Canada  may,  on  tlie  informa- 
tion of  the  attorney  general,  or  at  the  suit  of  any  i)erson 
aggrieved  by  any  omission,  without  sufHeient  cause,  to  make 
any  entry  in  the  register  of  trade  marks  or  in  the  regi.ster  of 
industrial  designs,  or  by  any  entry  made  without  sufficient 
eause  in  any  such  register,  make  such  order  for  making, 
expunging  or  varying  any  entry  in  any  such  register  as  the 
court  thinks  fit ;  or  the  court  may  refuse  the  application. 

Costs. 

2.  In  either  case,  the  court  may  make  such  order  with 
respect  to  the  costs  of  the  proceedings  as  the  court  thinks  fit. 

Questions  to  be  decided. 

3.  The  court  may  in  any  proceedings  under  this  section, 
decide  any  question  that  may  be  necessary  or  expedient  to 
decide  for  the  rectification  of  any  such  register.  (54-55  V., 
e.  35,  s.  1.) 

Trade   mark   or  desifrn  may   be  corrected  l)y   the  court. 

43.  The  registered  proprietor  of  any  registere.d  trade  mark 
or  industrial  design  may  apply  to  the  Exchequer  Court  of 
Canada  for  leave  to  add  to  or  alter  any  such  trade  mark  or 
indu.strial  design  in  any  particular  not  being  an  essential  par- 
ticular, and  the  court  may  refuse  or  grant  leave  on  such  terms 
as  it  may  think  fit. 


sU  Al'lTN'OIX    G. 

Null.,     to    iiiiiiiHtfr. 

'2.  SoUco  of  ;Miy  intondod  applicntion  to  \\\o  conrt  under 
this  section  for  loavo  to  iuU\  to  or  altt-r  any  suth  Iradf  mark 
or  industrial  design  shall  ho  irivcn  to  tlif  niinistiT.  and  he 
shall  lu'  cntitlrii  t.>  t>.'  h<'ard  on  tlu'  aiiplicution.  (54-55  V., 
c.  35,8.  1.) 

ron»o<pi«Mil    n-ctificntiiin    of    rc^'iHtiT. 

44.  A  ocrtifiod  "-opy  of  any  order  of  the  court  for  the  inak- 
inp,  expuntrinjr  or  varying  of  any  entry  in  tlie  retrister  ot  trade 
marks  or  in  the  rejji.ster  of  industrial  designs,  or  for  adding  to 
or  altering  any  n>gistered  trade  mark  or  registered  industrial 
design,  shall  be  transmitted  to  the  ndinster  liy  the  Retristrar  of 
the  Court,  and  sueh  register  .shall  thereupon  be  rectified  or 
altered  in  conformity  with  .sueh  order,  or  the  purport  of  the 
order  otherwise  duly  entered  therein,  as  the  ease  may  be.  (R.  S., 
e.  i>i.  s.  M;  54-55  V.,  e.  :^5,  s.  1.) 

KVIDKNCE. 
No   proof   of   si;.'iiiitun'   of  fi-rtificate   rt-quirod. 

45.  Every  ^-ertifieate  under  this  act  that  any  trade  mark  or 
industrial  de.sign  has  been  duly  registered  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  this  act.  which  purports  to  be  signed  l)y  the 
Minister  or  the  Deputy  Minister  of  Agriculture  shall,  without 
proof  of  the  signature,  be  received  in  all  courts  in  Canada  as 
prima  facie  evidence  of  the  facts  therein  allcLrcd.  (11.  S.,  c.  63, 
.ss.  13,  22  and  28.) 

FEES. 
TrI)1«'   of   f«'»'8. 

40.  The  following  shall  be  the  fees  in  respect  to  registration 
under  this  act  which  shall  be  jtaid  lo  the  minister  in  advance, 
that  is  to  say: 

On   i-vtrv  upplicutioii  to  ri't,'iHt«r  u  ;,'<ii<ral   trmlr   mark,   iiulndiii},' 

n.rt.fhat-     $30  00 

•  »n  ••vi-rv  iipplication   to  rcpiHtiT  n   Hpcciflc  trndo  mark,   inchidinR 

.•.•rtifiratr     25  on 

On  every  apfiliration   for  tin-  renewal  of  tin'  rcK'^tration  of  a  8p«>- 

riflr  trade  mark,   including;  certiflcaU?   20  00 

On    e\ery    application    to   re;;i«ter   a   deni^rn,   including  ccrtiflcat*-.  .        Tj.OO 


CAN\I>IA.\    TIC AUK.M  AUK     AND    DKSKiN    ACT,  845 

On  ovcry  nppliontion  ns  to  a  (lrHi^;ii   for  an  ••xtriiHioii  of  timi-,   for 

fUfli  year  of  hucIi   cxtcnHioii,  incliKliii;,'  ccrtiCu-atr ^2  00 

For  a  copy   of  every  n-rtilicati'  of   rcf^iHtrution   wparute   from   tin- 

return     of    tlie    diiplioat*'     1   00 

For   tlie   recordiiif,'   of   every   aHHi;jnineiit    2  00 

For  eopieH  of  doounieiitH  not  al)ovc  mentioned,  for  every   hundred 

words    or    for    every    fracti<in    thereof     M 

For  each  copy  of  any  dravvin^  or  emhh-matic  trade  mark,  an<l 
ft)r  each  copy  of  any  drawn  copy  of  an  induHtriuI  denif^n, — tlie 
reaHonahle  expense  of  preparing  the  Hame.  ( II.  S.,  o.  03,  bs. 
10  and   2<i.) 

Tayahh"   to    Minister   of    Finance. 

47.  All  fees  received  hy  the  minister,  under  thi.s  act,  shall 
be  paid  over  by  him  to  tlic  Mini.ster  of  Finance.  (R.  S.,  c.  6:}, 
ss.  10  and  26.) 

Return  of  fees  if  application  is  refused. 

48.  In  ca.se  any  trade  mark  or  industrial  desi^Mi  in  respect  of 
which  application  for  refj^istry  is  made  under  this  act  shall  not 
be  registered,  all  fees  paid  the  minister  for  registration  shall  be 
returned  to  the  applicant  or  his  agent,  loss,  in  tlie  case  of  trade 
marks,  the  sum  of  five  dollars,  and  in  the  case  of  industrial  de- 
signs, the  sum  of  two  dollars,  which  shall  be  retained  as  com- 
pensation for  office  expenses.    (R.  S.,  c.  63,  ss.  10  and  26.) 

CHAPTER  72. 
AN  ACT  respecting  the  ^Marking  of  Timl)er. 

SHORT  TITLE. 

1.  This  act  may  be  cited  as  the  Timber  Marking  Act. 

MARKS  AND  SEGISTRATION. 
Persons  enpapod  in   himherir.f;    to  select,   register   and   use   proper  marks. 

2.  Every  person  engaged  in  the  business  of  lumbering  or  the 
getting  out  of  timber,  and  of  the  floating  or  rafting  of  the  same 
on  the  inland  waters  of  Canada,  within  the  Provinces  of  Ontario, 
Quebec  and  New  Brunswick,  .shall,  within  one  month  after  he 
engages  therein,  select  a  mark  or  marks,  and  cause  such  mark  or 
marks  to  be  registered  in  the  manner  herein  provided.  (R.  S., 
c.  64,  s.  1.    7-8  Edward  VII,  c.  72,  s.  1.) 


S4f".  APPKNDIX    G. 

Nimi^t<t     ••;     A^i  i<  iiltui.     (.■    i.;;l?«(<r    iimrkK    ami    iltlivi-r    ifrtififiitfi*. 

a.  The  Minister  of  Aprieulturo  shall  keep  at  the  Department 
of  Agriealture  u  hook  to  he  ealletl  the  Tiiiiher  Mark  Register, 
in  wiiieh  any  person  eiiKam'd  in  the  hnsiness  of  liiniheriniz  or  ^ret- 
tinp  out  tinil>er  as  aforesaid,  may  have  his  timl»er  mark  reps- 
tennl  upon  depositing  with  the  minister  a  drawinfj  or  impression 
and  dewription  in  duplicate  of  sueh  tiniher  mark,  tofiether  with 
a  declaration  that  the  sjime  is  not  and  was  not  in  use.  to  his 
knowledge,  hy  any  person  other  than  himself  at  the  time  of 
his  adoption  thereof. 

(>n   icrtain   londitiont* — CVrtificnt«'8  sliall   1»-  i-v ulcncc. 

2.  The  minister,  on  receipt  of  the  fee  hereinafter  pro- 
vided, sjuill  cause  the  said  timher  mark  to  1k^  examined,  to 
a-secrtain  whether  it  resemhles  any  other  mark  already  regis- 
tered :  and.  if  lie  finds  that  such  mark  is  not  identical  with, 
or  doe.s  not  so  closely  resemble  any  other  timber  mark  al- 
ready reiristercd  as  to  be  confounded  therewith,  he  shall 
repisttr  thi-  sam.'.  ami  shall  retuni  to  the  proprietor  thereof 
one  copy  of  the  drawinjr  and  de.«?(^ription.  with  a  certificate 
sifmed  by  the  Minister  or  the  Deputy  Minister  of  Apricul- 
ture,  to  the  eflFect  that  the  said  mark  has  been  duly  rejsristered 
in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  this  act ;  and  such  cer- 
tificate shall  further  set  forth  the  day.  month  and  year  of 
the  entry  thereof,  in  the  proper  reirister:  and  cvt-ry  such 
certificate  shall  be  received  in  all  courts  in  Canada  as  cn-i- 
denee  of  the  facts  therein  alle^red,  without  i)roof  of  the  sig- 
nature.   (R.  S..  c.  64,  s.  2.) 

Kxcliisi\r  ri;;lit  t«'  us.-  ri-;.'ist<r.<l  mark. 
4.  The  person  who  registers  such  timber  mark  shall  thereafter 
liave  the  exclusive  right  to  use  the  same,  to  designate  the  timher 
got  out  by  him  and  tloated  or  rafted  as  aforesaid;  and  he  shall 
put  the  same  in  a  conspicuous  place  on  each  log  or  piece  of 
timher  so  floated  or  rafle.l.     (\{.  S..  c  (;4.  ss.  1  an.l  M.) 

Markn    may    In-    <im<<ll<<l 

f).      Any   person   who  has  registered  n  timber  mark  iiuiy  peti- 
tion  for  the  carK-ellatir.ri  of  the  same,  and  the  minister  may,  on 


(•AN\I)I\N     IK  \I>1:M  MJK     \.\li    DKSKiN    ACT.  847 

receiving  such  petition,  cause  the  .said  mark  to  he  cancelled ;  and 
the  same  shall,  after  such  cain'cllatioii.  he  considered  as  if  it  had 
never  heeii  re^'istered  under  the  name  of  the  said  person.  (R.  S., 
c.  64,  s.  4.) 

Tlf^jiHteri'd    nmrkH   iiHHifjniilili-   ami    lm\v. 

(').  Every  tiinhor  mark  re^stered  at  the  Department  of  Agri- 
cultiire  shall  he  assi^niahle  in  law;  and,  on  tlie  production  of  the 
assit,Miment  and  the  payment  of  the  fee  hereinafter  mentioned, 
the  minister  shall  cause  the  name  of  the  assignee,  with  the  date 
of  the  assignment,  and  such  other  details  a.s  he  sees  fit,  to  he 
entered  on  the  inar^'iii  of  the  rej^ister  of  timher  marks  on  the 
folio  where  such  iiuirk  is  refjistered.     (R.  S.,  c.  64,  s.  5.) 

l)iir<Tcnt    iiiiirks    to    lie    used. 

7.  If  any  person  makes  application  to  register,  a.s  his  own, 
any  timl)er  mark  which  is  alreaily  refristered,  the  minister  shall 
give  notice  of  the  fact  to  such  person,  who  may  then  select  some 
other  mark  and  forward  the  same  for  registration.  (R.  S., 
c.  64,  s.  6.) 

rmliiliitioii  a;,'aiiist  iisiii;,'  anotliiT  pirsoii's  mark. 

8.  No  person,  other  tlian  the  person  who  lias  registered  the 
same,  shall  mark  any  timher  ©f  any  description  with  any  mark 
registered  *nder  the  provisions  of  this  act,  or  with  any  part 
of  such  mark.     (R,  S.,  c.  64,  s.  7.) 

PEES. 
Table    of    ft'os. 

9.  The  following  fees  shall  be  payable,  that  is  to  .say : 

On   ovorv   application  to  rt'j^'istcr  a  timlx-r  mark,   iiu'hidin;:  cfrtifi- 

cate    ". $2.00 

For   each   certificate   of   registration    not   already   provided    for ">0 

For  each  copy  of  any  drawing:,  tlie  reasonable  expenses  of  prepar- 
ing the   same. 

For    recording    any    assignment 1   00 

2.  Such  fees  shall  be  paid  over  by  the  Minister  of  Agri- 
culture to  the  ^Minister  of  Finance,  and  shall  form  part 
of  the  Consolidated  Revenue  Fund  of  Paiuida.  (R.  S., 
c.  64,  s.  8.) 


S48  APPENDIX  a. 

Minittt«T    may    miikc    ruli-x    and    lulnjit     forms. 

10.  Tlio  iiiiiiistiT  may,  from  tinu'  to  tiino,  suhjei-t  ti>  tin' 
approval  of  tlu"  (iovcrnor  in  ('ouiicil.  make  rules  and  rc^iiliitioiis 
ami  adopt  forms  for  tlu'  purposi's  of  this  att.     (  H.  S.,  c.  ('(4,  s,  fl.) 

OFFEINSES   AND   PKN.VLTU-S. 
Failinjr  to  wlort.  rr;;intrr  and  uhc  jiropi-r  niarkn  l>y   lutnlMrmaii,  «•(<•. — 

I'inalty. 

11.  Every  p«'rson  enpaped  in  the  business  of  lumherinp  or 
pettinp  out  timlu'r.  and  f!t)atinp  or  raftinp  the  same  on  the  inland 
waters  of  Canatla.  within  tlie  Provinces  of  Ontario.  Quchec  and 
N»'w  Hrunswiek.  who  fails,  within  one  month  after  he  enpapes 
tlierein.  to  select  a  mark  or  marks,  and  cause  sucli  mark  or  marks 
to  ho  repistered  in  the  manner  hereinbefore  provi(hMl,  or  to  put 
the  same  in  a  conspicuous  place  on  each  lop  or  piece  of  tin)J)er 
so  floated  or  raftetl.  shall  incur  a  penalty  of  fifty  dollars  (R.  i^.. 
c.  64,  s.  1.    7-S  Kdward  VII,  c.  72,  s.  2.) 

Markiii;:  tiniluT  with  a  mark  ri'j,'istfrc<l  liy  anothiT — 
r.niilty. 

12.  Every  person,  other  than  the  person  who  has  repistered 
the  same,  who  marks  any  timber  of  any  description  with  any 
mark  repistered  uniler  the  provisions  of  this  act,  or  with  any 
part  of  such  mark,  shall,  on  summary  conviction*)efore  two 
justices  of  the  peace,  l)e  liable,  for  each  ofTense,  to  a  penalty  not 
exceedinp  one  hundred  dollars  and  not  less  than  twenty  dollars, 
which  amount  shall  be  paid  to  the  proprietor  of  such  mark, 
topether  with  the  costs  incurred  in  fiiforciiiu'  and  recovcrinp  tlic 
same. 

Wlio   may    complain. 

2.  Every  complaint  of  violation  of  this  section  .shall  he  made 
by  the  proprietor  of  such  timber  mark,  or  by  some  one  actinp 
on  his  behalf  and  tln-rcunto  duly  authori/e<l.    (H.  S..  c.  (i4,  s.  7.) 

HI'LKS  AM)  I'OItMS  <.f  tli.-  |).|.artin<iit  of  A;:ri(iiltiirc  undir  tli- 
Tradr  Mark  and  DcHijfn  Act  and  tho  TimluT  Marking  Act.  Approval 
liv    the    (lovirnor    in    Conncil.    on    flir    "jritli    day    <»f    OcIoIht,     l!l(l7. 

KTLES. 
1.     There  is  no  necessity   for  any  personal  afipearance  at   the 
I).'[iar1niiMit  of  .Ntrriciilt iin-,  iiidcss  spi-cially  culled   for  by  order 


CANADIAN    TKADK.M  \KK      WD    DKHKJN    ACT.  849 

(tf  till'  minister  or  llic  dcpuly,  ovory  transaction  being  carried  on 
l)y  writing'. 

II.  Ill  every  ease  the  applieaiil  or  depositor  ot"  any  {)af»er  is 
responsible  for  the  merits  of  his  alh'gatiorus  and  lor  tlie  validity 
of  the  instruments  riirnished  hy  him  or  his  atrent. 

III.  The  correspondence  is  carried  on  witli  tlie  applicant  or 
hisapent.  i)iit  with  one  |)ers(»n  only,  and  will  Ix' conveyed  tbrough 
the  Canadian  mails  free  of  char^'c. 

IV.  All  papers  are  to  be  clearly  and  neatly  written  on  fools- 
cap paper,  and  every  word  of  them  is  to  be  distinctly  legible. 

Drawing's  are  not  to  cxcee(i  thirt«'en  inches  in  len-rtli  and  eight 
inches  in  width. 

V.  An  application  for  registration  shall  be  signed  by  the  ap- 
plicant or  by  an  agent  duly  authorized. 

A  partner  may  sign  for  a  firm.  A  director  or  secretary  or 
other  principal  officer  of  a  company  may  sign  for  the  company. 

VI.  All  communications  to  be  addressed  in  the  following 
words:  To  the  :\linister  of  Agriculture  (Trade-mark  and  Copy- 
right Branch),  Ottawa. 

VII.  As  regards  proceedings  not  specially  provided  for  in 
the  following  forms,  any  form  being  conformable  to  the  letter 
and  spirit  of  the  law  will  be  accepted,  and  if  not  so  conformable 
will  be  returned  for  correction. 

VIII.  A  copy  of  the  Act  and  the  Rules  with  a  particular  sec- 
tion marked,  sent  to  any  person  making  an  inquiry,  is  intended 
as  a  respectful  answer  by  the  office. 

TX.  Information  as  to  subsisting  registrations  will  not  be  fur- 
nished by  the  office,  the  registers  and  indexes  being  open  for 
inspection  free  of  charge. 


S50  M-PKN-niX   G. 

FOKMS. 

roUM    I       l)ttMI\lH\   (»F  (  ANADA. 

THK   TIlAltr.    Nf.MlK    AM)    DKSUiN    ACT. 

Application  for  r.j;istrntion  of  a  C.n.Tal  Trn.l.-  Mark  [To  br  made 
■in   liuplit'Otc.] 

I      |„r  wol    of    th.-   of    in   t\\v   of    , 

luril.y   r.Hjui-«t  you  to   n-niHt.r  in  tho  nnmc  of  ,  a  Ocncrnl  Trade 

Mark,  which  1  [or  wo]  v.-rily  U'licvo  in  mine  [or  ouraj,  on  account  of 
liavin;;  Uvn  the  first  to  niak.-  um.-  of  th.-  wmu'   I  or.  on  account  of  liavin^ 

aopiircd  it  from  ,  who,  1    [»r  wc]   v.rily  l)elieve,  was  [or  w.r.  ]   tlu; 

first  to  make  uw  of  the  Hani.|.  I  \<>r  \\r\  h.rcl.y  dcchirc  that  the  said 
Ceneral  Trade  Mark  waH  not  in  use  to  my  tor  our]  knowhdj,'e  hy  any 
other  person  than  myself  \<>r  ours«lv.sl  at  tlie  time  of  my  for  ourl 
adoption  thereof.  Tlie  said  General  Trade  Mark  ccmsista  of  [ver- 
bal description  of  the  trade  mark]. 

A  drawing  of  the  said  General  Trade  Murk   is  hereunto  annexed. 

Sitnied    at   .    this    day   of   ,    lU— ,    in    the    preaence 

of  the  two  undersijrnt-d  witneasee. 

WitneBSOS: 

To   the   Minister   of   Agriculturi'.   Ottawa. 

FORM  TI.— DOMINION  OF  CANADA. 

THE    TRADE     MARK     AND     DESIGN     ACT. 

Apjdication  for  re^'istration  of  n  Specific  Trade  Mark.  [To  be  made 
in  duplicate.] 

I     (,,r  wel    of   the   of i"    tlie   of    . 

herehy   request  you  to   repister   in   the   name  of  a   Speciflc  Trade 

Mark  to  he  used  in  connection  with  the  sale  of  which   I    [or  we) 

verily   heliev.'    is  mine    [or  ours]    on   account  of   havinj,'  heeii    the   first   to 

makt-  uw  of  the  same  [or,  on  account  of  having  acijuired  it  from  

who,  I  [or  wel  verily  helieve,  was  [or  were]  the  first  to  make  use  of 
the  same].  I  [or  we]  hereby  declare  tluit  the  said  Specific  Trademark 
was  not  in  use  to  my  [or  ourl  knowledge  hy  any  other  person  than 
mywlf  (or  ourM-lveal  at  the  time  of  my  for  ourl  adoption  thereof.  Tlu» 
said  Specific  Trade  Mark  consists  of  [rrrbnl  description  of  the  Trade  }fnrk]. 

A  drawing  of  the  said  Specific  Trade  Mark  is  hereui\to  annexed. 

Sipned    at   .   this   Jay   of   ,    15>— ,    i"    the    presence 

of  the  two  undersigned  witnesses. 

Witn.'SHes: 

To   the    Miniht»-r   of    Agriculture.    Ottawa. 


CANADIAN    TItADK.MAKK    ANP    DESKIN    ACT.  851 

riiKM    III.- Do.MIMiiN  mF  CANADA. 

THK  TUADK    MAUK    AM)   UKHKJ.N    ACT. 

Application  for  ri'^,MHtrati(in  of  nn  InduHlr'nil  DiHiMii  1 7'o  hi  m<iil<- 
in   (luplicdtc.l 

I,    \„r   we  I    of    of    ,    ill    tln'    Province    of    , 

Dominion    of    Cannda.    hfr('l)y    request   you    to    rc^iHt<'r    in    tht;    nami-    of 

,  an  Jiidustrial  Dt'Hi>,'n  of  a  ,  of  which   I    \or  we]  am   |  or  art-l 

tl,j.   proprietor    IhJ.      I    I  or  we]    dcdari'   that   the   waid    InduHtrial 

Design  was  not  in  use  to  my  \or  our|  knowh-dgc  liy  any  otlu-r  jx-rson 
than  myself  \ot  ourKclves]  at  tiie  time  of  my  [or  our]  adoption  thereof. 
The  said  Industrial  Desif^m  consists  of  [verbal  description  of  the  Industrial 
DcHifjn]. 

A   drawing    of   tlie    said    Industrial    Design    is   hereunto   anmxed. 

Signed    at  ,   this   day   of   ,    I'J — ,    in    the    presence 

of  the  two  undersigned  witnesses. 

Witnesses: 

The  Minister  of  Agriculture,  Ottawa. 

FORM   I\'.— DO.MIMON  OF  CANADA. 

THE    TIMIJER     MARKING     ACT. 

Application  for  registration  of  a  Timber  Mark.  [To  he  made  in 
duplicate.] 

I,    for  we)    of   the   of   in   the   of   , 

hereby   request   you  to  register    in   the   name   of  ,   a   Timber    Mark 

which  I  [or  we]  hereby  declare  is  not  and  was  not  in  use  to  my  [or 
our]  knowledge  by  any  person  other  than  myself  [or  ourselves]  at  the 
time  of  my  \or  our]  adoption  thereof.  The  said  timber  mark  consists 
of  [verbal  description  of  the  timber  mark]. 

A  drawing  of  the  said  timber  mark  is  hereunto  annexed. 

'  Signed    at  ,   this   day   of   ,    19—,   in   the    presence 

of  the  two  undersigned  witnesses. 

Witnesses: 

The  Minister  of  Agriculture,  Ottawa. 


APPKNDIX    H 

FORMS  OF  BILLS  AND  ANSWERS. 

DKtl.AKArioN. 
(Warinr  \.  P.-mIit.  V\i\.  Ciisr  No.   ITISHA.) 

Tn  till    I  ir»\ut  roiirt  <>f  the  I'liitrd  Stiit.-rt  in  mul   for  the 
Northrrn    District    of    Illinois. 


Ill  I.IIK.HT  H.  \\  AHNKIl,  Iriidiiij;  aiul 
<loin^'  InisincsH  umli-r  the  iiami' 
and  btvlr  of  n.   11.  \\  AHNKR  &   Co., 


(lis.-.      I)nmH;,'ts,  $2.'>,000. 

KllANK     I50KIIK.  J 

11.  II.  \V.,  a  citi/.i'ii  of  tin-  state  of  N<\v  York,  trading;  and  doinp  husi- 
ncM  undtr  tlu'  firm  narao  and  stylo  of  H.  H.  W  .  A;  Co.,  at  the  city  of 
RfK-h»'Bt<'r,  in  thi-  county  of  Monnn',  in  said  .state  of  New  York,  plaintiff, 
liv  W.  H.  H.  and  .1.  V.  I...  his  attorneys,  complains  of  V.  U..  a  citizen  of 
the  state  of  IllMH)is,  and  residing'  and  doinj;  hiisiness  at  tlie  city  of  Chi- 
cafio,  in  the  county  of  r(M)k,  in  the  said  state  of  Illinois  and  in  the  dis- 
trict aforesaid,  defendant,  of  a   plea  of   tn-spass  on   the  case. 

For  that  whereas,  tin-  said  plaintiff  shows  that  for  several  years  last 
part  he  has  Keen  en;;aped,  at  tlw  said  city  of  Hocliester,  in  the  nianti- 
facture  and  sah-  of  a  certain  nu-dieinal  pn-parati*>n  known  as  "War- 
ners Safe  Kidney  and  I.iv.r  lure,"  which  preparation  has  hecomc 
uidely  known  throu;ih  the  domain  of  comnxree,  and  especially  in  all 
jiarts  o{  the  I'nited  States,  as  a  valualile  medicine  for  various  kinds  of 
dis4-aHes  of   human   l)ein;.'s. 

That  in  the  introduction  of  said  medicinal  pr.  piuat ion,  and  to  hrin;: 
it  to  tlie  att«'ntion  of  the  puldic,  he  expended  in  advertisinjj  tiie  sum  of 
aUmt  five  hundred  tliousand  dollars  ($'»(>(),(l(KI ) ,  and  in  various  ways 
has  exjM'nded  enormous  sums  of  money  to  that  en«l;  tluit  for  a  In-tter 
protection  of  his  rijiht  as  proprietor,  manufacturer  and  vendor  of  said 
meilicine  he  has  caused  peculiar  hottles  to  In*  manufactured  to  contain 
the  hume.  which  Imttles  have  hlown  into  the  ^'lass  thereof  the  name  of 
Kaid  medicine,  an<I  whicli  luime  contains  a  wordsymlnd,  to-wit,  the 
wor<l  "Safe,"  as  the  esK«'ntial  element  of  a  trademark,  and  also  the 
Hvmholic  "tra<lemark"  consiKtinj;  of  the  npresentation  of  u  fireproof 
wife;  which  said  "trademark"  is  his  sole  pri>perty,  no  otlier  person, 
firm  or  corporation  liavinj,'  a  ri^'ht  to  tlu'  use  of  the  same,  eitlier  in  the 
identical  form  or   in  any  such   near  rewmhlance   thereto  as  might  he  cal- 

852 


FOKMS   OF   UUAJ^     \SD    AN'SWKKS.  853 

c'lilntod    to  di'ccivf",   nor   to   allix    to   nifdicinc    or   mcrolinn<liHr   of   HuliRtan- 
tiiilly   the  Hutnc  di-Hcriptivo  propcrticH  nh  IiIh  nifdiciiic  nfon-Haid. 

Thttt  iM'injj  tlie  owiu-r  of  Huid  "trudcinurk."  I>y  virtui-  of  priority  of 
udoptioii,  ill  conncctioM  tvitli  t^aid  incdiciiic,  tliiH  pluintitf  cuuH«'d  thi; 
Banu'  to  lie  n-cordfd  in  tlif  l'at«'iit  <  Ulicf  of  the  l'nit<'«l  Statt-H,  with  a 
Htatciufiit  Hpcc'ifyiii^  his  name,  domicili-,  location  and  citi/.i-nHliip;  tin? 
olawH  of  miTfliandiHr  aiul  tin-  particular  dcHcrijition  of  /:oodH  com- 
prised in  tlic  <'lass  to  wiiicli  tlic  particular  "trademark"  liad  Imth  appro- 
priated \>y  him;  also  a  dcHcrijition  of  tlir  "tradrniark"  itwdf  with  fac- 
similca  thereof,  and  a  statement  <>f  tlie  nnidc  in  which  the  aame  ia  appli(Kl 
and  adixed  to  {,'oods  and  tlie  len;jtli  of  time  diirinjj  which  the  said 
"trademark"   has  heen   used   hy   him    for  tlie  purpose  r.foroBai<l. 

IMaintiir  further  shows  that  he  paid  into  the  treasury  of  the  United 
States  the  sum  of  twenty-five  ilollars  ($2."). 00)  and  complied  with  the 
regulations  prescrihed  l>y  the  Commissioner  of  J'atents  as  provided  in 
the  act  of  ct)n'rres8  entitled  "An  act  to  authorize  the  registration  of 
trademarks  and  jjrotect  the  same,  '  approved  March  3,  1881,  as  will  more 
fully  appear  by  reference  to  the  certificate  of  registry  of  said  trade- 
mark, numbered  OoOT,  dated  the  8th  day  of  August,  1882,  signed  by  E. 
M.  Marble,  Commissioner  of  Patents,  and  attested  by  the  seal  of  the 
Department  of  the  Interior,  wliich  certificate  is  hereto  attached  and 
made   jiart    of   this   declaration. 

Plaintiff  further  shows  that  said  "trademark"  is  applied  and  affixed 
to  goodj  by  blowing  it  in  the  glass,  as  aforementioned,  and  by  printing 
it  on  paper,  which  in  the  form  of  lal)els  is  afterwards  pasted  on  the 
bottles  containing  the  medicine,  and  it  is  also  printed  on  wrappi-rs,  or 
otherwise  affixed  to  packages  to  be  used  in  any  manner  calculated  to 
notify   purchasers  of  the  contents  and  to  guard  against  fraud. 

This  plaintiff  shows  that  he  is  the  sole  owner  by  right  of  priority  of 
adoption  and  use  of  a  c«'rtain  other  trademark  consisting  of  a  fac- 
aimilc  of  liis  firm  signature,  "H.  H.  Warner  &  Co.,"  which  said  latter- 
mentioned  "trademark"  is  j)rinted  on  a  sejiarate  label,  and  pasted  over 
the  cork  of  each  bottle,  after  the  same  has  Iteeii  filled  with  said  medi- 
cine 

Plaintiff  further  shows  that  he  is  the  sole  owner  l>y  rigiit  of  priority 
of  adoption  and  use  of  a  certain  other  trademark  entitled  "Book  of 
$2,000.00  Prize  Enigmas,"  containing  tlie  representation  of  a  man,  rep- 
resenting a  botanist  standing  beside  a  jialm  tree  examining  a  plant 
through  a  magnifying  glass,  and  other  matters  not  necessary  to  be  here 
mentioned,  all  tlie  same  being  printed  on  the  cover  of  a  pamphlet. 

Plaintiff  further  sliows  tiiat  he  is  tiie  sole  owner  by  riglit  of  priority 
of  adoption  and  use  of  a  certain  other  trademark  representing  the  front 
of  a  fire-proof  safe,  in  the  central  part  of  which  is  shown  a  negro,  on 
one  knee  gathering  herbs,  above  whom  are  the  words,  "Warner's  Safe," 
and  below   him   are   the   words,  "Kidney   and  Liver   Cure." 

Plaintiff  further  shows  that  for  the  purpose  of  guarding  against 
fraudulent     imitations    of    his    said    medicine,    and    to    authenticate    tha 


So4  API'KNDIX    II. 

piMiuinonooA  of  f;t>o<!fi  of  liin  iiiiiiiiifa«-tiirc.  In-  ciium><1,  nnd  nttll  cnuR<-R. 
each  UittU"  of  tlu-  R«mi'  t<i  linvt-  wrapju'd  nlxmt  it  a  piiinplilct  iHurinn 
luH  Krtitl  tradcmnrkt*  with  Iooh*-  circuhirH  iK-tWfi-n  tlu-  Kavi-a  of  suit! 
pamphlrt.  ami  wrapprd  nl>o»it  thr  winn-  iinutlifr  printed  fircuhir,  print 
cd  in  Hc'voral  dilTrrmt  laii^jtiap'R;  wliioli  naid  paniphlit  cnntaiiu-d  a 
grvnt  many  toHtimonialH  of  tin-  iiitrinsii-  value  of  »>aiil  nudiciiu-  an  a 
n-iiKMly  for  varioud  diwawx  and  disorders,  and  ais«»  fncHitnilni  of  th<« 
ni^naturt-H  of  tho  Hi^rm-rs  of  hiiid  ti-Htimonials;  and  oaid  pamphlet  con- 
tainin);.  amon);  other  matters,  a  ^'n-at  many  enigmaH  for  tlie  solution  of 
which  larp'  prizes  were  olTcred  l>y  the  ])laintilT.  Tliat  as  a  further 
prei-a\ition  a^'ainxt  fraud,  and  an  u  nieaiiH  of  identification,  the  8aid 
intMlicine  i»  packed  in  wooden  Itoxes,  wliicli  Ixtxes  contain  eacli  one 
dozen  hottles  of  plaintilT'n  medicine  lalieled  aud  wrajiped  as  aforesaid, 
and  U-arin^,'  iipon  oiie  side  of  the  hoxcH  tlie  following,'  jiriiited  words: 
"(>ne  Do/en  Warner's  Safe  Kidney  and  Liver  Cure,  Manufactured  by  H. 
H.    Warner   A;    Co.,    Rochester,   N.    Y." 

And  tlie  naid  plaintiff  further  nhows  that  lie  has  ever  since  the  dates 
of  tlie  adoption  of  the  said  trademarks  Wen  and  now  is  solely  entitled 
to  all  the  rights,  interests  and  privile^'es  therehy  so  secured  unto  him; 
and  that  the  said  medicine  with  the  accompnnyin};  trademark  has  been 
extensively  introduced  to  puldic  use,  and  that  larjre  ijuaiititiea  thereof, 
towit,  several  millions  of  bottles,  have  been  purchasid  and  consumed 
by  the  public  for  which  he  has  received  several  millions  of  dollars,  and 
that  he  would  but  for  the  wronj.'ful  acts  of  the  said  defendant,  Frank 
I{(K-hr,  have  made  further  lar;;e  ^ains,  profits  and  advanta;.'e8  from  the 
manufacture    and    sale    of    said    medicine.      And    )>laintin'    further    shows 

that  heretofore,  to-wit,  on  or  altout  the  day  of  October,  A.  D.    1S8;J, 

at  the  city  of  Chica;;o,  in  the  district  aforesaid,  the  said  defendant 
Frank  Hoehr,  well  knowinj,'  the  premises,  and  the  ri;,'lits  and  privilej,'e9 
theretofore  secured  unto  him  tlu-  sjiid  plaintiff,  and  in  order  to  deprive 
him  of  his  profits,  benefits  and  advanta;.'e9  which  mij,'ht  and  otherwise 
should  and  would  have  accrued  to  him  at  the  said  district,  and  else- 
whc-re,  unlawfully,  unjustly,  and  wronjrfully  simulated  the  various 
aforesaid  trademarks,  circulars,  labels,  wrappers,  packaj^es  and  boxes, 
in  which  said  ^'eniiine  medicine  of  this  plaintilT  has  been  put  up  for 
the  purposes  of  commerce,  and  for  the  purpose  of  carryinj:  into  execu- 
tion his  nefarious  enter|)rise  in  that  respect,  the  said  difeiidant,  V.  R., 
employed  lar;;e  capital,  and  a  lar;,'e  number  of  assistants,  including 
print<-rH,  electrotypc-rs,  photojrraphers,  and  other  persons  skilled  in  the 
arts  necessary  for  the  accomplishment  of  his  unlawful  jiurpose  aforo- 
Kaid,  and  did  make  exact  rej)resentations  of  the  ^.'enniiie  trademarks, 
labels,  etc.,  hereinbefore  descrilied,  so  closely  resemltliii^'  the  jjenuine 
AS  to  be  calculated  to  deceive  purchasers,  and  which  in  many  instances 
did  actually  deceive  purchasers,  who  su])|)osed  that  they  were  biiyinp 
the  genuine  medicine  manufactured  as  aforesaid  by  this  |>laintitl',  when 
in  fart  the  simulated  packa^res  contained  only  u  base  fluid,  colored  vo 
reat'mblc  the  genuine   medicine   of   the    plaintitL 


FORMS   OF   nir,I*S    AND    ANSWKHS.  855 

Plftintiff  furthor  bIiowh  tlint  sniil  dcfcndniit,  1".  IJ.,  mun'ifiictiin-d 
larj^e  quuntitii-H  of  pncka^'CH  iiiiidi'  in  exact  ri'im-wiitatioii  of  tl'JH  plaint- 
ifT's  ^ciiuiiu'  itai'kaf,M'H  and  roiitainiii};  inHidt;  tlii-n-of  the  Bimulatcd 
laludH,  wrappers,  »'tc.,  luTcinlM-fon-  dcMcrihcd,  and  liottlcH  flUi-d  with  a 
fluid  purporting  to  be  thiH  jjUiiiitill'M  p-nuiin-  ini'dicini-,  hut  whicli  in 
fat't  waH  not  ho,  hut  only  a  hasc  imitation  thin-of,  and  offcri-d  for  Hal" 
at  the  diHtrift  aforesaid  and  elHcwhcrt',  and  did  mdl  larjjc  (piantitii-H  of 
the  same,  all  of  wiiieh  naid  \\ron;,'ful  aet«  of  wiid  defendant,  F.  K.,  were 
done  without  the  knowIedj,'e,  connent  or  aecjuiencenee  of  the  said  plaint- 
ifr,  and  witli  the  intent  to  injure  and  defraud  him,  to  the  damaf^c  of 
this  plaintiir  of  twenty-five  thousand  dollars  (. $25,000 ) ,  and  therefore  he 
brings  this  suit. 

W.  11.  B., 
J.  F.  L., 
Plaintiff's    Attunirya. 

Indorsed:    Filed  Dec.  (J,   1883,  W.m.  II.  Bkadi.ey,  Ckrh. 


BUJ.   OF   (OMl'LAINT. 

(Taylor  v.  Carpenter,   3   Story,   4.")8.) 

To  the  Judges  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Dis- 
trict of  Massachusetts: 
J.  T.  and  W.  T.,  of  the  liorough  of  Leicester,  in  that  part  of  the 
United  Kingdom  of  (Jreat  Britain  and  Indand  called  England,  man- 
ufacturers, subjects  of  Victoria  tlie  First,  queen  of  said  kingdom,  and 
aliens  to  each  and  all  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  the  territories 
and  districts  thereof,  bring  this  bill  of  complaint  against  D.  C,  of 
F.,  in  the  said  district  of  Massachusetts,  manufacturer,  a  citizen  of  the 
said  state  of  Massachusetts.  And  thereupon  the  said  J.  T.  and  W.  T., 
complaining,  say  that  for  many  years  past  they  have  been  very  exten- 
sively engaged  in  manufacturing  cotton  tiiread  at  Leicester  aforesaid, 
and  vending  the  same  in  large  quantities,  not  only  in  England,  but 
througiiout  the  United  States,  and  in  particular  in  the  city  of  B.,  in  said 
district.  That  their  said  thread  is,  and  for  many  years  has  been,  put 
up  for  sale  on  spools,  and  labeled  on  the  top  of  the  spools  "Taylor's 
Persian  Thread"  in  a  circle,  in  the  center  of  wliich  is  the  number  of  the 
thread,  and  on  the  bottom  of  some  of  the  spools  "J.  &  W.  Taylor, 
Leicester,"  and  on  the  botton  of  others,  "J.  &  W.  Taylor,"  with  the 
number  of  yards  of  thread  on  each  spool,  eacli  spool  usually  containing 
two  liundred  yards  or  three  hundred  yards  of  thread,  and  tlie  spools 
containing  two  hundred  yards  being  l)lack  and  labeled  "200  yds."  on 
the  bottom  of  the  spool,  and  those  containing  three  hundred  yards 
being  red,  and  labeled  "300  yds."  on  the  liottom  of  the  spools.  And 
on  the  center  of  some  of  the  said  labels  on  the  bottom  of  each  spool  is 
stamped  the  symbol  or  print  of  the  head  and  forepart  of  a  lion  ram- 
pant.    And  on  the  center  of  other  of   said  labels  is  stamped  a  coat-of- 


856  Ai'PKNnix  H. 

arnirt.  tin-  hIiIi-U  >vlun><)n  conluiiis  ti  limi  iiiin|iaiit,  ai:J  ovi-r  tlu'  Kiinic 
thnv  Imllit  with  tho  motto  "In  I)«h»  (\»nftilo."  And  your  orntorn  fiirthtT 
Rny  tlint  thi-ir  HjxHiIrt  ho  niarkfd,  Htampod,  ndon'd,  or  laltrhnl  an  nfore- 
liaii!,  tiTt'  put  up  for  nnU'  in  jtapor  cnvtloptH,  rach  containing;  om-  dozon 
of  HptMdit;  which  Raid  cnvchtpcH  arc  prepared  and  ntampcd  hy  your 
orattirs  for  wiid  purpow,  ami  nomc  of  wiid  cnvtdopcs  hear  in  raiMHl 
httcrs  stamped  <>n  tliem  the  inscription,  "Tlic  Persian  Tliread,  nuidc 
hy  .1.  A  \V.  Tayhir,  hilM-h'd  on  tiic  top  of  each  spool,  Tayhir's  Persian 
Thread,  and  on  the  )>ottoni  J.  &.  W.  Tnyh)r,  Leicest«T.  The  ah«ivc  is  for 
the  prot«vtion  of  huyers  a;;Hinst  certain  piratical  articles  of  inferior 
ipmlity.  frauilulently  lal»eled  witli  the  name  «>f  Taylor."  And  on  other 
«>f  the  said  envelojws  is  stam]>ed  a  coat-of-arms  representing;  u  shield, 
the  upjM'r  division  of  wiiidi  is  j;ilt,  and  contains  tliree  red  halls,  and 
till-  lower  division  theri'of  is  r«'d  and  contains  the  eflij;y  of  a  lion 
rampant,  with  the  motto  under  the  same,  "In  I)*^)  Confldo."  Your 
«>rator8  fiirther  show  unto  your  honors  that  their  said  tlmad  has  lu-t^n 
and  is  manufactured  of  various  sizes  and  numht-rs,  to  met-t  the  wants 
of  the  trade;  and  hy  means  of  the  care,  skill  and  fidelity  with  which 
your  orators  have  conducted  the  manufacture  there«>f  for  a  series  of 
years,  their  said  thread  has  accpiired  a  gnat  reputation  in  the  trade 
throu;;hout  the  United  States,  and  lar;;e  (juantities  of  the  sami-  an* 
constantly  re<iuired  from  your  orators  to  supply  tlie  re;;ular  demand 
for  the  consumption  of  the  country.  And  your  orators  have  estaldislied 
aj;encie8  for  tlie  sale  there<jf  to  the  wholesale  dealers  and  johhers  in  tlie 
cities  of  B.,  X.  Y.,  P.  and  X.  0.,  and  in  addition  thereto  your  orators 
c'mj)loy  B.  W..  now  residinf;  in  said  city  of  X.  Y.,  as  their  j;eneral 
ap-nt  for  the  United  States,  in  relation  to  the  sale  of  their  said  spool 
wwinj;  cotton  thread;  and  a  mercantile  firm  of  II.  &.  C.  are  the  a;;ents 
<if  your  orators  ftir  the  sah-  of  tlie  same  in  the  city  of  B. ;  and  your 
orators  further  show  unto  your  honors  tliat  tlieir  said  thread  is  known 
and  distin;niii*hed  hy  the  trade  and  the  puhlic  as  "Taylor's  Persian 
Thread,"  and  that  your  orators  were  the  ori;;inal  manufacturers  there- 
of, and  the  first  who  introduced  the  same  to  the  puhlic.  That  your  ora- 
tors' said  {;eneral  agent,  on  or  ahout  the  first  day  of  March  last  past, 
hearing  that  complaints  wire  made  of  the  quality  of  "Taylor's  Persian 
Thn-ad,"  proceeded  to  investigate  the  cause  of  said  complaint  and 
thereupon  ascertained  tliat  a  spurious  article  of  spool  sewing  cotton 
thread  was  olTered  for  sale  l>y  sundry  jol>l>ers  in  the  said  city  of  B., 
as  and  for  your  orators'  "Persian  Thread,"  and  that  such  complaints 
had  arisen  from  the  fraudulent  imposition  of  sucli  spurious  article  on 
the  pulilic.  Your  orators  further  show  unto  your  honors  that  their 
8aid  agent  furtlier  ascertained  upon  inquiry,  and  your  orators  charge 
the  fa«ts  to  he,  that  the  said  spurious  tliread  so  sold  and  olTered  for 
Bale  in  the  said  city  of  B.,  or  some  of  it,  was  furnished  to  the  said  joh- 
Ikth  of  I).  ('.,  either  hy  him  personally  or  hy  one  F.  1>.  K.,  of  B.,  his 
agent  in  that  hehalf,  and  your  orators  are  informed  and  helieve  that 
the   said   D.  C.   has  sold   the  said   thread,  put  up,  marked   and   designated 


KDH.MS    OI"    HILUS    AN'n    AN'SWKHS.  857 

as  afon-snifl,  in  tin-  Hai<l  city  <.f  H. ;  (liat  tlir  bHi<l  I).  ('.,  «liHr<-(,'ardin>f 
tin-  li^jhtH  (»f  your  orators,  and  fraiidiili-ntly  dcsi^'iiiti;^  to  procuro  tin* 
niHtom  and  trade  of  jM-rHoiiH  wlio  an-  in  tin-  lialiit  of  vi-ndinj;  or  using 
yonr  orators'  Haid  "Persian  Tlin-ad,"  and  to  induco  tlicin  and  the 
|)ul>lii'  to  Ik'IIi'vo  tluit  his  said  thnnd  was  in  fact  manufactured  by 
your  orators,  liad  fnj;Hp-d  fxtf'nsivcly  in  the  manufacture  of  wwinff 
cotton  thread,  and  caused  tlie  same  to  !><•  put  up  for  sah;  in  enveh)pert 
and  on  spools  siniihir  to  those  used  liy  your  orators,  and  so  cohircd  and 
Htanip<-d  and  hilieled  as  to  resenihle  exactly  the  said  spools  and  enve- 
lopes used  l>y  your  orators.  And  tlie  said  spool  sewin;^  cotton  thread, 
prepared  hy  tlie  said  1).  C  and  sold  l>y  him,  and  which  he  is  en/,'aged 
in  sellinj,'  as  aforesaid,  is  an  exact  imitation  of  the  same  article  which 
your  orators  had  heiii  manufacturinfj  as  aforesaid,  and  sellinfj  in  the 
United  States  for  many  years  l)eforc  the  said  D.  C.  commenced  his  said 
frauduh'nt  imitation  tliereof.  And  the  said  spurious  article,  although 
inferior  in  (juality  to  the  j^enuine  Persian  Thread  manufactured  by 
your  orators,  can  only  ho  distin^'uished  tlierefrom,  so  exact  is  the  said 
D.  C.'s  imitation  as  aforesaid,  hy  a  careful  examination  of  its  quality, 
and  hv  its  fallin;;  short  in  tlie  number  of  yards  contained  on  each  spool 
from  the  number  marked  thereon  as  the  contents  thereof.  And  that 
the  general  appearance  of  the  spurious  article  is  the  same  as  that  of 
your  orators'  genuine  thread,  and  well  calculated  ^o  deceive  those 
dealing  in  the  purciiase  and  sale  thereof.  Your  orators  further  show 
unto  yoifr  honors  that  their  said  general  agent  has  obtained  specimens 
of  the  said  sjiurious  Persian  Thread  so  sold  by  the  said  I).  C.  That  in 
some  of  the  specimens  thus  olitained,  the  thread  is  put  upon  black 
spools,  and  in  other  of  said  specimens  the  thread  is  put  upon  red 
spools,  and  said  black  and  red  spools  are  of  the  same  size  and  appear- 
ance with  those  used  by  your  orators,  on  the  top  of  which  spurious 
spools  there  is  pasted  a  round  paper  label,  partly  gilt,  on  which  is 
printed  in  a  circle  the  words  "Taylor's  Persian  Thread,"  and  in  the 
center  of  the  circle  the  number  of  the  thread;  and  on  the  other  end  on 
the  bottom  of  such  spurious  spools  there  is  pasted  a  round  paper  label 
on  some  of  w'lich  is  printed  in  a  circle  the  words,  "J.  &  \V.  Taylor, 
Leicester,"  and  on  others,  "J.  «S:  W.  Taylor,"  with  the  number  of  yards 
of  thread  on  the  spools,  and  across  others  of  the  labels  on  said  black 
spools  the  letters  and  figures  "200  yds.,"  and  on  said  red  spools  the 
letters  and  fimires  "300  yards"  a'e  printed,  and  in  the  center  of  the 
said  label  tiieie  is  impressed  the  figure  or  symbol  of  the  head  and 
forepart  of  a  lion  rampant.  And  in  other  of  said  specimens  the  threaa 
is  put  on  spools  corresponding  in  all  i)articulars  to  those  herein  just 
before  described,  except  that  the  laliels  on  the  bottom  thereof  bear  a 
coat-of-arms,  the  center  of  the  shield  whereof  contains  a  lion  rampant, 
with  three  balls  over  the  same,  and  with  the  motto  under,  "In  Deo 
Confido."  Your  orators  have  also  obtained  specimens  of  the  envelopes 
in  which  said  D.  C.'s  spurious  thread  is  put  up  and  sold  by  him  or 
his  agent?,  whicli  bear  the  same  inscription,  letters  and  stamps  that 
those    used    and    employed    by    your    orators    bear.      And    in    all    these 


858  APPKNDix  n. 

particv.IiirA    .if    tlw    IuIm-Ih    .m    ih.Ii    .  ikI    <  f    Uio    sai.l    sp»irio\jR    spools    of 
thn-iul,   niul    tlu-   «iiv«'1o|mi«    in    wliich    tlicv    an-    put   up.    tiny    an-   .xactly 
liko    tlu'  »Miv.lo|x'8   uiul    th»'    IuIk-1h  om    thf    r»Hp»'ctiv.'   .iuIh   of    tin-    f*p(H»lH 
of   your  orutor»'   p-nuiuf    IVrHian    Throad,  an   luri'iulMfon-    Btnttd.      Vo\ir 
oratorrt    furtli.-r    hIiow    unto   your    lionorH    that    tln-y    liavi-    not    y<-t    asoi-r- 
taiiutl  thf  «\t«nt   to  wlii.h  the  nuid   IV   C.   Iuih  tarrii-d  hin  wiid    frautluh-nt 
imitation    and    m\r    of    your    oratorn'    hai<l    tlinatl.       Hut    yoiir    f>rators' 
naid    f-iinral    ajjmt   lias    found    tin-    winio  olTtnd    for    nah-   to    tiio  trade    in 
at   K-ant  nix   wlioirwih-  <.r   joMun;,'  Iiouwb   in   tin-   city   «if   H.,   aw  '"Taylor'ti 
IVrsian    Thn-ad" — from    wliith    your   »)ratorM    Ix-lifvi',    and    tiu-y    then-fore 
chargt',  on   tlieir  iM-lief.   tiiat  tlie   said    D.   ('.    Iuik  l..-.n   and   i«  enpip-d   in 
wllinjr    hii«     Kaid     frauduhnt    and    sjJurioUH    imitation    of    your    oratoru* 
'•Pirnian    Thread"    to    a    hir^e    extent    in    vari.nis    phieen    in    the    United 
States,    witli    intent   tliat   tlie    same    shouhl    eireuhite   and    he    received    and 
ufkHi    l>y    tlie    puhlic   as    Taylor's    p-nuine    "IVrsian     Thread."      And    your 
orators    further    show    unto    your    ht)nors    that    the    frauilulent    and    in- 
etjuitalde    conduct    of    the    said    D.    C.    is    not    only    injuring'    tli«m    in    the 
sales    of    their    said    fjenuine    'Persian    Tliread,"    and    the    jirofits    which 
they    would     otherwiw    reasonahly    make    thereon,    hut    hy     the    inferior 
quality  and  false  measure  the  said  spurious  "Persian  Thn-ad"  is  ^'reatly 
prejudicing'    the    reputation    of    your    orators'    said    "Persian    Thread"    in 
the  market,   and., unless  the   said   imitation    is   discontinued   or   jircvented, 
will    ultimately    destroy    the    duiraeter    and    standinj,'    of    tiie    <;«nuine    ar- 
ticle.    And  your  orators  also  char<,'e   that  tlie  said   spurious   article  is   a 
fraud   and    deception    upon    such    of    the   citizens    of    tin-    state   of    Massa- 
chusetts,  and    of    the    United    States,    as    purcliase    the    same,    helieving    it 
to    be    the    genuine    article    manufactured    hy    your    orators.      And    your 
orators    further    show    unto    your    honors    tliat    in    the    month    of    March 
last    past,  having  discovered   a   portion    of   the   aforesaid    fraudulent  con- 
duct of  the    said   1).   C,  your  orators   did   file  their  hill  of  complaint  be- 
fore   the    chancellor    of    the    stati-   of    New    York,    wherein    they    set    forth 
many    of    the    facts    which    are    in     substance    hereiiilufore     stated,    and 
prayed    for    an    injunction    to    restrain    tlie    said    D.    C".    from    the    afore- 
said  fraudulent   use    of   the   name  and    trademarks   «if    your   orators,    and 
the  same  was  granted  hy  the  court;   and  the  said   1).  C.  having  appeared 
and  filed  his  answer  to  the  said  bill,  did  therein  admit  that  he  had  used 
the    name    and    trademark    of    your   orators    in    manner    set    forth    in    the 
bill  afonsaid;    but  denied  that  the  article   manufactured   by   him  was  of 
inferior  cpia'ity   to    that   manufactured    by   your  orators;    and   afterwards 
an    applicHtioii    was    ma<le    to    the    chancellor    to    dissolve    the    injunction 
aforesaid,    wliiih    last    mentioned    motion    is    ntiw    lu-fore    the    said    chan- 
cellor,   and    by    reason    of    the    great    numln-r    of   causes    depending    before 
him,   the  afc.resaid   caus*-  can   not  be   det-ided   without  great   delay.      And 
your   orators  are   informed  and   beliive  it   to  be  true  that  the  said   D.  C. 
residing    out    of    tlie   jurisdiction    of    tlie    chancellor    of    the    state    of    New 
York,   can,   with    impunity,   disregard    the    injunction    aforesaid,   and    that 
he   has   continued    to   make    sales    in    the   city   of    H.    and    elsewh.-re  of   the 
Kaid    thread,    put    u\>,    lalnled,    and    ajipeariiig    precisely    likt-    that    made, 


FORMS   OK    I'.II.I.-     \NH     WSWKKS.  850 

put    up,    and     sold    liv     voiir    (natoiH,    nml     \<>iir    orfttorB    continuo    to    \tc 
;j;ri'utly    iiijuri'd   tlicrrlty. 

In  coiisidcnitidii  wlicn-of,  and  for  as  iniicli  as  your  orators  an-  rcmc?- 
dilcHH  in  til*-  pn-iniHi-s  at  roniuion  law,  and  can  not  have  udcijuaU;  re- 
lief save  by  tin-  aid  and  interposition  of  tliia  court,  to  the  end,  there- 
fore, that  tlif  said  D.  ( '..  if  lie  can,  kIiow  wliy  your  orators  nhoiild  not 
have  tlie  relief  In-n-liy  prayrd,  and  may  upon  iiis  corporal  oath,  and 
aecordin;r  to  the  hist  and  utmost  of  his  knowlcdfje,  remcmliranci-,  in- 
formation and  lielief,  full,  true,  direct  and  jterfect  answers  make  to 
the  several  interro^^atories  hereinafter  luimhered  and  set  fortli ;  and 
the  said  1).  C".  and  his  attorneys,  solicitors,  counselors,  af,'ents  and 
servants  may  he  enjoined  and  restrained  fmm  manufacturinf^,  s«dlinj^ 
or  ofTcriiiji  fur  sale,  directly  or  indirectly,  any  spool  cotton  sewinfj 
tlinad  nninufaetured  liy  him  or  any  person  other  than  your  orators, 
under  the  denomination  of  "Taylor's  Persian  Thread,"  or  on  spools 
with  the  Words,  "Taylor's  Persian  Thread,"  or  "J.  &  W.  Taylor, 
Leicester,"  or  "J.  «Sc  W.  Taylor,"  printed,  painted,  written,  or  stamped, 
or  attached  or  pasted  thereon,  or  witli  your  orators'  said  device  of  a 
lion  rampant,  or  with  their  said  coat-of-arms  thereon;  or  on  spools 
so  made  or  having'  any  lal)el,  j)rintin{^  or  device  tiiereon,  in  such  man- 
ner as  to  be  colorable  imitations  of  your  orators'  said  spool  thread, 
usually  known  as  "Taylor's  IVrsian  Thread,"  and  that  the  said  D.  C. 
may  be  decreed  to  account  to  your  orators  for  all  the  profits  which 
he  has  made  by  the  sale  of  his  said  fraudulent  imitation  of  your  orators' 
thread,  and  all  the  profits  which  your  orators  would  have  made  on 
the  sales  of  their  genuini-  thread  but  for  tlie  said  D.  C.'s  ine<piitable 
and  wanton  piracy  of  their  said  name,  spools  and  labels;  and  that  your 
orators  may  have  their  costs  and  charf^es  in  this  behalf  paid  by  the 
said  D.  C. ;  and  tliat  your  orators  may  have  such  other  and  further 
relief  in  the  premises  as  to  your  honors  shall  seem  meet,  and  shall  be 
a^jreeable   to   equity   and   j^ood   conscience. 

Ma\'  it  please  your  honors  to  <rrant  unto  your  orators  a  writ  of 
injunction,  issuinj,'  out  of  and  under  tlie  seal  of  tliis  court,  to  be  directed 
to  the  said  1).  C,  his  attorneys,  solicitors,  counselors,  ayents  and  servants, 
therein  and  thereby  commanding  and  enjoining  them,  under  a  certain 
penalty  in  the  said  writ  to  be  expressed,  according  to  the  foregoing 
prayer  of  your  orators. 

May  it  also  please  your  honors  to  grant  unto  your  orators  a  writ 
of  subjxena,  issuing  out  of  and  under  the  seal  of  this  court,  to  be 
directed  to  the  said  D.  C,  commanding  him  on  a  certain  day  and 
under  a  certain  penalty  in  the  said  writ  to  be  inserted,  personally  to 
be  and  appear  before  your  honors  in  tliis  honoral)le  court,  then  and  there 
to  answer  the  premises,  and  to  stand  to,  ai)ide  by,  and  perform  such 
order  and  decree  therein  as  to  your  honors  shall  seem  meet,  and  shall 
be  agreeable  to  equity  and  good  conscience. 

C.  P.  C,  of  Counftrl.  J.  &  W.  T., 

C.  P.   and  O.    R.   t ..  Btj  W.  /?..   thrir  Agent 

Solicitors.  and  Attorney. 


860  vn-KMMx   II. 

I^nitoil    Stnto    of    AniiiHii.    i 
District  of  MnHHnoluiwttx.      \ 

Pt«ri«oniilIy  nppfnrcd  iMfnn-  nii-  thr  alxivi-numi-d  H.  NV.,  on  tliin 
Mtn>n<l  Any  of  l).trml..r.  A.  D.  1H4.1,  nml  miuli-  oiitli  lltnt  tluH  liill  in 
f.piity  by  him  ninntnl,  in  ii«  far  uh  it  utatoa  mnttrru  within  his  knowl- 
ftip".  i8  tru«>  to  hiH  knowh'tlj;!-,  and  in  an  far  an  it  8tat»-H  matl«Th 
within  his  iH-lirf,  it*  trut-  to  liin  hont  Krlicf. 

W.    W.    S.,    Cnvtviissinnrr,   rtr. 

Intrrro^intorios   In   l.r   an^u.-r..!    l.\     1).    (  .: 

1.  WhctlnT  or  not  liavr  voii  inaiiufactiir.tl  ami  >«>1<1.  in  MaHsatliu- 
wtt»«  or  t'lm-whrn'.  tliri-ad  |>nt  npon  l.hu-k  hjhmiIs.  on  om-  md  of  rarli 
of  which  hjmmiIh  {h  pasti-d.  or  otlurwiw  fast«'iu>d.  a  cirtuhir  i»H|Mr 
lalK'l  partly  j;ilt.  on  whiili  i«  printfd  in  a  rirch-  tin-  words  "Taylorn 
Trrxian  Thn-ad."  and  in  thf  renter  thereof  th<'  nnnil>er  of  tlie  tlirea<l. 
and  on  the  other  end  of  earh  of  said  spools  is  jmsted  or  otherwise  fast- 
••m-d  a  circular  white  paper  lahel,  on  wliieh  is  printed  in  a  circle  tin; 
words  "J.  Si  W.  Taylor,  Leicester,"  and  a(ro>s  tlie  same  lalxd  '"200 
yds.,"  and  in  the  center  of  the  sanu>  hil>el  tliere  is  impressed  the  fijnire 
or  symbol  of  a  lion  rampant? 

2.  Whether  or  not  yon  have  manufactured  and  sold,  in  Massachu- 
wtts  or  els<-\vhere,  thread  i»ut  ui)on  red  spools,  correspondinjj  in  all 
resiKK-ts  to  the  black  sjKxds  describ<'d  in  tiie  preceding  interro;,'atory. 
except  in  the  color  of  the  spind  and  in  the  (pumtity  of  thread  tliereon ; 
and  in  the  letters  and  fijnir«'8  "300  yds."  i)rinted  across  tlie  said  white 
jiajK«r   label? 

."{.  What  numlxT  of  each  kind  <>f  tlie  said  spools  of  thread  have 
you  manufactured  and  sohl  V  State  the  same  accurately,  and  distin- 
^aiish  the  ki;  ".  and  numl>er  of  the  thread,  and  the  number  of  black 
hp<Milrt  and  the-  number  of  nnl  spools  so  sold  by  you  since  you 
commenc«d  s«dlin;,'  the  sanu-,  and  the  times  wh.n  and  the  place  whero 
the   same  have  la'cn  Bold. 

4.  What  have  IwH-n  the  jirolits  made  or  realized  by  you  on  the  man 
ufacture  and  sale  of  thread  put  upon  spools  colored,  decorated  and 
ntt«'d  up  i:i  the  manner  described  in  tlie  first  and  second  interroj;- 
atoriea? 

.'».  To  whom  and  what  j>ersons  in  particular  have  yi^u  sold  the  said 
thread  put  up  in  the  mann.-r  descril)ed  in  the  first  and  sectrnd  inter- 
ro(;atories? 

«.  Who  is,  and  who  has  been,  your  a-^ent  in  Boston  for  the  sale  «>f 
your  threa<l  put  upon  spools  fitted  up  in  the  manner  d. scribed  in  the 
first   and    s«'cond    interroj;atori<'B? 

7.  Whether  or  not  did  you  admit  in  an  answer  si;;ned,  sworn  to  and 
filed  by  you  in  the  court  of  chancery  in  and  for  the  state  of  New 
York,  to  a  bill  of  complaint  thenin  pending'  wherein  the  said  I.  T. 
and  W.  T.  are  compbiinants.  and  yours«-lf  is  defendant,  that  you 
liave    ent.'a^'.-d    in    tlie    manufacture    of    sewing'    cotton    thread,    which    you 


FOltMS    OF    mr-LS    AND    ANSWERS.  861 

liuvc  caused  to  lie  put  u|>  for  nali-  on  hjiooIh  ximiliir  to  tliow  uwd  hy 
the  coinpliiiiuiiitH.  and  ho  folon-d,  Htumprd  iind  lalx-lcd  uh  to  rftM-mbli; 
i'xuctly  or  as  nearly  uh  the  Bame  could  la;  done,  the  Baid  Hp(K>lH  um-d 
Itv  tile  eonii)lainantH,  and  the  said  npool  Hewing  cotton,  which  haH  hecn 
prepared  uiul  sold  liy  you,  ih  an  «'xact  imitation  of  the  Hame  articlu 
wiiieh  the  complainaiitH  had  lieen  Hellinj,'  in  the  United  States  many 
v«'ars  before  you  coniineiu-ed  manufacturing^  your  thread? 

8.  Whetiier  or  not  have  you  manufactured  and  sold  in  MaHwicliu- 
settH  a«"win)(  cotton  thread  upon  black  Hpoola  and  ujton  n-d  Hpools,  on 
one  end  of  each  of  which  is  fastened  a  circular  paper  label,  described 
as  in  inter ro;,'atory  numbered  1.  and  on  the  other  end  is  fastened  a- 
circular  i)aper  label  on  which  is  stampe<l  a  coat-of-arms,  the  shield 
whereof  contains  a  lion  rampant,  and  over  the  same  three  balls,  with 
the  motto  under  the  shi(dd,  "In  Deo  t'onfido,'*  and  around  said  shitid  is 
printed  in  some  of  said  labels,  "J.  &  W.  Taylor.  Leicester,"  and  in 
others,  ''J.  &  W.  Taylor,"  with  the  numlu-r  of  yards  on  said  spools? 

it.  Wiiether  or  not  have  you  put  up  and  sold  your  sewinj,'  cotton 
tliread,  colored,  stamped  and  labeled  in  all  or  some  of  the  modes 
described  in  this  bill  in  envtdopes  or  wrappers,  some  bearing  in 
raised  letters  the  inscription,  "The  Persian  Thread,  made  by  J.  &  W. 
Taylor,  labeled  on  top  of  each  sjjooI  Taylor's  Persian  Thread  and  on 
the  botton  J.  &  W.  Taylor,  Leicester.  The  above  is  for  th<!  protec- 
tion of  buyers  against  certain  piratical  articles  of  inferior  quality, 
fraudulently  labeled  with  the  name  of  Taylor,"  and  others  bearing  a 
coat-of-arms,  the  upper  division  of  which  is  in  gilt,  and  has  three  red 
balls  thereon,  and  the  lower  division  is  red,  and  has  a  lion  rampant 
thereon.  C.    P.    and   B.    R.   C. 

So'.icitors. 


BILL   OF   CO^rPLAIXT. 

ox     MAKK     UEGISTKUKl)    INDEK    TEN-YEAR    Cl.AlSE,    ACT    OF     100.1. 

(2:?:?    U.    S.    4(51.    r)8    L.    Ed.    1040.) 
I'liited   States  Circuit  Court.   Soutliern   District  of  New   York- 

TiiAnDEis    Davids    Comi-any.  ^ 

I 
Cobtlanu     L    Davius     and     W  ai.tek    V  In   Equity. 

L  Davids,  Trading  as  The  Davids   j 

Manufacturing  Co.,  ) 

AMENDEn     Rll.r.     OF     COMPLAINT. 

To   the    hnnnrnhh-   thr   .Judf/rn  nf   the  Circuit    Court   of  the    United  States 
in   and  for   thr   Soiithrni    District   of   \rir   York: 
The  Thaddeus  Davids  Company,  a  corporation  duly  organized  under  the 
laws  of  the   state  of  New  York,  and  having   its   prineijjal    place   of  busi- 


SG2  ArPENPlX    11. 

11.  ..s  at  127  WilUnm  Htr.H«t.  in  tlu*  city  of  N.w  York,  in  wiiil  district,  brings 
thia  itH  am.na.a  loll  of  coinplnint  purHUiint  t..  iin  onlor  of  this  court 
.•nt.-na  Manli  l.Uh,  imiS.  iipiinnt  (.'..rtlund  1.  DiividH  luul  WalttT  i. 
DuvidK.  liti/.nH  of  tlw  Hint.-  ..f  N«w  York,  and  doin;r  l.UHini'KH  at  203 
Kr..nt  htri>»t,  in  tlu-  city  of  New  York,  under  the  nuinc  i>f  The  David« 
Manufacturinj:  riimpany,  and  thereupt.n  your  orator  ci.midainH  and  Kays: 

1.  That  your  orator  is  the  owner  of  a  trademark  used  in  commerc<- 
amonjj  the  wveral  states  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  is  domi 
«iled  within  the  territ«)ry  of  the  United  States,  and  was  such  owner  and 
was  so  doniicihil  on  t.r  before  tlu-  tenth  day  of  .luly.  VMM,  and  has  iH-en 
such  owner  continuously  since  said  date,  and  also  been  continjially  bo 
»lt»micile<l,  and  that  your  orator  is  a  numufactunr  of  inks,  mucilage, 
paste,  and  similar  articles,  and  has  heeii  so  enKnp'd  together  with  its 
preflecessors  in  business,  in  the  city  of  N.w  Yt>rk  continuously  ever  since 
182.'),  and  all  of  the  inks,  niucilap-,  i)aste  and  similar  articles  manufac- 
tured and  s«>ld  by  yoiir  orator  and  its  predecessorB  have  born*-  said  trade- 
mark upon  a  suitable  label  on  the  bottles  containinj;  the  same  and  has 
lM-«n  sold  undi-r  said  trademark  and  said  trademark  has  been  used  con- 
tinuously by  your  orator  and  its  predect'ssors  in  commerce  amon;,'  the 
wveral  states  for  ov.r  ei;;hty  years  now  last  past,  and  tluit  said  articles 
have  acpiired  the  bi;:hest  reputation  in  the  market  for  puuls  of  this 
desc-ription,  namely,  inks,  mucila;;e  and  paste,  and  said  {;(.ods  have  In^come 
and  now  are  very  popular  and  wi-ll-known  tlinm;;hout  the  I'liited  States 
as  "Davids'  Inks,"  "Davids'  Mucilajre"  and  "Davids"  Paste." 

2.  That  st>  beinji  the  owner  of  said  trademark  on  the  tenth  day  of 
July,  VM)(\,  your  orator  filed  in  the  Patent  OHiee  of  the  United  States  on 
Mtid  date  an  application  for  re;;istration  for  such  trademark;  said  applica- 
tion iM-inp  in  writing',  addressed  to  tlie  Commission,  r  of  Patents,  sij^ned 
by  the  applicant,  specifying;  its  luime,  d<imicile.  location,  and  citizenship; 
the  class  of  merchandise  and  tlie  particular  description  of  j^ooda  com- 
prisi'd  in  such  class  to  which  said  trademark  was  appropriated;  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  trademark  itself,  and  a  statement  of  the  mode  in  which  the 
hame  was  ai>plied  and  alVixed  to  j^'oods,  and  the  len^'th  of  time  during 
which  the  said  trademark  had  been  used.  Witii  this  statement  was 
filed  a  drawing'  of  the  trailemark,  si;rned  by  tin-  ajiplicant.  or  its  attorney, 
and  such  number  of  Hpc-cimeiis  of  the  trademark  *s  actually  us«'d,  as 
were  re<iuired  by  the  Commissioner  t>f  I'atents.  And  your  orator  paid 
into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  the  num  of  ten  dollars  and  other- 
wise complied  with  the  re<|uirement8  of  the  Act  of  Congress  entitled  "An 
act  to  authorize  the  registration  ttf  trademarks  uwd  in  ct)mmerce  with 
foreign  nations  or  among  the  wveral  states,  or  with  Indian  tribes,  and 
to  protect  the  same,"  wliich  act  was  approved  February  2(1.  IHO.').  Said 
application  was  accompanied  by  a  written  declaration  v.ri(ied  by  an 
ofTicer  of  the  corporation  applying  to  the  elT.-ct  tliat  tlie  applicant  believed 
the  coriH>ration  in  whose  behalf  he  made  the  application  to  be  owui-r 
of  the  trademark  sought  to  Is-  registered,  ami  tlmt  no  oth.r  person, 
firm,  corporation   or  association   «<•   tl.e   b.Kt  of  tlir  applicant's   knowledge 


FOU.MS   OK   HI  LI--;    AM)    ANSWKltS.  863 

nnd  lulicf  lind  tlic  ri;;lit  t<>  hikIi  iiw  lillHT  in  tlic  iflfiitical  furm  or  in 
Huc'li  lU'iir  n-Hcmlilnncc  tlu-rcto  jih  nii;,'lit  he  c-Hlctiliitt-d  to  dccr-ivi-;  that 
Hucli  trudi'inurk  \vu8  uHcd  in  conimcrci-  amoiif^  tlie  bi'VithI  HtateH  and  that 
tlu'  di'Hcriptioii  and  drawinj^  prt-Hcntfd  truly  reprcscntod  the  trademark 
80U{ilit  to  hf  rcj^irttfri'd ;  wliicli  Haid  declaration  was  strictly  in  ac(or<l- 
ance  witli  Section  2  of  Haid  act,  and  duly  \eriru"d  lufure  a  |ir<ijiir  ollicer 
as  provided  in  waid  Hcction. 

'.i.  Tliat  tliereupon  wiid  application  l)eing  duly  filed  an  aforeHaid  in 
tlie  I'nited  StatcH  I'atent  Ollice  in  accordance  with  tiie  law,  due  proceed- 
iiHis  were  tliereujxjn  had  according  to  law  and  it  apjiearing  ui)on  the 
examination  of  naid  application  in  Haid  Patent  OfTice  that  Haid  ap|)licant, 
to  wit,  your  orator,  was  entitled  to  liave  its  trademark  regiHtored  under 
the  provisions  of  the  alio\e  mentioned  act,  due  pul>lication  thereof  took 
])lace  and  no  notice  of  o|)poHition  heing  filed  thereto,  registration  of  said 
trademark  was  duly  granted  according  to  law  and  a  certificate  of  regis- 
tration was  tliereafter,  to  wit,  on  the  22nd  day  of  .lanuary,  1!M)7,  issued 
to  your  orator  whicli  certificate  was  numi)ered  r>!»,8i(8,  pursuant  to 
Section  11  of  the  aforementioned  act;  which  said  certificate  of  regis- 
tration is  still  in  force,  and  of  which  your  orator  tiien  was  and  now 
is  the  sole  and  exclusive  owner,  as  hy  said  original  certificate  of  regis- 
tration or  a  duly  authenticated  copy  thereof  here  in  court  to  he  pro- 
duced will  more  fully  and  at  large  appear. 

4.  That  tiie  trademark  so  registered  as  ahove  set  forth  was  origi- 
nally adopted  hy  your  orator's  predecessors  in  husiness,  lieing  tlien  the 
owner  of  the  mark,  to  wit,  ahout  the  year  182"),  as  a  mark  hy  whicli  the 
goods  of  the  said  owner  may  I)e  distinguished  from  other  goods  of  the 
same  class,  and  said  mark  lias  hcen  continuously  used  for  said  purpose 
by  your  orator  and  its  predecessors  in  business  since  said  date  and  is 
still  so  used,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  said  mark  has  distinguished  the 
goods  made  hy  your  orator  and  its  predecessors  as  owners  of  the  mark 
from  other  goods  of  the  same  class,  and  said  mark  was  in  actual  and 
exclusive  use  a  trademark  of  the  applicant  or  its  predecessors  from 
whom  it  derived  title  for  ten  years  next  prec<'ding  the  passage  of  the 
ahove  nijntioncd  Act  of  Congress,  approved  Fel>ruary  20,  1905;  all  as 
provided  in  Section  5  of  said  act,  and  your  orator  is  advised  and  believes 
that  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  said  trademark  has  been  in  actual  and 
exclusive  use  as  trademark  of  youi  orator  as  applicant  or  your  orator's 
predecessors  from  whom  your  orators  derived  title  for  more  than  ten 
years  next  preceding  the  passage  of  said  act,  said  trademark  was  dis- 
tinctly and  in  terms  dcclan'd  hy  said  act  to  be  entitled  to  registration 
as  a  good  and  valid  trademark  in  the  United  States  I'atent  Ollice,  and 
that  the  registration  ahove  mentioned  was  and  is  a  valid  registration 
and  is  entitled  to  the  protection  of  this  court  irrespective  of  the  par- 
ticular character  of   said   mark. 

5.  Your  orator  is  advised  and  believes  and  therefore  shows  to  your 
honors  that  it  was  the  intent  of  Congress  in  passing  said  a-rt  and  was 
the  legal  effect  of  said  act  as  passed  to  regard  all  trademarks,  irrespective 


864  APPENDIX    II. 

of  tlu-ir  imrtii-ulur  rhanutrr.  wU'hU  liail  lutuiilly  1m>.'ii  iikimI  .•xihisivi-ly 
by  thi'ir  owm-r  for  tm  y«'»rH  or  moro  l)ofort'  the  puHHiim-  of  wud  lut,  by 
which  thr  j-wkIh  of  miiil  owiu-r  wen-  in  fart  tUHtin;;uiHlH-il  from  other 
^•ihhIh  of  thf  num.-  i-hiHH  hh  VfwtiMl  ri;rhtH  whicli  wii«i  lut  HhoiiUl  not  in 
any  way  take  away  «>r  (liniinii«)i  hut  wliii-li  wiid  rights  Hluitihl,  wlu-n  UKetl 
in  interntate  «omm.r»f,  Ih-  cndowfd  witli  all  the  ri;;litH  of  rc^'iKt ration 
and  protection  which  was  alTonh-d  to  any  hiwfiil  tradenuirk  under  wiid 
act.  All  of  whicli  appearn  hy  Section  1  and  Section  2  of  wiid  act,  and 
osptTially  the  ftnirth  proviwj  of  tlaust-  b  of  Section  ;'>.  Your  orator 
th«refore  claitnH  the  prot«i-tion  of  thiH  honorahle  court  for  itn  »aid  rcjjiH- 
tered  trathinark  No.  .V.l.8!»8,  dated  .lanuary  22,  1»07,  aa  a  vcbtod  ri^ht 
of  over  ten  yearrt  Htandin;:  at  tiie  <late  of  wiid  Act  of  Con^'resH;  re^iH- 
tration  of  wliich  was  in  terms  j)rovid«'d  for  in   8aid  act. 

(J.  That  the  way  in  whicii  said  tra<hnuirk  was  apjdied  to  the  p>odH 
of  vour  orator  and  its  predecessors  in  Imsiness  was  placing'  the  name  in 
prominent  letters  on  tlie  lahel  whicli  was  i)asted  on  tlie  hotths  c<mtaininn 
tlie  pkmIs.  In  doinj:  so,  the  word  Davids'  was  placed  at  or  near  the  top 
«if  the  lahel  and  the  word  or  words  indicating  the  spit-ial  character  of  tin- 
;:<K>ds  was  placed  at  aix)ut  the  middle  of  the  lahel,  and  the  name  of  your 
«irator'«  company,  to  wit,  Thaddeiis  Davids  Company.  New  York,  wa-* 
plac<'d  at  or  near  the  hottom  of  tlie  lahel.  The  other  words,  fi^nires  or 
characters  were  so  nrran^-ed  that  tlie  word  Davids',  the  name  of  the 
article,  Buch  as  Ulue  Ink,' Carmine  Ink,  Scarlet  Ink,  On-en  Ink.  Writing 
and  Copyinp  Ink,  and  so  forth,  appeared  as  the  most  prominent  part  of 
the  lalK"!,  bo  that  at  a  distance  at  which  the  smaller  type  could  not  be 
read  the  mark  st(M>d  out  as,  for  example,  Davids'  Blue  Ink,  Thaddeua 
Tavids  Company.  All  of  which  will  more  fully  and  at  large  appear 
I'rom  the  lahels  tliemselves  here  in  court  to  he  produced. 

7.  That  said  trademark  and  tlie  right  to  the  e.xdu.sive  use  thereof 
is  of  great  value  to  your  orator,  and  any  infringement  thereof  or  any 
iiso  of  a  mark  so  closely  resemlding  the  same  as  to  mislead  the  public 
into  believing  that  they  are  procuring  your  orator's  goods  when  they 
are  not  your  orator's  goods  is  likely  to  cause  irreparable  injury  to  your 
orator,  and  to  deprive  your  orator  of  the  just  reward  and  fruits  of  its 
well  earned  reputation  for  inks,  mucilage  and  ])aste,  by  reason  of  the 
fact  that  your  orator's  goods  have  become  \\v\l  and  very  extensively 
known  by  the  short  designation  of  Davids'  Ink,  Davids"  Mucilage,  and 
Davids'    Paste. 

8.  That  your  orator  and  its  predecessors  have  made  and  sold  under 
Haid  registered  trademark,  and  are  now  making  and  selling  thereunder 
quite  a  lirge  variety  of  inks,  mucilage  and  paste,  such  as  several  kinds 
of  black  ink,  blue  ink,  green  ink,  carmine  ink,  scarlet  ink,  copying  ink, 
and  n-cord  ink,  writing  fluids,  stylo;;rapliie  p.ii  ink,  lettering  ink, 
and  wveral  kinds  of  jiaste  and  mucilage,  all  of  whicli  have  lieen  known 
in  the  market  aiul  are  called  for  as  Davids'  Inks,  or  Davids*  Paste,  or 
Davids'  Mucilage.  Hy  reason  of  this  fact  piirrhasers  and  tin'  piililic 
generally    in    tlie    purchase    of    BUch   urticles    have    come    to    identify    tho 


FOK.MS   OF    MIM*S    ANl)    ANSWKUK.  8G5 

Hunic  an  of  your  oraforM  iniiinifactnro  larfjcly,  if  not  ontin-ly,  f)y  roason 
<if  the  pn-Hriicc  upon  tin-  lulu>l  of  tli(>  word  DiivIiIh'  and  tlit-  word  Ink 
or  th«!  word  I'aHto  or  tlic  word  Mucilage  uh  the  nioHt  prominent  part  of 
tlu'  lal»'l,  puyin;^  little,  if  any  attention  to  tin-  color  or  otln-r  character- 
iHticH  of  tilt'  various  lal>»'ln,  wliich  color  aiul  ciuiracti-riMticH  arc  Muhjcct  to 
change,  and  as  hefore  stated  present  ipiite  a  Iar;;e  variety  of  appearanccH. 
f).  That  defendant,  ("ortlaiul  I.  Davids,  entered  the  omi)loy  of  your 
orator  as  book-keeper  about  the  month  of  .Fune,  MX)."),  and  remained  in 
said  employ  for  a  period  of  nine  niontiis;  and  the  other  defendant. 
Waller  I.  Davids,  entered  your  orato'-'s  employ  an  asHiHtant  iMmk-keeper 
some  tinn-  in  tlie  year  1!M)4,  and  rem^iwied  in  said  employ  until  about 
the  montli  of  Marcii,  iJtOti;  tiuit  both  of  said  deferulants  wliile  in  said 
emjiloyment  became  familiar  with  your  orator's  manufacture  of  inkH, 
mucilage  and  paste  from  seeing  the  same  constantly  al)out  your  orator's 
show  rooms  and  ollice  at  1J7  William  jtreet,  Now  York  City,  where 
they  were  employei'  ..nd  from  tiieir  position  as  book-keeper  and  assistant 
book-keeper  became  aware  of  the  popularity  and  demand  for  said  goods, 
and  to  a  large  extent  became  familiar  with  the  names  of  your  orator's 
customers  and  the  quality  of  said  goods  usually  purchased  by  said 
ciistomers. 

10.  That  somewhere  al)out  tlie  montli  of  Marcli,  lOOCi,  your  orator 
for  good  cause  discharged  the  said  two  defendants  from  its  said  employ, 
since  which  time  there  has  been  no  business  connection  or  employment 
of  any  sort  between  your  orator  and  the  defendants  or  either  of  them, 
and  no  authority  has  ever  been  given  by  your  orator  to  said  defenflants 
or  either  of  them  to  use  said  trademark  or  to  manufacture  or  sell  anv 
inks,  mucilage  or  paste  bearing  in  any  form  the  word  Davids'  thereon, 
or  on  any  label  attached  thereto,  or  to  hold  themselves  out  as  liaving 
any  connection  with  your  orator  or  its  products  or  process  of  manu- 
facture. 

11.  That  prior  to  said  March,  1006,  neither  of  tlie  defendants,  so  far 
as  your  orator  is  informed  and  believes  had  ever  undertaken  to  make 
or  sell  or  put  on  the  market  any  inks  or  mucilage  or  paste  in  any  form, 
nor  had  lield  themselves  out  in  any  way  as  being  manufacturers  of  such 
articles;  but  that  some  time  after  their  said  discharge,  but  how  lon<' 
your  orator  cannot  say,  deftMidants  associated  themselves  togetlier  in  the 
business  of  making  and  selling  inks,  mucilage,  j)aste,  and  contriving  and 
intending  to  injure  your  orator  in  its  business,  and  to  divert  to  themselves 
the  benefit  and  advantage  wiiicli  otherwise  would  have  accrued  to  vour 
orator  from  the  excellcjice  and  jiopularity  of  its  said  goods  known  to 
the  trade  as  Davids'  Ink,  Davids'  Mucilage,  Davids'  Paste,  defendants 
adopted  as  a  tradename  the  firm  name  and  style  "Davids  Manufacturin" 
Company  ',  and  began  putting  on  trie  market  inks,  mucilage  and  paste 
in  bottles  on  whicli  were  pasted  labels  at  the  top  of  which  the  wort* 
Davids'  appeared  in  prominent  type,  at  tin-  middle  of  which  ai)peared 
the  word  Ink,  or  the  word  Mucilage,  or  the  word  Paste,  as  the  case 
might  be,  appeared  in  jiromineut  type,  and  at  the  bottom  of  which  lab^ 


S6G  APPEM>I\    It. 

tJii'  wi>ril«  Dnviiln  Miuuifiuturint;  roiiii>aiiv  ii])|iiari<l  in  prdinimiit  tyjn-, 
Rnd  iw>l(t  th«>  Mini<-  aiul  oITiT(*<1  the  Hiimc  for  k»Ii-  hs  DuviiiH*  Ink.  Dnvidfl' 
Mm'ilujri-  hihI  DuvjiIh'  I'uHtv,  by  mimm  (»f  wliicli  wiul  (^ihhIh  ki)  liil>«>ll(>(l 
M»T«'  culriiluttil  to  dtffivf  thr  public  imd  did  intimlly  dcci-ivi-  tin-  puhlic 
in  mnny  in«tancf»  into  tli«-  iM-lit-f  tlint  in  Imyin^'  dcfcndunt'H  ^'oodH  tlu'V 
wen-  Imvinj;  y«iiir  orntor'H  ^joodH,  whcn-liy  j;n-nt  confunion  wan  rn-att'd  in 
the  market  bh  to  tlu'  origin  of  Raid  j;«kmIh  to  the  jjn-at  damap'  and  injury 
of  your  orator  and  infrinjri'ini'nt  of  your  orator'H  n-^iHtt-n-d  trademark, 
as   well  BH  your  orator'H  vented   rit.'htH  of  trademark   at  rommon   law. 

12.  That  defendantH  ho  manufactured  and  .wld  naid  articlei)  and  bo 
laU'Ued  tluni  in  infrin;;enient  of  your  orator'n  re^risteri-d  trademark  aa 
altove  set  forth  not  only  witliin  the  Soutliem  Dintrict  of  New  York,  but 
in  commerce  amon^  tin-  wvj-ral  ntates,  and  iiave  therel)y  cauH4>d  and 
arc  tlireateninjj  to  continue  to  cauw  ^'n-at  and  irreparable  injury  to 
your  orator'H  naid  buHinena  unleas  defendants  can  be  rentraincd  by  order 
of  tluH  honorable  court. 

l.'l.  That  the  (>p«>cific  act  of  infringement  heroin  complained  of  bh 
a(T»*ctinjr  your  orator's  said  ro;.'i8tered  trademark  consisted,  not  in  the 
mere  use  of  the  word  DavidH*  without  otiierwise  lalM'lin;r  their  noods  to 
produce  confusion  (your  orator  having'  no  objection  to  the  mere  use  of 
the  name  V.  I.  Davids  on  defendant's  j.;oods)  but  in  settin;;  said  word 
Davids'  in  prominent  type  at  tlie  top  of  the  label,  the  word  Ink,  Paste  or 
Mucilai^e  also  in  prominent  type  near  the  middle  of  the  label,  and  the 
arbitrary  adopted  trade  name  of  Davids  Manufacturing  Company  in 
imitation  of  your  orator's  trade  name  Thaddeus  Davids  Company  at  the 
bottom  of  the  label. 

14.  That  said  use  of  your  orator's  re;iistered  trademark  on  the  part 
of  naid  defendants  and  the  puttin;,'  of  their  goods  on  the  market  as  and 
for  your  orator's  goods  constitute,  as  your  orator  is  advised,  not  only 
an  infringement  of  your  orator's  lawful  trademark,  but  also  unfair  and 
\inlawful  competition  on  the  part  of  defendants,  which,  if  continued,  will 
cause  irreparable  loss  and   injury  to  your  orator. 

Wherefore,  as  your  orator  can  have  no  adequate  relief  except  in  the 
court  of  iKpiity,  may  it  please  your  lionors  to  grant  unto  yo\ir  orator  a 
writ  of  Hubptena,  issuing  out  of  and  undi-r  said  seal  of  this  honorable 
court,  directed  to  the  sai<l  defendants,  Cortland  I.  Davids  and  Walter  I. 
Davids,  trading  under  the  name  of  Davids'  ^lanufacturing  Company, 
commanding  them  and  each  of  them  to  l)e  and  appear  on  a  cer- 
tain day  and  under  penalty  in  this  court  then  and  there  to  answer  this 
comfdaint  Jmt  not  under  oath,  the  oath  thereto  being  expressly  waived, 
and  to  stand  to  and  aliide  such  order  and  decree  as  may  be  made  against 
them,  and  your  orator  further  prays  that  said  defendants  nuiy  be  com- 
[K'lled  to  account  for  and  to  pay  to  your  orator  tlie  ]irotits  by  them 
acrjuired  and  the  damages  suflered  by  your  orator  from  the  said  unlaw- 
ful acts,  and  that  said  defendants,  their  Hervants,  agents,  and  attorneys 
may  be  enjoined  and  restrained  Ity  the  order  of  this  court  from  the 
uw  of  the   words    Davids   Manufacturing  Comjiany,   and    from   the  tise   of 


FOHMS   OI"    HII.I.S    AM)     VNSWKKS.  867 

tlio  word  Dnvids"  ;it  tlic  tci|>  <>f  tlicir  IiiIhIh  in  c-omu-ction  witli  the  Ijiihi- 
noHH  of  mnkiii^  ami  Hcllin;^'  iiikH,  niiKMlii^^f  or  |)iiHt<-,  and  from  Htdliii^  or 
•ifrcriinr  for  Hale  tlnir  j^oods  uh  DavidH'  Ink,  DavidH'  I'aHtc  or  DuvidH* 
Miicilap-  in  niicli  nianncr  aH  ih  c-alculatcd  to  deceive  tlio  pulilic  or  miH- 
li'ud  it  into  the  liidicf  tliat  any  inkn,  iniu-ilagc  or  puHtc  miinufai-tun-d  by 
di'fcndunta  are  of  the  manufacture  of  your  orator;  and  from  doin)(  any 
other  acts  or  things  which  are  intended  or  calculated  to  create  confuHiun 
aa  to  the  ori{,'in  of  your  orator's  poodH,  and  from  attemptinj^  to  divert 
to  defendants  any  part  of  the  trade  which  your  orator  lias  huilt,  in 
connection  witii  its  prt-deceHSorw,  or  \>y  means  of  naid  tradimark  and  \>y 
means  of  your   orator's  well   earned   reputation    for   suiteriority   of   floods. 

And  your  orator  prays  in  this  rej^'ard  not  only  a  i)relimiiiary  injunc- 
tion restraining,'  defendants,  their  servants,  a;,'ents  or  attorneys  as  here- 
inbefore prayed  during  the  pendency  of  this  suit,  but  also  a  perpetual 
injunction  and  for  such  other  and  furtiier  relief  as  your  honors  may 
seem  meet. 

And  your  orator  will  ev»r  pray,  etc. 

By  L.   A.   Davids,   Prraiilmt. 
\V.  1'.  r.  Jr.,  TnADUEUS  Davids  Company, 

Solicitor  and  of  Counsel  for  Complninnnt. 


BILL  OF  COMPLAINT. 

(Carson  v.  Ury,  3!)  Fed.  Rep.  777.) 

In  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United   States   for   the   Eastern   Division 
of  the  Kastern  Judicial   District  of   Missouri. 

James    Carson,   Complainant, 
vs. 
Henry  L'ry,  Harriet  Ury.  Eichakd  \  In  Ktjuity. 
Ury,  Erskine  Mansfield  and  A. 
Bei.inek,   Defendants.  J 

J.  C,  a  resident  and  citizen  of  the  city  of  New  York,  in  the  state  of 
New  York,  files  this  his  amended  bill  of  complaint,  under  leave  of 
court  had  and  obtained,  ajrainst  the  above  dcfi-ndants,  H.  U.,  H.  U., 
R.  U.,  E.  M.  and  A.  B.,  all  of  whom  are  citizens  of  the  state  of  Missouri 
and  residents  of  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  in  the  eastern  division  of  the 
eastern  judicial  district  of  the  said  state,  and  thereupon  your  orator 
complains   and   says: 

First.  That  your  orator  for  more  than  seven  years  has  been  and 
now  is  a  member  of  tiie  Cigar  Makers'  International  Union  of  Amer- 
ica; that  the  members  of  said  union  are  severally  cigar  makers  residing 
in  the  United  States,  and  said  union  is  a  voluntary  unincorporated 
association  of  practical  cigar  makers  formed  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
moting the  mental,  moral  and  physical  welfare  of  the  members,  by 
assisting    them    to    obtain    labor    at    remunerative    wages,    by    affording 


868  ArrFNDix  ir. 

thfin  jHTuninry  aid  in  caKo  of  HitkiiiHs  uiul  jtrox  idin;^  moin-y  in  cam* 
of  dcatli,  and  generally  to  maintain  a  lii;;h  Htandard  of  wurkniuiiHliip 
and   fair  wap'M  of  ri^'ar  makiTH. 

S«Tond.     That   tin-  «|Ufhti«»n    wliiili    in   tin-   Hiil>ji'rt   of  llii«  action    in   one 
nf   rommon   and    p'n«>ral   intiToHt  to   all    mctnlMTB   of  the   Cif^r   Makers' 
International     I'nion    of    Amrrifa,    antl    tliat    tlu-y    an-    vt-ry    nnmcroim, 
iK'inj;    ovi-r    twrnty-fivi'    thouHand    in    nunilnT.    and    tiiat    it    in    im|inifti 
cahh',  thcroforr,  to   hrin;;  tlu-m   all   iM-forc  thr  court  in   tliirt  action. 

Third.  That  an  your  t>rator  in  informed  and  hdicvcH,  for  tho  pur- 
poHo  of  dcKi^rnntinj;  the  manufacturin;,'  of  nicmlMTs  of  tiic  C'i;,'ar  Makcrn' 
International  I'nion  of  America,  tiie  said  union  thrmi^'h  itH  dele^^ati'H 
in  convention  aHHemhIeil  in  t'hica;io  in  tin*  month  of  Septt'mlM-r,  1880, 
deviMHl  and  adopted  a  trademark,  or  l«l>el  to  which  they  jjavo  the 
name  of  "Union  Label,"  a  facsimile  of  which  is  annexed  hereto  and 
marked  "K.vhiliit  A;"  that  prior  to  the  adoption  of  Haid  lalK-l  the 
hanie  had  not  l>e«'n  known  or  in  uw  in  this  country  or  elsewln-ro,  and 
ever  since  said  adoption  the  memluTH  of  the  Ci^-ar  Makers*'  Interna- 
tional I'nion  of  America  have  exclusively  used  said  lahels,  and  the 
name  hav«'  Imh-u  conspicuously  posted  on  the  outside  of  cij;ar  boxes 
rtmtainin;;  ci;;ars  made  by  the  members  of  said  Cigar  Makers'  Inter- 
national   Union   of   America. 

Fourth.  That  the  members  of  said  union  are  by  the  constitution  and 
laws  of  said  union  aUowed  to  make  and  sell  cigars,  and  to  use  on 
such  cigars  so  made  and  sold  by  thc-m  labels  like  said  "Kxhibit  A," 
provided  they  do  not  employ  others  to  make  said  cigars;  and  that 
your  orator  for  about  two  years  last  past  has  been  making  and  selling 
cigars  in  the  city  of  New  York  aforesaid  and  has  used  there  the 
labels  like  said  "Kxhibit  A,"  and  has  built  up  a  profitable  trade  for 
liims<-lf  under  said  label,  and  that  your  orat«>r  was  the  owner  of  the 
cigars   which   he  thus  made   and  sold   under   said   label    to   the   public. 

Fifth.  That  the  said  label  aflixed  to  cigar  boxes  is  intended  as  a 
giiaranty  that  the  cigars  therein  contained  are  manufactured  by  mem- 
Imts  of  the  Cigar  Makers'  International  I'nion  of  Anu-rica,  ami  that 
good  and  ch-an  workmanship  has  thereby  been  secure*!;  and  that  the 
cigars  were  not  made  in  tenement  houses  or  state  prisons  or  by  coolies, 
and  for  these  reasons  the  cigars  so  labeled  command  a  liiglier  priw 
in  the  market  than  cigars  of  similar  appearance,  but  without  such 
label,  can  command;  that  there  is  a  large  dennind  among  the  public 
for  cigars  having  said  label,  wliich  deniand  has  been  growing  every 
year  since  the  organization  of  said  union,  and  the  use  of  said  label 
has  In-en  and  is  a  sourcj-  of  great  profit  ami  advantage  to  your  orator 
and   to  the  other  meml>ers  of   said   union. 

Sixth.  That  it  is  the  |>ractice  of  said  nniim  to  furnisli  gratuitouslv 
copies  of  the  genuine  laliel  marked  "Kxhibit  \"  to  all  nuuiufactur- 
ers  of  cigars  in  the  United  States  who  employ  exclusively  memlHTS 
of  the  said  union,  who  themselves  own  and  S4-1I  the  cigars  which  they 
make. 


1«X3HMS   OK   HIM*S    ASM)    ANSWTCRS.  860 

Sovontli.  Tliat  tlic  \va;;i'H  (Iriiuiiidrd  mill  rcecivril  Ity  tin-  numlHTH 
of  Hiiid  union,  arc  alxnit  tlin-f  dullarH  liinln-r  p<T  one  thouHund  cij^arH 
than  tlir  \va;,'«'B  dcmandt'd  and  roceivrd  l>y  oIIht  wurkmi-n,  and  tliat 
union-made  ci^.Mirs,  that  in,  hoxvn  of  ci^jurH  carryinj^  tin*  Haid  lalitdM, 
luinj;  in  tin-  market  aliout  three  dolhirn  more  jier  tlioUHand  than  Huch 
ci;,'arH  would  hrin;,'  witliout  Hueli  lal)elH;  tiiat  tliiH  iH  the  caw  \n-rii\im: 
tile  cijiars  h<arin>,'  baid  lahelH  are  known  to  tlie  nuhlic  to  he  made  hy 
competent    workmen    in   eh-an    and    liealtliy   HhopH. 

iM^htii.  'I'iiat  hy  th<'  use  of  naid  j^eiiuine  hiitelrt  aH  aforenaid,  your 
orator  and  otlier  memhers  of  nai<l  union  liave  made  j;reat  prijfitu  and 
the  puhlic   is   protected   from   impure  and   unhealtiiy   cigarH. 

Ninth.  Tliat  said  union  does  not  issue  lahels  to  manufacturers  em- 
ployin<;  tenement  house  lahor,  or  ]>riHon  lahor,  or  coolie  lahor,  or  who 
do  not  jiay  the  re(|uired  stale  of  wa;;es  demanded  hy  said  union,  and 
that  said  ur.'.on  does  not  s(  11  any  such  laix-ls  either  to  manufacturers 
or   to   the    puhlic. 

Tenth.  That  as  your  orator  is  informed  and  helieves,  since  the 
adoption  and  use  of  said  hihel  hy  said  union,  and  since  the  time  when 
your  orator  commenced  to  sell  cigars  hearing  said  genuine  lahel,  the 
said  defendants  have  conspired  and  federated  together  to  cheat  and 
defraud  your  orator  and  the  memhers  of  said  union  so  using  said 
label  as  aforesaid,  and  fraudulently  impose  ujion  manufacturers  and 
dealers  in  cigars  and  upon  the  jmhlie  hy  manufacturing  and  offering 
for  sale  and  selling  and  giving  away  for  use  on  cigar  boxes,  labels 
which  are  spurious  and  counterfeits  of  said  genuine  labels,  and  in 
furtherance  of  this  fraudulent  and  illegal  business  have  adopted  the 
name  "B.  Alberts."  That  your  orator  is  informed  and  believes  that 
the  said  name  of  B.  Alberta  is  fictitious  and  that  there  is  no  person 
of  that  name,  but  that  the  same  was  first  adopted  by  defendant  B. ; 
but  however  this  may  be,  your  orator  further  says  that  said  defend- 
ants under  said  name  have  manufactured,  offered  for  sale  and  sold 
spurious  and  counterfeit  labels  for  use  as  aforesaid — a  copy  of  wliich 
said  spurious  and  counterfeit  label  is  hereto  annexed,  marked  "Ex- 
hibit B."  That  the  spurious  label  so  offered  and  given  away  and 
sold  by  said  defendants  under  the  said  name  of  B.  Alberts  is  a  close 
imitation  and  counterfeit  of  the  genuine  adopted  by  said  union  as 
aforesaid.  That  the  said  defendants  have  also  lately  inserted  an  ad- 
vertisement in  the  United  States  Tobacco  Journal,  a  newspaper  pub- 
lished in  the  city  of  New  York,  state  of  New  York,  and  in  other  pub- 
lications, representing  to  the  public  that  they  had  for  sale  copies  of 
said  genuine  label,  issued  by  authority  of  said  Cigar  Makers*  Inter- 
national Union  of  America,  and  containing  a  representation  of  such 
label.  All  of  which  acts  of  said  defendants  are  done  without  the  au- 
thority or  permission  of  your  orator  or  the  officers  and  members  of 
said  union,  and  against  its  will  and  protest.  That  in  furtherance  of 
said  fraudulent  and  illegal  purposes,  and  with  the  intent  to  cheat  and 
defraud    as    aforesaid,    said    defendants    have    published    a    fictitious    ad 


870  AiM*KM>ix  n. 

«lro««,  in  RAul  nnmo  of  n.  AIlM>rtH  ft«  nforonni*!,  towit :  No.  222  Pino 
Str«vt,  in  tlu"  city  nf  St.  I..<>uiH,  tlii-ro  InMn^  no  person  l>y  tlic  nunn*  of 
li.  AIlHTtH  Ht  Mtiil  acl(iri*HH,  iind  liavi>  ciuiwd  ail  mail  tliiTi*  r«'Cfivf<l  in 
iinHWiT  ti>  tltfir  adM-rtiminrnts  to  Im>  dclivfrid  to  tin-  phi'  •  of  huHi- 
lU'HH  of  Kail!  difi-nilantH.  11.  V.  unci  H.  V.,  witli  wliom,  an  your  orator 
in  informal,  tin-  otinr  <Irfcnilanti«  an-  aHWK-iatcd  at  No.  .'lOl  .Vortli  Main 
Stnvt,  in  thf  city  of  St.   I.K)iiiH. 

Kli-vi-nth.  That  Hai<l  wmnjifnl  iiul  fraiKlulciit  ait.-*  of  naiil  drfi-nd- 
iintB,  and  tln-ir  rontinuatioii,  an-  i-alculatt-d  to  dtToive  and  miHload  and 
do  d«vfivi>  and  niinlfad  tlio  i)iil)Iic  into  the  iH'lii'f  tliat  Haid  «li-f»'n<lantH 
havj-  autliority  fr«>m  saitl  union  to  wll  or  j;ivc  away  waid  piiuini- 
IhIm'Ih,  and  furtln-r  tend  to  dofcivo  tlu'  puldic  into  t'lc  lirlicf  tiuit  tin- 
cipirH  thuH  laln-lfd  hy  tin-  puroluiwrs  of  said  laln-lrt  from  tlic  dcfi-nd- 
antu  an-  tin*  t-i^'ars  made  and  8old  l»y  your  orator  and  surli  otlirr  nuikcru 
of  cigars  an  have  autliority  to  iih(>  tiH>  p>nuino  Ial><-1  of  said  union; 
and  they  furth»T  tend  to  di-ccive  the  puhlio  into  tlic  l^-Iiff  that  the 
falw^  and  spurious  labels  sold  and  ofTereil  for  sale,  or  ;;iv<n  away  hy 
said  defendants,  are  tin    genuine   lahcls  of  said   union. 

Tw»dfth.  Tliat  your  orator  has,  and  tlie  other  memlH>rs  of  .naid  Cigar 
Makers'  International  I'nion  of  Ameriea  have,  a  valued  and  pt'cuniary 
interest  in  the  genuine  labels  issued  hy  said  union,  and  used  liy  the 
memhi-rs  thereof,  and  that  he  has,  and  they  have,  sutFered  irreparable 
damage  by  the  wrongful  acts  of  said  defendants,  and  that,  if  suffered 
to  continue,  the  wrongful  acta  of  said  defendants  will  tend  to  produce 
further  irr«'parabh>  damage  to  your  orator  and  to  the  other  n)enil>ers  of 
said  Cigar  Makers'    International   I'nion  of  America. 

Thirteenth.  That  your  orator  has  no  adequate  remedy  at  law  for 
said    injury. 

FourtcM-nth.  That  said  injury  can  not  be  ade<iuatelv  compinsated  in 
money,  but  your  orator  alleges  that  the  matters  in  dispute  and  injury 
to  him,  exclusive  of  interest  and  costs,  exceed  the  sum  of  two  thousand 
dollars. 

F'ifteenth.  That  as  your  orator  is  informed  and  l)elieves,  one  or 
more  of  said  defendants,  prior  to  the  conim<necment  of  said  wrongful 
acts,  were  memlters  of  said  union  and  well  acipuiii.ted  with  its  con- 
stitution, by-laws  and   practice,  but  are  not    nt)w   members  of  said   union. 

Sixt«-<nth.  And  your  orator  furtln'r  shows  unto  your  honors  on  in- 
formation and  iM-lief,  that  said  defendants  have  made  and  sold,  and 
caused  to  Ik*  made  and  sold,  largo  ipiantities  of  said  labels,  and  have 
largo  quantities  on  hand,  which  they  are  now  offering  for  sale,  and 
have  made  and  realized  large  profits  and  advantages  tlierefrom;  hut 
to  what  extent  and  how  much  exactly  your  orator  thu-r  not  know  and 
prays  a  <Iis<'overy  thereof;  and  that  said  labels  have  been  used  by 
many  manufacturers  of  cigars  in  the  sale  of  cigars  wliich  wi-re  not 
made  by  your  orator  or  by  any  meralier  of  the  Cigar  Makers'  Inter- 
national   Union   uf   America. 


KOK.MS    OK    lUM.S     \M)     VNSWKKS.  871 

Sovontconth.  And  your  orator  fiirtlitT  kii\h  tliat  tin*  uho  and  m\o  of 
Hftid  latit'lH  l»y  Hiiid  di-fciidHritH,  niid  thfir  pn-paratiori  for  ami  avowc<l 
dfti'rininati<»n  to  foiitinui'  tin-  Haim-,  and  tlh-ir  otlicr  afon-Haid  and  un- 
lawful ttotH  in  diHri-gard  and  di'fianer  «>f  your  orator,  liuvc  tliu  firect  to 
and  do  »'ncoura;^i'  and  induco  otluTH  to  diHn-j^ard  your  orator's  rightit 
in  till'  pri'iniHi'H. 

And  your  orator  jirays  tliat  said  difciidaiitH,  11.  \'.,  H.  1'.,  I{.  U., 
K.  M.  and  A.  B.,  tlit'ir  w-rvantH,  aj,'i'ntH,  attornryH  and  workmi-n,  and 
rat'ii  and  ovory  of  tlit-m,  may  hi-  n-Htrainrd  and  rnjoinrd  proviHionally 
and  j)rrpi'tually,  l)y  tiu-  ordi-r  and  injunction  of  tliiH  lionoraldi-  court, 
from  directly  or  indirectly  makint;,  using,  vending,  delivering  or  in 
anywise  counterfeiting  or  imitating  said  genuine  label  of  the  Cigar 
^Makers,  International  Union  of  America,  or  from  making,  selling  or 
oirering  for  sale  or  giving  away  any  labels  iikr  or  similar  to  those 
issued  hy  said  Cigar  Makers'  International  I'nion  of  America,  and  that 
tiie  defendant  may  he  decreed  to  pay  tlie  costs  of  this  suit,  and  that 
your  orator  may  have  such  further  or  such  other  relief  as  to  this 
honorable   court   shall   seem   meet   and   as   shall   seem   agreeabe   to    equity. 

An  answer   under  oath   is  hereby   exprvssly  waived. 

May  it  please  your  honors  to  grant  unto  your  orator  tlie  writ  of  in- 
junction, aa  well  provisional  as  perpetual,  issuing  out  of  and  under 
the  seal  of  this  honorable  court,  commanding,  enjoining  and  restrain- 
ing said  defendants.  H.  U.,  H.  U.,  K.  U.,  K.  M.  and  A.  B.,  command- 
ing them  by  a  certain  day  and  under  certain  penalty  to  be  and  appear 
in  this  honoruble  court  tlien  and  there  to  answer  the  j)remises  and  to 
stand  to  and  abide  sucli  order  and  decree  as  may  lie  made  against 
them. 

And  your  orator  will  ever  pray,  etc. 

A.  K..  of  Counsel.  B.,  S.  &   K.. 

Complainants'  Solicitors, 
icith   II  horn   arc  II.  0.  d  J. 

State  of  New  York,  ) 

f^outhcrn    District    of   Xcw    York,    K  ss. 
City   and   County   of   New   York,      j 

J.  C,  being  duly  sworn,  says  that  he  is  the  complainant  named  in 
the  foregoing  complaint,  that  he  has  read  said  complaint,  and  that 
the  allegations  contained  therein  are  true  except  those  which  are  stated 
therein  to  be  alleged  on  ini.irmation  and  belief,  and  as  to  those  he  be- 
lieves said  complaint  to  be  true. 

Sworn  to  before  me  this  23d  day  of  Mareli,  ISS!). 

H.  M.  T., 
Notary  Public  of  Ycto  yo77i;  County. 


872  viM'K.\i>ix  I'. 

Itll.l.  <»1.-  rnMI'l.AlNl". 

(Mil.<HH    \      Kl.iniii^',    'M\   V.    S.   24:».  I 

To  thr  Judpca  uf  the  Cirruit  Cntirt  of  thr  United  States  irithin  nud  for 
the  IHstriet  of    Migiiouri. 

V.  F.  of  PittHlmr^',  in  tin-  Statf  of  I'ciiiiHvlMiiiiu,  a  titizcn  of  nnid 
State,  lirin^  thin  bin  hill  of  roniplaint  a^raiiiHt  .(.  H.  Mel...  of  St.  Louia, 
in  tlio  Kastorn  District  of  MiKwuiri.  and  n  cid/.tn  of  tin-  Stato  of 
MiHMniri.  and  tlnmipon  Mnir  orator  coinplains  and  navH  that  In-  in 
now,  an<l  for  tin*  last  sixti-cn  numtlis  han  hcon  «'.\t«'nHivcly  <npi/«'d  in- 
dividually in  tlif  numnfacturi'  of  a  n-rtain  y'lU,  dcsi;;natrd  and  known 
in  tradf  and  hy  puhlif  advcrtiwnnnt,  and  hy  dcah-rK  and  i-onHumi'rM 
H»  "Dr.  I".  McLani''«  Livi-r  Pills,"  and  tiiat  said  pills  havt-  h«'fom««  vt-ry 
fxtvnsivoly  known  and  »is<'d   in  tin-  United  States  and   in   other  countries. 

Yoiir  orator  states  furtlu-r  that  said  jiills  were  first  made  and  sold 
hv  Dr.  Charles  McLane,  at  Morfxantown,  Vir;;inia,  where  said  Mc- 
I^ne  resided — that  said  MeLane  was  the  ori;,'inal  and  exclusive  in- 
ventor and  propri<'tor  of  said  pills,  and  first  made  and  sold  the  same 
hy  the  name  and  description  of  ''Dr.  McLanc's  Liver  Pills,"  and  hy 
that  name  tlu-y  were  known  and  desi'^'nated  and  were  made  and  sold 
onlv  hy  said  Dr.  Charles  McLane,  till  Juno  lOth,  1844,  when  said  Mc- 
Lane, liy  hill  of  sale  of  that  date,  sold  his  interest  therein  to  one  J. 
K.  of  Pittshurji,  Pennsylvania,  giving  said  K.  the  ripht  to  make  and 
vend  the  same  in  the  United  States,  reserving,'  only  the  privilepe  of 
making;  and  vending,'  the  same  himself  in  Mor;:antown,  aft)resaid,  as 
will  apptar  hy  said  liill  of  sale,  a  copy  of  whieli  is  herewith  filed 
marked  "A.,"  and  therehy  said  J.  K.  hecame  the  S(dp  owner  and  proprietor 
thereof  with  tlie  exclusive  ri^jht  to  make  and  sell  the  same  and  to  use 
the  name  thereof,  exct'ptin;,'  only  tiie  jx-rsonal  privih';,'e  reserved  as 
aforesaid,  and  thereupon  said  K.  hc^ian  at  Pittshurj,',  I'ennsylvania,  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  said  pills,  according  to  the  n-cipe  of  said 
Dr.  McLane,  and  continued  sucii  manufacture  at  said  j)lace  till  alwuit 
the  11th  day  of  April,  184r>,  when  said  K.  formed  a  partnersliip  with 
one  .1.  F.  under  the  name  and  style  of  J.  K.  &  Co..  and  said  K.  invested 
said  firm  with  the  full  right  to  make  and  sell  said  ])ills,  and  to 
use  the  name  thereof,  ami  said  firm  engaged  largely  in  the  husiness 
of  making  and  sidling  said  pills,  and  in  orch-r  to  designate  the  same  as 
an  article  of  their  own  manufacture,  and  to  prevent  imposition  and 
fraud  U|M)n  the  puhlic  and  persons  desiring  to  i»ureliase  the  same, 
Haid  firm,  during  or  hefore  tlie  year  1847  commenced  piitting  up  said 
pills  in  wooden  hoxes  of  uniform  si/.e,  shape  and  appearance,  having 
jwrjM-nilicular  sides,  with  top  and  hottom  of  elliptical  shape,  said  Im>x 
containing  twenty-two  pills,  anil  caused  the  words  "McLane's  I^iver 
Pill"  to  1m'  stamped  in  red  wax  iipon  tin*  cov«r  of  each  hox;  and  in 
further  pursiiance  of  their  said  design  to  <lesignate  said  jiill  as  the 
genuine  article  so  manufactiired  hy  them  as  aforesaid,  said  firm  pro- 
cund  at  their  own  expense  certain   plates,  and  caused  to  he  made  there- 


FOK.MS    OI"    HII.U<    ANI»     WSWHIIS.  873 

from  n  rcrtnin  tokcii-lftlMl  or  trailrinark,  oonHiAtin^  of  n  wrni)[)iT  whicli 
\vtis  |)liu-c<l  liy  tliciii  around  chcIi  Iiox  of  pillri,  niul  wliicli  wuh  |iriiit4-(l 
with  ink  of  n  lij;lit  nd  color;  tiu'  portion  thcri-of  rovi-rinj^  tin*  t<i|)  oi 
fucli  l)ox  ln'in;,'  m^iravrd  witli  a  narrow  hordir  of  Ht'ullojM'd  pattern. 
Hiirroiindin^'  a  panel  witli  liack;;round  or  wavr  lint-  i-iif^ravin;^,  and 
witli  tin-  words  "Dr.  Mcl.am-'rt  ('»'lcliratr<l  Livi-r  IMIIh.  In  Bick  lu-ad- 
aelii-  and  in  all  Idlious  compIaintH  H)iriianHC'd  liy  noni- — 2'>  ctH.,"  ••n- 
^ravi'd  tlu'rt'on  and  appcarinfj  in  wliito  IctttTH  Hliadcd  by  rt-d  lini'H; 
and  on  tin-  portion  of  waid  wrai)p<'r  oovcrin}^  tlu'  ri-ar  side  of  tin-  Jk)X 
u  pani'l  of  similar  liack^iroiind  surrounded  l»y  a  border  of  dark  red 
and  white  lines  ap|)earin;,'  interlaced  or  woven,  and  with  the  worda 
followin},'  to-wit:  "In  future  my  liver  ])'\\]h  will  have  a  red  steel  en- 
graved wrapper,  and  my  name  in  red  wax  on  each  box,"  appearinj^ 
thiToon  in  white  letters  shaded  by  red  lines,  and  liavin}^  also  a  fac- 
aimili-  of  the  si<,'nature  of  C  ^IcLane  enf,'raved  and  printed  in  red 
ink  at  tli«'  bottom  thereof;  and  upon  th«  portion  of  the  said  wrapper 
coverin}^  the  front  side  of  the  box  a  panel  with  a  border  and  back- 
ground similar  to  that  last  mentioned,  having  the  words  "Prepared  for 
the  i)roprietor  by  J.  K.  &  Co.,  No.  00  Wood  St.,  Pittsburgh,  Pa.,"  there- 
on in  white  letters  shaded  with  red  lines  and  also  the  words  "None 
can  be  genuine  without  the  signature  of  J.  K.  Sc  Co.,"  printed  thereon 
in  red  ink  the  words  "J.  K.  &  Co."  being  a  fac-similc  of  said  firm's 
signature.  A  copy  of  said  label  is  hereto  annexed  marked  "B,"  and 
made  part  hereof,  one  of  which  labels  or  trademarks  was  placed  on 
and  around  each  box  of  said  pills  made  and  sold  by  said  firm. 

The  said  firm  being  thus  the  sole  and  exclusive  owners  of  said  pills 
and  of  the  recipe  for  making  the  same,  and  of  the  said  token-label  or 
trademark,  and  the  plates  for  the  same,  exclusively  made,  put  up  and 
sold  said  pills  and  said  label  and  trademark  thereon,  and  brought  the 
same  into  notice,  and,  by  the  expenditure  of  large  sums  of  money  in 
advertising  and  by  the  exercise  of  energy  and  skill,  they  gave  to  said 
pills  a  wide  and  enviable  reputation,  and  they  derived  from  the  manufac- 
ture  and  sale  thereof   large  profits. 

Your  orator  states  further  that  on  the  2flth  day  of  March,  IS.")."},  said 
J.  K.  died  leaving  the  said  J.  F.  the  sole  surviving  partner  of  said  firm 
of  J.  K.  &  Co.,  who  continued  tlie  business  of  said  firm,  and  on  or 
about  the  30th  day  of  April,  IS't'.i,  the  executors  of  said  J.  K.  for  the 
sum  of  thirty-four  thousand  dollars,  and  other  considerations,  conveyed 
to  said  surviving  partner,  J.  F.  and  to  your  orator  jointly,  who  formed 
a  partnership  under  the  name  and  style  of  F.  Bros.,  all  the  right,  title, 
interest  and  claim  of  said  J.  K.  in  and  to  the  goods,  chattels,  notes, 
accounts,  claims,  rights,  and  credits  of  every  description  Ixdonging  to 
the  late  firm  of  J.  K.  &  Co.  in  the  drug  business  in  Pittsburg,  afore- 
said, as  will  appear  by  bill  of  sale  thereof  dated  April  'M),  1S.")3,  a 
copy   of   which    is  hereto   annexed   and   marked   "C." 

Under  said  bill  of  sale,  said  .T.  F.  and  C.  F.,  composing  tlie  firm  of 
F.  Bros.,  at  once   took   possession  of  the   business  of  making  and   selling 


874  All'KNDlX    M. 

H«i«l  "Dr.  MiI.iiiu'h  I.ivrr  I'iUh,"  uii«I  «if  wii<l  |>lat«-H,  tokciiH,  IiiIu'Ih  and 
trHdi-markx,  nnd  thon-liy  Imtiiiih'  tlu"  rxcluHivc  owncrH  of  thi*  Ham<> 
«nd  of  tlif  ri;:lit  to  niakr  and  m-ll  tUv  tmnw  with  tin-  naid  lalu'ln,  tokcnH, 
and  tradfmarkM  tlH'rc*^!,  cxo'iit  tin-  ri^ilit  rcwrvt-d  \>y  tlu-  naid  Dr. 
(liarlcH  MrLant-  as  aforrxaid.  On  or  alntut  January  lltli,  1S.')4,  L.  \V. 
Jr.,  iMvamt*  a  ]>artn«-r  in  tho  Hiiid  Arm  of  F.  liroa.  and  aftcrwardti  itaid 
Dr.  C.  McI>ano  n>lin(|uiH)i<Hl  tt)  »aid  F.  Bro«.  all  liis  rijjlit  tlu-roto,  and 
fnrthrr  r«Toj;nir.fd  and  oonflrnicd  to  naid  F.  Bnm.  tlu>  full  and  cxrlusivf 
ri;:lit  in  S4iid  ]>illH  aiul  Miid  lalx-lrt  and  tradt-markH,  hy  c-ontract  dat«*d 
.lanuary  Sth,  1X."»7,  a  tMjty  of  wliii-li  in  hrn-with  filfd  marked  "D." 

Said  firm  of  F.  Hron.  j^'n-atly  enlar^icd  tin-  l>u.sin<'MH  of  makin;^'  and 
M-lIin;;  Haid  pills  tintil  th«'  year  lS."»."i,  nincf  vliicli  time  until  the  y«'ar 
1H72,  M'hilo  putting  th«>m  up  in  boxes  of  the  same  material,  bizc  nnd. 
^hap«'  BM  already  hereinlK'fore  deat-rihed,  and  placing;  a  seal  with  the 
words  "Mcl^ane's  Liver  Pills"  stamped  in  red  wax  upon  the  cover  of 
each  1h>x  c»>ntainin^'  said  pilU  as  before  deseril>e«l,  tliey  folded  around 
each  box  a  circular  containing;  remarks  ujion  the  nature  and  elTeet  of 
haid  pills  and  the  dist-ases  for  which  they  are  reeonimeiuled  witli  <li- 
rections  for  their  use,  ])rinted  in  the  Kn;:lish,  fJerman,  French  and 
Spanish  lan;ninj:es,  a  coj)y  of  which  circular  is  hereto  attached  and 
markt>d  "E;"  and  in  order  to  still  further  and  more  readily  distinguish 
article  of  pills  manufactured  by  them  as  aforesaid,  as  of  their  own 
manufacture,  they  procured  new  steel  plates  and  caused  to  be  |)rinted 
then-from  lalx-ls  or  trademarks  forming;  an  external  wrapper,  consist- 
ing of  a  fine  steel  en^'ravinj,'  with  a  fac-simile  of  the  si<,'natured  of  ('. 
Mcl>ane  and  said  firm  of  F.  Bros.  en;:raved  thereon,  tlie  ground  wt)rk 
of  said  engraved  wrapper  on  the  top  of  the  l»ox  being  composed  of  fine 
lines  crossing  the  box  diagonally  and  at  riglit  angles  with  each  other 
and  the  words  "Dr.  C.  McLane's  celebrated  liver  pills,  in  sick-headache 
and  in  all  bilious  complaints  surpassed  by  none.  Price  'i.'i  cts."  engraved 
ther«-on,  showing  the  letters  and  figures  in  white,  the  said  words  "cele- 
l>rat<"d  liver  pills"  being  upon  a  scroll  similar  to  a  doul>le  ogee  in  form, 
with  black  background.  On  said  «'ngrav<'d  wrapjier  «'overing  one  side 
of  Hjiid  boxes,  said  firm  caused  to  be  engraved  and  )irinted  the  words: 
"Prepared  only  by  F.  Bros,  successors  to  .J.  K.  &  Co."  all  in  white  letters, 
also  a  facHimilc  of  their  signature  in  l)lack,  and  the  words  "without  whow! 
signature  none  can  Ije  genuine"  printed  in  black  letters,  and  on  the 
•  ipposite  side  of  said  boxes  are  printed  other  words  in  white  letters  as 
follows:  "In  futiire  my  genuine  liver  pills  will  have  a  fine  steel  engraved 
wrapp«-r,  and  my  name  in  red  wax  on  each  box,"  with  a  facsivxHc  of  the 
nignature  of  ('.  Mel.ane  in  black  script,  a  copy  of  which  lal)el  is  hereto 
attacheil  marked  "F." 

The  businesH  fif  making  and  selling  said  pills  with  said  labels,  tokens, 
and  trademarks  thereon,  was  carried  cm  by  said  firm  «if  F.  Bros.  fn»m 
the  3nth  day  of  April.  18.').3,  in  their  said  firm  nam<-,  and  said  firm 
from  said  lant  mentioned  date,  owned  and  held  among  their  firm  assets 
the  right  of  making  and  »4.-lliug  said  pills  and  using  thereon   said  tt)k<-ns. 


FOU.MS    OK    mi.l.S     \NI»    ANSWKUS.  875 

IiiIhIh,  and  t  iatl<iniirk>^,  iiutuilliHlaiiiiiii^,'  tin-  iliHn;,'in  tliat  «<r<'  iiiuili- 
fn.m  tinn-  to  tinir  from  said  HOtli  day  <>f  Ajiril,  1H.').'J,  until  tlu-  pn-wnt 
timi',   in  till'  individual  ini-mlKTH  iif  Haid   firm  which  wi-n*  a«   foUowH: 

On  tlic  11th  <lay  of  January,  A.  1).  1«.')4,  L.  \V.  .Ir.  iM-camc  a  nuintxT 
of  Haid  firm,  which  was  compoHi-d  of  said  J.  K.,  C.  F.  and  wiid  W., 
tintil  the  12tli  day  of  Octoltcr,  18.")7,  when  Haid  L.  \V.  .Ir.  withdn-w  from 
Haid  firm,  and  in  consideration  of  the  sum  of  wventeen  thousand  dol- 
lars conveyed  to  said  J.  F.  all  his  ri<,'ht,  title  and  interest  and  claim 
of,  in  and  to  the  property,  aHsets  and  elFects  whatever  of  said  firm  of 
F.  Bros,  indudinj,'  the  rif^lit  to  make  and  wll  said  pills,  and  to  uw  said 
tokens,  lalu-ls,  and  trademarks,  as  will  appear  liy  said  \V.  hill  of  sale 
of  that  date,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached,  marked  "F2,"  and 
from  and  after  said  12th  day  of  ()ctol)er,  IH.")?,  said  firm  composed  of 
suid  J.  F.  and  C.  F.  carried  on  tlie  business  of  makinj,'  and  sellin;^ 
said  pills,  put  up  aa  aforesaid  with  said  labels  thereon,  until  the  first 
day  of  July,  A.  D.  18(55,  when  said  C.  F.  withdrew  from  said  firm,  and 
in  consideration  of  the  sum  of  tliirty-five  thousand  dollars,  relincpiislicd 
to  said  J.  F.  all  his  said  C's  interest,  rijrht,  title  or  claim  in  and  to 
all  the  property  and  assets  c;f  said  firm  of  F.  Bros.,  and  said  J.  F.  there- 
after, under  said  firm  name  of  F.  Hros.,  continued  to  carry  on  the  busi- 
ness of  makinj^  and  selliuf^  and  puttin>f  up  said  pills  as  above  described 
at  Pittsburp,  Ta.,  till  about  tlie  2nd  day  of  November,  1870,  wlien  the 
said  J.  F.  died,  and  by  will,  a  copy  of  which  is  herewith  filed  marked 
"G"  and  made  part  hereof,  bequeathed  to  your  orator  the  goodwill 
and  i)roprietorship  of  ^McLane's  and  other  medicines,  owned  and  con- 
trolled by  him,  wliich  included  said  Liver  Pills,  and  the  right  to  make, 
put  up  and  sell  the  same  as  described  last  aforesaid,  upon  certain  con- 
ditions; in  elTect  that  your  orator  should  take  cliarge  of  and  carry  on 
said  business,  and  pay  oft  the  pecuniary  legacies  given  in  said  will, 
all  of  which  your  orator  has  done,  and  by  his  said  will,  said  J.  F.i 
bequeathed  to  your  orator  after  payments  of  the  legacies  of  said  will, 
all  the  residue  of  his  estate,  and  thereby  your  orator  became,  and  is 
now,  tlie  sole  and  exclusive  owner  and  proprietor  of  said  pills,  and  the 
recipe  for  making  tlie  same,  and  of  said  tokens,  labels  and  trademarks, 
and  the  plates  therefor,  and  has  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  to  make 
and  sell  said  pills  and  to  use  said  labels,  tokens,  and  trademarks,  and 
as  residuary  legatee  of  said  J.  F.,  your  orator  is  entitled  to  recover 
all  damages  or  profits,  that  accrued  to  liim  in  his  lifetime,  or  to  said 
firm  of  F.  Bros. 

And  vour  orator  has,  since  the  death  of  said  J.  F.,  continued,  and 
still  continues  the  business  of  making  and  selling  said  pills  and  using 
thereon  the  said  label  and  trademark  under  the  said  name  of  F.  Bros., 
as  hereinbefore  described,  and  your  orator  is  now  using  said  label  as 
shown  by  Exhibit  "F,"  with  tluse  exceptions  only  that  within  the  last 
few  months,  he  has  used  and  now  uses  as  a  ground  work  on  his  labels 
shaded  curved  lines  cutting  and  crossing  each  other  in  such  a  way  as 
to  produce  the  eifect  oi  alternate   light  and   shade  crossing   the   top   of 


87G  An*KM>!x  n. 

tlu-  »K>x  ilinKMHinlly.  in  ]>hu>-  <>f  strai^lit  linoft  crosRing  rnch  other 
iliH^foniilly  a»  liininHlHivo  di-ivrilKHl,  unci  In*  now  omits  on  liiH  lnW-lii 
MH  now  um-«l  I'V  him  the  wohIh  ••Siuof(«Horn  of  .1.  K.  A  I  o."  iind  hua  aluo 
»uht)titut«Hl  -24"  in  plaw  «»f  "rtO"  an  tin*  numlM-r  of  \ViK>a  Htnvt,  as 
will  apixar  in  Kxhihit  "IT*  h.nt«i  annexi-d,  and  tliat  lioth  miid  lirm  of 
F.  BroH.  until  thi*  d«-uth  of  .1.  F.,  and  fn>m  that  timo,  your  uratttr  doinj; 
busincsH  in  aaid  firm  nam»>  aa  afor.wiid,  liavo,  aincc  the  paHsaj^'e  of  the 
Act  of  Confireiw  n-«iuirinf:  tlie  name,  |)hiied  aero9«  the  bottom  and 
ends  of  each  U*x  of  huid  pillH  when  put  up  for  wih-,  and  over  the  foldu 
of  the  external  wrapper,  tlieir  iiroprietary  United  Staten  Revenue  Htamp. 
And  your  orator  wiya  tluit  hein;;  the  sole  and  exelusiv.'  owner  and 
proprietor  of  naid  pilln  and  of  tlie  recipe  for  makinj^  tlie  name  and  of 
said  tokens,  lalnls  and  trademarks,  and  the  plates  therefor  as  afore- 
said, and  having'  the  sole  and  exclusive  rifjht  to  make  and  sell  said 
pills  pre|)anHl  and  put  up  as  aforesaid,  with  said  tokens,  lalnds  and 
tradcmnrks  tliereon.  your  t)rator  hoped  he  niij,'lit  he  permitted  to  ex- 
clusivfly  manufacture  and  sell  the  same  as  put  uj),  and  to  exclusively 
use,  for  the  purpose  of  indicating,'  the  ori;;in  of  said  pills,  said  tokens, 
lalwls  and  trademarks,  hut  tiie  defendant,  with  the  intent  to  injure 
and  defraud  your  orator  in  the  i)remises.  and  to  reap  tin-  advantajies, 
lK>neflt8  and  profits  of  the  credit  and  reputation  of  said  pills,  ii  now 
enfiajri-il,  and  has  lufn  enfjajjed  for  some  time,  to-wit — a  period  un- 
known to  your  orator,  but  believed  by  him  to  be  several  years,  making 
and  vindin;:,  and  causinj,'  to  be  vended  by  others,  a  spurious,  counter- 
feit and  inferior  article  of  i)ills,  i)repared  in  imitation  of  and  calculated 
and  intended  to  be  8t)ld  as  the  f,'enuine  "Ur.  C.  McLane  Liver  Tills," 
of  vour  orator's  own  numufacture,  and  havinji  theretm  a  false,  forged 
and  counterfeit  token-lal)el  or  trademark,  made  in  imitation  of  and 
clowly  res«'mblin<;  that  of  your  orator,  so  as  to  enalde  tlie  defendant 
to  reap  the  benefits  ami  jjrolits  of  the  credit  and  reputation  of  the 
trenuine  pills  made  and  sold  by  your  orator,  and  his  predecessors  in 
ownersliip,  as  aforesaid  at  great  expense,  and  wlini  thus  prepared,  the 
defendant  has  h<ild,  and  is  now  selling  and  causing  to  l>e  sold,  said 
spurious  and  counterfeit  pills  as  tlie  genuine  article  of  your  orator's 
own  manufacture,  intending  to  deceive  and  thereby  actually  deceiving 
the  public  and  customers  of  your  orator,  and  supplanting  your  orator's 
trade  and  injuring  him  to  a  large  amount,  but  which  your  orator  is  ifti- 
able  to  state  or  fix  without  a  statement  or  account  of  the  amount  of 
hales  made  as  aforesaid  by  sjiid  defendant. 

And  the  di-fendant.  for  the  i)urpose  of  more  completely  and  elTec- 
tually  di-eeiving  the  puldic,  and  persons  wishing  to  l)uy  the  genuine 
pills  of  your  orator's  own  manufacture,  jtuts  up  liis  said  false,  counter- 
feit and  spurious  pills  in  boxes  of  the  same  material,  si/e  and  shape 
as  thow  uwhI  by  your  orator  as  aforesaid,  and  places  iipon  the  cover 
of  each  Ikjx  a  sial  in  red  wax  «)f  the  same  style,  size,  and  a|)piarane«' 
as  the  red  wal  uwd  by  your  orator  as  aforesaid,  and  wh'ch  is  specially 
used   and   referred  to  by  vour  orator   in   liis  circulars  and   advi-rtisemcnts, 


FORMS   OF   UII.LS    ANli    AN.sWKKS.  877 

nn<l  relied  tipnn  l>y  liim  to  iiidicali-  t<>  llie  |Mililie  nml  hiH  eiiMtomiTH, 
the  jieimine  artiele  of  pillH,  made  and  Hold  \>y  yoiir  orator  an  afore- 
Haid,  and  wliile  eiideavoriii;,'  eoniidetidy  to  deceive  tlie  piililic  and  thow! 
Beekin^;  tlie  j;enuini!  pilln  of  yoiir  orator,  l>y  the  uw  of  tlie  red  wul  mi 
placed  upon  the  cover  of  the  hoxeH  lined  hy  the  defendant,  an  aforemiid, 
he  Beekrt  to  nhiidd  himscdf  from  the  inevitable  con8e<pn-nee  <if  hiH  at- 
tempt to  injure  and  difruiid  your  ()rut(.r  liy  using  a  Htamp  impreHHing 
in  faint  and  ohHcure  letters  on  Huid  red  wax  tlie  wordH  "J.  H.  McLean, 
St.  Loiiis,"  wliicli  are  yet  as  ille<,'il)le  as  not  to  undeceive  thow  who 
are  cheated  into  supposing,  from  the  mere  presHure  of  the  seal  on  the 
cover  of  tlie  liox,  that  the  Hanie  contaiiiH  the  genuine  pills  manufactured 
hv  vniir  orator,  and  the  defendant  places  around  the  hoxes  of  pills  bo 
put  u]>  hy  him,  :i  circular  printed  in  the  English,  CJerman,  French,  Span- 
ish and  <ith.  r  languages,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  marked 
"J."  and  encloses  the  whole  with  a  wrapper  consisting  of  a  lithograph 
impression  similar  in  general  ai)i)earance  to  the  outer  wrapper  used 
hv  your  orator,  the  hody  thereof  heing  formed  like  that  of  your  orator, 
of  lines  crossing  the  hox  diagonally  and  at  right  angles  to  each  other, 
with  tlie  wordN  "Dr.  .1.  If.  McLean's  Universal  jiills  or  vegetahlc  liver 
pills,  prepared  only  hy  Dr.  J.  IL  McLean,  N.  314  Chestnut  Street,  St 
Louis,  Mo."  printed  thereon  across  the  top  of  each  hox  in  white  letters; 
the  words  "Universal  pills"  heing  upon  a  background  of  black  and  on 
a  strip  or  scroll  circular  in  form;'  the  whole  presenting  a  general  ap- 
pearance similar  to  the  label  covering  the  top  of  the  box  used  by  your 
orator  as  aforesaid,  while  upon  the  label  covering  the  side  of  said 
boxes  put  up  by  defendant,  are  printed  the  words,  "To  prevent  coun- 
terfeiting T  have  changed  the  color  of  my  label"  in  white  letters  upon 
a  dark  background,  such  as  is  used  by  your  orator,  and  with  the  de- 
fendant's name  "Dr.  J.  H.  McLean"  signed  in  black  script,  but  in  such 
obscured  lettering  as  to  be  almost  illegible;  and  on  the  label  covering 
the  other  side  of  said  box,  the  defendant  causes  to  be  printed  in  white 
letters,  in  style  and  appearance  resembling  the  label  used  by  your 
orator,  the  words  "For  the  cure  of  liver  complaint,  headache,  bilious 
diseases,  etc."  A  copy  of  said  counterfeit  label  is  hereto  attached 
marked  "K." 

And  your  orator  avers  that  the  defendant  caused  to  be  printed  and 
uses  said  label  as  aforesaid,  as  your  orator  believes  and  charges  the 
fact  to  be,  for  the  sole  purposes  of  enabling  him  to  defraud  your  orator 
of  trade  and  profit  by  selling  his  spurious  and  counterfeit  goods  as  and 
for  the  goods  so  advertised,  manufactured  and  sold  liy  your  orator. 

And  your  orator  furtiier  says  tliat  the  illegal  and  wrongful  acts  set 
forth  and  complained  of  aforesaid,  are  liut  the  carrying  out  of  fraud- 
ulent designs  of  the  defendant,  which  he  long  ago  conceived  for  the 
purpose  of  drawing  your  orator's  trade  to  himself  by  the  wrongful  use 
of  fraudulent  imitations  of  said  tokens,  labels  and  trademarks  of  your 
orator,  and  in  furtherance  of  the  purpose,  as  your  orator  iK-lieves  and 
charges   the   fact  to  be,  the  defendant   did,   prior   to  the  year    1855   print 


878  Al'PKNDIX    H. 

nr  r«u«o  to  1m-  printt-il  a  ortiiin  falw  or  »ounl«rI.it  lal>.-l.  token  or 
tradrmnrk.  in  imitntioii  ..f  ..r  il<»mly  r.'K.'ml»lin>;  t»i««  tok.n  lal..l  nrul 
trHclt'inark  tli.n  aiul  fur  iiianv  yiarH  tluTi'tofori'  .xcluHiv.ly  urt.a  niid 
c.wmtl  by  .1.  K.  A  Co.  afon-HHul,  Jhiuk  tlio  lalu-l  of  a  lijilit  n  <l  lolor 
luTiinU-fon-  fully  ihrn-rilK-d  and  nfrrnd  to  an  Kxhihit  "K"  And  d.- 
findant  placd  w»id  fnlw  and  count<rf.'it  IuIm-Ih  on  hoxi-s  of  j.illrt  of 
his  own  nianufaoturr,  wliich  LoxtH  wiu-  niniilar  to  tho  \mxva  tln-n  um-d 
l.y  Kaid  J.  K.  &  Co.,  and  on  tlu-  lul  of  imh  l>ox  of  pillH  w)  put  up  and 
mdd  liy  him  In-  placed  a  wal  Htanijird  in  r.d  wax  in  imitation  of  that 
U(M-d  hy  said  K.  4  Co.  as  afonsaid,  and  tlim  wrapp.-d  .adi  box  of  pillH 
in  ono  of  the  countorfoit  lalnda  last  alH>ve  df(HTil).'d,  which  lal.fl  con- 
sinttti  of  an  rn^'ravid  wrapp«T  jirintod  with  ink  of  a  light  red  color, 
noarly  n's«inlding  in  nhadi-  and  pncral  appearance  that  used  by  said 
K.  4  Co.  and  with  the  words  "Dr.  McLean's  Universal  Pills  for  cure 
of  liver  e«>mplaint,  headache,  bilious  dis»-as4'S,  etc."  printed  on  the  por- 
tion covering?  the  top  of  each  box,  in  white  letters  shaded  by  a  red 
line,  and  below  the  above,  the  words  "Price  (sec  dincth.ns  inside) 
2.".  cts."  On  the  side  of  the  box  were  printed  on  tlie  wraj.per  the  words 
"Dr.  Mclx-an's  I'niversal  pillen  zur  heilunj,'  von  Leber  Krankheiten  Kopf- 
weh  bilosen  Krankheiten  V.  L.  W."  appearin^r  in  white  letters  shaded 
by  red  lines,  as  in  the  genuine  label,  and  witli  the  words  "Vorschrift 
auf  der  innern  seite"  j.rinted  in  red  letters  underneath,  while  on  tlie 
portion  of  said  wrajipir  covering  the  opposite  side  of  said  box  are  printed 
the  words  "Prepared  by  .1.  H.  McLean,  X.  K.  Corner  :Jrd  and  Pine  streets. 
St.  Louis,  Mo." 

A  copy  of  said  label   is  hereto  attached  marked  "L." 
And    your    orator    believes    and    charges    that    tlie    defendant    procured 
and   uw'd   the  said  last   descril.ed   label   solely    ft.r   tlie    purpose   of  deceiv- 
ing the  public  and  those  wishing  to  buy  the  genuine  pills  made  and  sold 
as  aforesaid  by   said   J.   K.   &    Co.,   but   he   says   that   defendant's   fraud- 
uhnt    designs    were    to    some    extent    frustrated    and    tlie    elTects    of    his 
wrongful    acts    partially    av.rt.-d    from    tlie    rightful    i.roprietor    of    said 
lalK-1   and   trademark   by   the  circumstances   of   tiie   said   firm  of    F.    Bros, 
in   the  year   lH'tC),  having  changed   the   label   and    wrapper   used   by   them 
and    by    said    J.    K.    &.    Co.    j.rior    to    that    time,    and    adopted    the    label 
latilv   uwd  by  your  orator  as  aforesaid,  but  your  orator  says  that  after 
tlie  a«b.pti<m   liy   him   of   said   last  named   lal»el   as   aft.resaid,  the   defend- 
ant   e<,ntinu.d    for    many   years   to   use   the   red    label    procured   and    used 
bv  him   in    imitation   of  the  trademark   used   by   said   firm  of   F.   Bros,   as 
aforesaid,   but   finding   tlie   carrying   on   of    his    said    business   unprofitable 
while   he  was  using   his  said   fraudulent   red   label,  and  ytiur   orator   was 
using    the    dark    lab«'l    al>ove    described,    defendant    conceived    the    design 
of   changing   th.-    c«dor    of    his    laWl,   and    adopting    in    place    of    tlie    re.l 
lalM-l    thereUifore   used    by    him.    another   dark    label    in    imitatit.n    of    the 
Inliel   or  trademark   of   your  orator,   which    was  done,   as  your   orator  be- 
lieves   and    charges    for    the    purpose    of    wrongfully    div.rting    the    trade 
of   your   orator   to    himwlf    and    .nabling    him    to    sell    his   goods   aa   and 


FOItMS   OK    lUr-t.S    AND    ANSWKKS.  879 

for  tlic  nciotU  mnnufiirtiind  and  Mold  liy  your  i.rator,  and  not  for  tlic 
piirpoHc  of  prcvrntin;,'  countcrfi-itin),'  uh  dcf<-ndunt  falHcly  puldiHln-M  on 
IiIh  own   fraudulent  lalxl. 

Your  orator  ntati-H  furtli.r  lliat  haid  d.f.Mdant  wan  in-vcr  Hutliori/.<'d 
Ity  him  to  make,  jmt  up,  or  hcU  Huid  pillH  uh  of  your  orutor'n  own 
manufaclur.',  or  to  use  or  muko  Huid  titkcns,  lalxln  or  tradi-rnarkH  in 
imitation  of  or  rcBcmhlance  to  thoHC  of  yojir  orator  hh  wiid  dcft-ndant 
is  cliar;,'fd  to  iiuvt-  done  above,  nor  to  make  or  H<dl  any  hucIi  falw?  or 
i'ounterfeit  pills  witli  such  false  or  eo\inttrfrit  labelH  attaelied  thereto, 
hut  Baid  defendant  well  knows  that  your  orator  ia  now,  and  his  pred- 
ecessors were,  the  sole  and  exclusive  projirietors  of  Dr.  ('.  Mel.ane'M 
celebrated  liver  jiills  and  of  the  said  labels  and  trademarks,  marked 
"IV  and  "I"'"  as  hereinln-fore  set  fortii,  and  said  defendant  also  well 
knows  that  said  false  and  counterfeit  labels  or  trademarks  UH<'d  by 
him  are  mere  imitations  of  the  labels  and  trademarks  of  your  orator 
and  hia  predecessors,  made,  contrived  and  got  up  by  said  defendant 
witli  the  intent  to  deceive  tlie  public  and  purchasers  tiierecjf,  and  to 
defraud  your  orator. 

All  of  which  said  acts  and  tliinf,'s  and  pretensc-a  are  a):,'ain8t  equity 
and  },'ood  conscience,  and  a  great  loss  and  damage  to  your  orator,  and 
inasmuch  aa  your  orator  is  without  full  redress  at  law,  and  can  only 
obtain  adequate  relief  in  equity,  and  as  he  avers  tliat  a  continuance  of 
the  acta  aforesaid,  will  occasion  irreparable  loss  and  injury  to  him;  to 
the  end,  therefore,  that  the  said  defendant  may,  if  he  can,  show  why 
your  orator  should  not  have  the  relief  hereby  prayed,  and  may  upon 
his  corporal  oatli,  and  according  to  the  l)est  and  utmost  of  his  knowledge, 
remembrance,  information  and  Ix-lief,  full,  true  and  perfect  answer  make 
to  all  tlie  allegations  hereof,  and  to  the  several  interrogatories  here- 
inafter numbered  and  set  forth ;  that  is  to  say : 
(Interrogatories  and  prayer  for  relief). 

M.  L.  C.  &   I)., 

Solicitors  for  VompUiiuant. 


BILL  OF  COMPLAINT. 

(Richmond   Nervine   C"o.    v.    Richmond,    l.")0    U.    S.   293.) 

To  the  Judges  of  thr  Circuit   Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  South- 
cryi  District  of  Illinois: 

The  Dr.  S.  A.  R.  Nervine  Co.,  of  Saint  Joseph,  Mi.^souri,  a  corpora- 
tion duly  incorpotated  and  organized  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  laws 
of  the  State  of  Missouri  and  a  citizen  of  said  state,  brings  this  its  bill 
of  complaint  against  S.  A.  R.,  resident  of  the  County  of  DoUglas,  State 
of  Illinois,  and  a  citizen  of  said  State  of  Illinois,  and  for  cause  there- 
of your  orator  complains  and  states  that  heretofore  and  prior  to  the 
2nth  day  of  December,  1877.  the  said  S.  A.  R.  being  then  engaged  in 
the    business   of    making    and    selling    a    medicine    known    as    "Samaritan 


880  APPENDIX    H. 

non-ino."  a  mwlicino  for  the  nlirf  of  .iiiloptic  fit«  ftiul  nil  i>(lur  non 
i.UK  diiH-a>«»«»,  Rdopt«-<l  niid  UH.d  uh  liit«  tradi-nmrk  on  hikIi  nn-diiin.' 
Hu-  n^-ur*'  of  n  ninn  in  an  .piU-ptio  fit  fulling  l.mkwiird.  witli  his 
urniH  .xtcnditl  nnd  lii»  can.-  and  liat  dr«)ppin^'  to  tin-  jirouml.  witli  tli<- 
word  "tradi-"'  printt-d  in  nmall  lapitalw  on  tin-  ri;;ht  of  naid  fi^'ur.'  an<l 
thf  word  "mark"  priiit4-«l  in  HnuiU  capitali*  on  tin-  li'ft  Hide  of  said  11^'- 
un\  A  copy  or  wprinun  of  whirli  said  trademark.  adopti-»l  antl  iiwd 
•>v  said  S.  A.  U.  in  his  said  liusint'sa  and  on  his  said  mi-dicini'  hrn-in 
aforesaid,  as  r«-;>ist.r«d  in  i\u-  I'nitid  States  Patent  onice  Maroli  2<Uh. 
1S7S.  is  liereto  attaelied.  marked  Kxhildt  "A,"  for  tiie  puri>ose  of  illuB- 
tratin;:  and  eX|dainin;;  tin-  said  trademark.  s»)  used  and  adopted  liy 
the   S4»id   S.  A.    H.   as  aforesaid. 

Vonr  orator  further  represents  to  your  honors  that  after  tlie  said 
S.  A.  U.  had  used  and  a»h)i)ted  said  device  as  and  f«)r  his  trademark 
in  liis  business  the  "Dr.  S.  A.  Richmond  Medical  Company"  was  in- 
corporattHl  and  orj-anized  und<r  nnd  l>y  virtue  of  the  laws  of  the  State 
of  Missouri  and  succeeded  the  said  S.  A.  U.  in  the  husincsa  of  manufactur- 
in;;  and  s«'llin;r  the  medicine  aforesaid  on  which  said  trademark  was 
usi'd,  and  accpiin-d  all  the  riuht.  title,  and  interest  in  and  to  said  trade- 
mark  theretofore  owned   nnd   enjoyed   hy   said   S.  A.    Tl. 

Your  orator  further  r»'|>n"sents  to  your  honors  that  tin-  incorpora- 
tion of  the  "Dr.  S.  A.  Richmond  Medical  Company"  about  the  latter 
part  of  the  year  18S.3  or  early  jmrt  of  the  year  1884,  the  particular  dati- 
of  which  your  orator  is  unalile  to  state,  said  "Dr.  S.  A.  Richmond 
Medical  Company"  adopted  nnd  used,  in  connection  with  the  trade- 
mark aforesaid,  an  enfjraved  juirtrait  of  Dr.  S.  A.  Kiclimond,  placed 
on  the  «nitside  wrajiper  in  which  the  bottle  of  medicine  was  encased, 
formin"  the  front  side  of  bottle,  and  on  circulars  nnd  otiier  mediums 
of  advertising.',  and  was  also  blown  in  the  bottles  nnd  photoj.'raphed  on 
paper  and  pasted  on  opposite  side  of  the  bottles;  the  words  "new  style" 
jirinti-d  in  small  capitals  on  the  upper  right  hand  corner  of  said  out- 
side wrajjper,  and  the  word  "adopted"  and  figures  "1SS4"  printed  in  same 
manner  in  upper  left  hand  corner  of  said  wrapper;  nlso  the  portrait  of 
said  Dr.  S.  A.  R..  surrounded  l>y  four  globes,  was  i>lact'd  on  outside 
wrapjier  on  the  back  of  said  liottles. 

A  copy  or  specimen  of  said  jiortrait  nnd  glol)e8  as  used,  as  aforesaid, 
by  said  "Dr.  S.  A.  Richmond  Medical  Comi)any"  is  hereto  attaelied  and 
marked   Exhibit   "B"   for  the   purpose  of    illustration   and   explanation. 

Your  orator  further  represents  to  your  honors  that  on  or  about  the 
i:Uh  day  of  May.  1884.  the  said  "Dr.  S.  A.  Richmond  Medical  Company" 
ma«le  an  assignment  for  the  Ix-nefit  of  its  creditors  under  and  pursuant 
U>  tlie  laws  of  tlie  State  of  Missouri.  Tliat  said  assignment  was  duly 
made,  prosj-euted  and  wound  up  according  to  law.  A  copy  of  the  reso- 
lution of  said  company  authorizing  the  president  thertof  to  make  such 
assignment  is  hereto  attached,  marked  Exhibit  "C,"  and  made  a  part 
of  this  bill. 


KOHMS   OK    Hll.LS    AND    ANSWKKS.  881 

Tlmt  1)V  order  nf  tin-  court  in  hhhI  proc»'«'<lin(,'«  of  aHHi;:nmiiit,  the 
foiniiilii  fi>r  <(im  poll  rid  iii>:  niiid  nicdii-iiw,  tin-  jjoodwill  «>f  tin'  liUHincBB, 
mid  till'  trademark  and  nil  other  deHi^iiH  UHod  hy  th«;  Haid  "Dr.  S.  A. 
Kieliiiioiid  Medical  I  (>iii|iaiiy,"  iiieludiii^'  the  jxtrtrait,  and  portrait  con- 
nected with  f;lol)eH  u«ed  hy  wiid  eouipaiiy  uh  Inrein  aforeiaid  for  the 
purpose  of  advertisinf;  said  medicine,  wan  duly  and  lawfully  Hold  by 
the  assifnit'C  of  said  "Dr.  Richmond  Medical  C'omiiany,"  and  that  J.  A.  R. 
bocame  the  purchaHcr  thereof;  that  afterwardn  your  orator,  "The  Dr. 
S.  A.  l{ichmond  Nervine  Company,"  was  incorporated  and  organized 
under  and  hy  virtui-  of  llie  laws  of  the  8lalj  of  Missouri,  and  by  [lurchaso 
of  and  transfer  liy  said  J.  A.  R.,  succeeded  tlie  "Dr.  S.  A.  PW;hmond 
Medical  Ctmipany,"  in  tin-  manufacture  and  sale  of  said  medicine,  the 
"Samaritan  nervine,"  and  ac(piired  all  the  rifjht,  title  and  interest  in  and 
to  said  personal  property,  formula,  trademark  and  all  devices  used  in 
connection  therewith,  as  aforesaid,  theretofore  owned,  adopted,  used  and 
enjoyed  by  the  said  "Dr.  S.  A.  Richmond  Medical  Company,"  and  that 
thereliy  your  orator  became  and  now  is  the  sole,  exclusive  and  rightful 
owner  of  said  jjropcrty,  foruuila,  trademark,  and  devices  adopted  and 
used  in  connection  therewith,  and  is  entitled  to  the  sole  and  exclusive 
use  and  enjoyment  of  the  same,  and  is  now  and  for  several  years  last 
past  has  been  en<,'aged  in  makin<r  and  selling  said  "Samaritan  nervine" 
and  using  thereon  and  in  connection  therewith  the  trademark  and  por- 
trait of  said  Dr.  Richmond  and  said  other  devices  in  coiiiuction  tliere- 
with,    as  hereinbefore   mentioned  and   set   out. 

Your  orator  further  represents  to  your  honors  that  after  your  orator 
had  succeeded  to  all  of  tiie  rights  of  the  "Dr.  S.  A.  Richmond  Medical 
Company"  and  had  engaged  in  tlie  Imsiness  of  making  tiie  said  medicine 
aforesaid  under  said  trademark,  etc.,  and  about  May  1st,  1SS4,  it  was 
adopted  as  and  for  an  additional  trademark  for  medicine  for  relieving 
epileptic  fits  and  other  nervous  diseases,  said  portrait  of  Dr.  S.  A. 
Richmond  with  the  word  "trade"  printed  in  small  capitals  on  the  left 
side  of  said  portrait,  and  the  word  "mark"  printed  in  small  capitals  on 
the  right  of  said  portrait.  A  copy  or  specimen  of  which  said  trademark 
so  used  and  adopted  by  your  orator  as  registered  in  the  United  States 
Patent  Office  March  (Jth,  1S88,  is  hereto  attadicd,  marked  Exliibit  "D," 
for  the  purpose  of  illustrating  and  explaining  the  said  tradiinark  so 
adopted  by  your  orator. 

That  after  your  orator  accpiind  tlie  said  trademark  as  aforesaid  it  has 
been  extensively  engaged  in  manufacturing  and  selling  said  medicine 
under  said  trademarks  and  said  other  devices  used  in  connection  there- 
with; that  it  has  extensively  advertised  said  medicine  under  said  trade- 
marks and  devices  used  in  connection  therewith,  and  has  spent  large  sums 
of  money  in  so  advertising  said  medicine  and  bringing  it  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  pul)lic;  that  said  medicine  under  said  trademarks,  etc.,  has  acquired 
an  extensive  and  valuable  reputation  all  over  the  United  States  and  in 
foreign  countries  through  the  efforts  and  labors  of  your  orator  and  its 
large  expenditures  of  money  in  advertising  and  pushing  the  sale  of  said 


882  APPENDIX  ir. 

m»>dicino  umltr  snul  triuhmurk-*,  «(c,,  and  fliat  your  nratur  lias  af«iuirf<l 
n  vnlunlilc  |>ro|uTtv  iiitirrst  in  ami  tn  saiil  trademarks  that  niakiK  thrir 
••xclusivf  t-njovHu-nt  in  your  orator  of  ;;r«'at  ju-cuniury  vuluo  und  import- 
anrc. 

Your  orator,  in  furtlu-r  rom)>laint.  fiirtliiT  repn'tw-ntw  to  your  honors 
that  notwitliHtandinj;  tlw  h»nj;  »ih«'  and  cnjoynunt  i>f  wiid  tradt  inarkrt  und 
tho  portrait,  rto.,  uwd  in  connection  tliorcwitli  aw  aforcnaid,  wliich  your 
orator  ohar;:«'8  and  nvrrn  wan  uwd  hy  tlic  "Dr.  S.  A.  Hichmond  Medical 
Company"  and  liy  tlic  aH«ij:nc<'  tlicnnif  was  Hohl  to  your  orator  and  uwd 
hy  it  itMitinuouHly  from  th<ncc  to  tlic  prcKcnt  time  with  tlie  kiio\vied;,'e  und 
tmnm-nt  of  the  Kuid  Dr.  S.  A.  H.,  und  notwithHtundin^  its  rij;litH  to  tli« 
fxclusivc  use  and  enjoyment  of  said  trademarkH,  etc.,  tlu"  8uid  <h'fendant, 
S.  A.  R.,  for  the  purpow  of  di-fraudinj;  your  orator,  well  knowini;  the 
premise's  and  tlu'  rifrhtu  and  privile<;es  Hccured  to  your  orator  hy  the  use 
and  adoption  of  saitl  tradiinarks.  and  to  approj)riate  to  himself  the 
profits,  iK-ncfits  and  advanta;;e.s  which  would  have  accrued  to  it  from 
the  e.vdusive  use  of  said  trademarks,  etc.,  within  the  district  aforesaid, 
lias  ma<le  what  he  styles  "Samaritan  nervine,"  and  is  now  wron^jfully 
en{ra;:ed  in  makin<j  the  same  in  Tuscola,  county  of  Dou<;la8  and  State  of 
Illinois,  unlawfully,  wronpfully  and  dect-itfully  wrapped  and  packed  such 
so-called  "Samaritan  nervine"  similar  to  that  used  hy  your  orator,  and 
is  now  wronjifully  makin;.',  and  wrongfully  and  deci-itfully  wrappiu}; 
and  [lackin;;  said  so-culled  "Samaritan  nervine"  in  packa^'cs  similar  to 
that  us«d  hy  your  orator  and  have  used  thereon  hoth  tlu-  trademarks 
afort-said  and  the  ch-vices  conneit<'d  tiierewitli  us  aforesaid,  in  direct 
violation  of  the  exclusive  right  to  use  the  same  vested  in  your  orator, 
and  that  he  has  hy  means  of  said  trademarks  and  devices  sold  large 
quantities  of  so-called  "Samaritan  nervine"  throughout  the  United  States 
and  in  said  district  where  your  orator  is  selling  its  nervine  under  said 
trademarks  aforesaid  in  direct  infringement  of  said  trademarks.  The 
fact  that  said  defendant  is  t-ngaged  in  the  manufacture  und  tale  of 
Kuid  medicine  and  using  said  trademarks  and  devices  in  connection 
therewith  will  more  fully  appear  hy  defendant's  afVulavit  filed  in  the 
I'atent  Olliee  of  the  United  States,  a  copy  of  whicii  is  hereto  attached, 
marked   Kxhiiiit  "K",  and  made  a  part  of  tliis  hill. 

Your  orator  further  states  that  wliat  amount  of  goods  said  defendant, 
S.  A.  R.,  lias  sold  under  said  trademarks  it  is  unalile  to  state  nor  does 
it  know  hut  upon  information  und  l)eli<'f,  hut  your  orator  avers  that 
he  liuH  sohl  large  i|uantities  of  the  same,  using  said  trademarks,  is  now 
making  said  soculh-d  "Samaritan  nervine"  und  using  said  trademarks 
thereon,  and  have  ri-eeivcd  und  are  receiving  for  such  sules  greut  gains 
and  profits,  hut  to  wiuit  amount  your  orator  is  igno;  int  and  cannot  set 
forth,  except  that  it  alleges  that  such  gains  and  profits  amount  to  more 
than  five  thoUHund  dollars,  exclusive  of  costs,  and  that  your  orator  lias 
\>itn  damaged  to  an  amount  exceeding  five  tluiusand  dollars,  exclusive 
of  costs. 

Your  orator  fnrtlier  represents  to  your  lionors  that  said  S.  A.  K.,  tlto 
defendant    herein,    well    knowing    the   exclusive    right    of    your    orator    to 


FORMS  OK   IJlIJiS    AND    ANSWERS,  883 

maki'  and  vt-iul  hii'hI  mcdiriiic,  "Snmiiritan  nervine,"  ftn<l  tin-  exeluHive 
ri<,'ht  and  privilej^e  of  ymir  orator  to  line  Haid  trademarkH  and  d«'V)L«-H 
in  tile  Hale  of  naid  niedieiin-  and  in  eonnection  therewith,  and  in  the 
advertisement  of  tlie  same,  and  tiie  j^reat  benefit  Becured  to  your  orator 
by  tilt!  use  and  adoi)tion  of  said  tradeinarivs,  intendiiifj  to  injure  your 
said  orator  and  appropriate  to  liiniself  tiie  ])rofitH,  l>enefits,  and  advan- 
taj^es  wiiicli  would  acenie  to  it  from  the  exclusive  use  of  said  trade- 
marks within  the  district  aforesaid,  has  wron;,'fully  and  fraudulently 
applied  to  the  Patent  Olliee  of  the  United  States  of  Ameriea  for  regis- 
tration of  said  portrait  of  said  Ur.  S.  A.  li.  adopted  and  lonj^  used  by 
your  orator  aa  its  trademark  aforesaid  as  and  for  his  trademark;  all 
of  which  will  fully  a])pear  by  copy  of  his  statement  and  the  declaration 
filed  in  the  Patent  Ollice  of  the  United  States  of  America,  which  is 
liereto  attached,  marked  Exhibit  "F",  and  made  part  hereof;  that  said 
S.  A.  R.  has  no  interest  in  the  formula  for  comi)oiindin(^  the  medicine 
in  suit  nor  Im  he  entitled  to  adopt  or  use  said  jjortrait  as  his  tradi-mark. 
Your  orator  furtlier  represents  to  your  honors  that  said  S.  A.  K.  is 
wholly  insolvent  and  worthless,  and  that  he  would  be  unable  to  pay 
any  damajjcs  that  your  orator  might  sustain  by  means  of  the  premises 
aforesaid;  that  your  said  orator  has  no  speedy  or  adequate  remedy  at 
law  in  the  premises,  and  it  can  only  be  protected  in  its  several  rif,'lit8 
Iierein  by  the  equitable   interposition   of  this  court. 

Your  orator  prays  that  the  defendant  may  be  required  to  make  a 
disclosure  of  all  such  sales  and  profits,  and  that  they  may  be  required 
to  account  with  and  i)ay  over  to  your  orator  all  the  dama},'es  it  may 
have  sustained  and  profits  which  he  has  received  from  such  unlawful 
use  of  said  trademark,  and  that  tliey  may  be  enjoined  provisionally 
and   preliminarily  pending  a  hearing  herein. 

\Vherefore,  the  premises  considered,  your  orator  prays  that  upon  a 
final  hearing  tlie  defendant  be  enjoined  and  restrained  by  decrei-  from 
in  any  manner  making  and  selling  said  medicine,  "Samaritan  nervine," 
under  the  name  of  "Samaritan  nervine"  or  under  any  other  name  what- 
ever, and  from  in  any  manner  using  said  trademarks  or  devices  enumer- 
ated therewith,  or  either  of  them  or  any  trademark  or  marks  so  nearly 
resembling  them  as  will  be  calculated  to  deceive  on  any  of  their  prepara- 
tions and  from  infringing  upon  your  orator'c  exclusive  right  to  use 
the  same;  that  the  defendant  be  enjoined  and  restrained  from  the 
further  prosecution  of  the  registration  of  said  portrait  as  his  said 
trademark  before  the  Patent  Ollice  of  the  United  States,  and  that  he 
be  recpiired  to  account  with  and  pay  over  to  your  orator  all  damages 
sustained  by  it  and  profits  by  him  received  from  such  unlawful  use 
of   said  trademarks. 

That  your  orator  may  have  such  other  and  further  relief  in  the 
premises  as  equity  and  good  conscience  will  allow  and  as  to  this 
court  shall  seem  meet;  and  may  it  please  your  honors  to  grant  unto 
your  orator  a  writ  of  subpoena  of  the  United  States  of  America  under 
the   seal    of    this   honorable   court,   directed    to    the    defendant,    S.    A.    R., 


884  APPENinx  H. 

omimnndiii);  him  to  nppi-nr  in  lhii«  lionorftl.lo  court,  tlun  and  tli.r.-  to 
aniiA^-or  all  ami  Bin^nilnr  the  promim'H  and  to  ntaml  to  ami  pi-rform  and 
abide  Hiu-i«  furtlu-r  ordiTi*.  dinvtiouH.  and  dcon-c  hm  may  he  made 
against    him;    and    your    orator    will    ever    pray, 

11.   *    IV   and    H.   \    IJ.   i    v., 

Holicitora  for  Complainant. 


Bn.T.  OF  ^o^^^I.AT^•T. 

(Saxlehner  v.   Kisner  \    M.nd.lsun   Co..   170  I^   S.    10). 

To   the  rionorahlr   the  .ludgca   of  the    Circuit    Curl   of    thr   Vnitrd  Statct 
for   thr  South)  rn    IHstrict   of  \ctc   York: 
Kmilie   Saxlehner   hrin;:«    this   hill   of   eonii>laint    a;,'ainst    Eisner   &    Men- 
delson   Company,    and    thereupon   your    orator    eompiains    and    says,   upon 
infornuition    and    belief: 

1.  That  your  orator  is  the  widow  of  Andreas  Saxlehner,  deceased, 
and  resides  at  the  City  of  Hudai)est.  in  the  Kinj;dom  of  lluii^'ary.  and  is 
a    sul>ject   of    the    Kin<:    of    Hun;:ary. 

2.  That  the  defendant,  the  said  Eisner  c\:  .\I(n(hls.>ii  Cdnipany.  dur- 
ing the  time  wlien  the  aets  hereinafter  complained  of  were  committed 
was,  and  now  is,  a  corporation  duly  incorporated  under  the  laws  of 
the  State  of  West  Virginia,  having  an  ofTice  for  the  transaction  of 
its  husiness  in  th«'  City  of  N«'W  York,  an<l  is  a  eiti/.en  of  the  State 
of   West   Virginia. 

3.  That  the  said  Andreas  Saxleliner,  lute  ui  tiie  City  of  Hudapest, 
in  the  Kingdom  of  Hungary,  was  at  all  tlie  times  herein  nientioiK-d, 
until  the  24th  day  of  May,  188!>,  tlie  proprietor  of  a  certain  well  situ- 
ated at  Orsod,  within  the  city  limits  of  the  city  of  Buda  (otherwise 
known  in  the  German  language  as  the  city  of  Ofen ) ,  which  city  has 
for  al)Out  twenty-five  years  last  past  heen,  and  is  now,  united  with 
the  city  of  Pest,  under  the  name  of  Budapest,  in  said  Kingdom  of 
Hungarv,  the  waters  <if  wliich  said  well  j)ossfss  valuahle  inediciiuil 
jiropcrties. 

4.  That  in  or  ahout  the  yt-ar  18(53  said  Andreas  Saxleliner  com- 
menced to  l)ottle  the  waters  of  said  well  and  to  sell  the  same  in  the 
market,  and  for  the  purpose  of  distinguishing  his  said  hitter  v  aters 
from  other  hitter  waters  then  known  and  sold  in  the  market,  adopted 
the  arbitrary  and  fanciful  name  or  trademark  of  "Ilunyadi  .Fanos"  for 
his    said    hitt«'r   waters. 

.'■>.  That  hy  reason  of  the  gn-at  <are  (-xereised  i.y  iiini  in  the  husiness 
of  ohtaining,  caring  for  and  Ixittling  said  waters  and  selling  the  sam.- 
in  the  market,  and  the  valuahle  jiroperties  of  said  water,  said  husiness 
noon  inereawd  and  ailditional  territory  was  thereafter  ae<|uin'd  hy  said 
Andreas  Saxlehner  in  which  new  wells,  all  giving  forth  tlic-  same  water, 
were  open«'d  hy  him,  all  being  situatt'd  near  said  llrst-mention»'d  well, 
and     in     a    valhy     surrounded     by    considerable    hills,    the    geographical 


FORMS  OK  nH>I,S    AVD    ANSWERS.  885 

iiamo  of  wliioli  valli-y  ami  territory  contained  in  it  iA  Orfiod,  nnd  thoro- 
upoii  Haid  Aiidn-urt  Saxlciiiifr  applied  Haid  niiiiif  of  "lliiiivadi  .larioH" 
to  tlu'   bottled   water  of  Huid   Hpriiif^   Mold   Ijy   liitn    in    tin-   iiiarkcl. 

(5.  That  at  or  about  tiie  time  wlien  Haid  AiidnaH  Saxlelmer  adopted 
Haid  name  of  "Ilunyadi  JanoH"  an  aforesaid,  lie  alHo  adopted  u  cliarac- 
teriHtic  and  novel  Htyle  of  bottles  in  wiiicli  Haid  water  was  sold  by  him 
in  the  niiirket,  tlie  same  beiiij,'  of  a  strai;,dit  nhapc;  witli  a  whort  neck  to 
tlif  top  of  which  was  altaelidl  a  metal  eapsiiic  liciiriii"  tin-  inscription 
••llunya<li  .Tanos  JJiidai  Keseniviz"  (mcaninf^  Ilunyadi  .lanos  hitter 
water  of  Huda )  together  with  a  jxirtrait  supposed  to  be  a  portrait  of 
the  mediu'val  IIun<,'arian  hero  Ilunyadi  .lanos  stamped  thereon,  and  a 
novel  and  peculiar  label  eoverinj^  almost  the  wlioh;  body  of  the  bottle, 
the  cliaractcristic  features  of  which  said  laln-l  were  a  division  of  tin; 
same  into  three  loii-^'itiidinal  fields,  the  middle  field  bearing,'  said  por- 
trait in  a  medallion  with  the  name  "irunyadi  Janos"  written  in  lar;.'e 
letters  on  the  top  part  of  said  laliel,  the  color  of  the  middle  field  beinj; 
red.  That  thence  hitherto  said  natural  mineral  waters  bottled  and  sold 
by  said  Andreas  Saxlehner  in  TIunj,'nry  and  other  European  countries 
and  in  all  markets  of  the  world,  have  been  known  and  called  by  said 
name  and  trademark  of  "Ilunyadi  Janos"  water.  That  the  said  name 
'■Ilunyadi  .lanos"  is  in  no  way  descriptive  of  the  nature  or  cpiality  of 
the  water  of  the  said  well  or  wells,  but  was  adopted  by  the  said  pro- 
prietor as  a  fancy  or  ideal  name  and  as  a  trademark  to  distinguish  the 
water  of  his  said  wells  in  commerce  from  all  other  waters. 

7.  That  soon  after  said  business  of  bottlin;,'  and  exportin<j  said  Hun- 
yadi  Janos  water  had  been  commenced  by  said  Andreas  Saxlehner  in 
the  year  18()3,  said  water,  named,  bottled,  and  lal)eled  as  aforesaid,  be- 
came popular  and  was  exported  to  and  sold  in  all  tlie  principal  countries 
of  Europe  and  also  in  the  United  States  of  America.  Tliat  in  the  coun- 
tries inhabited  by  the  Latin  races,  the  word  "Janos"  became  the  common 
appellation  of  said  water,  it  being  known  as  "Eau  de  Janos"  or  "Aqua 
di  Janos,"  while  in  England  and  the  United  States  of  America  the  name 
"Ilunyadi"  became  the  common  appellation  thereof,  it  being  known  as 
"Ilunyadi  water."  That  in  the  month  of  ilarch,  1876,  said  Andreas 
8a.xlehner  executed  a  contract  to  a  corjwration  known  as  the  "ApoUinaris 
Company,  Limited,"  of  Londcm,  by  which  he  granted  to  said  company  the 
exclusive  right  to  sell  his  said  natural  "Hunyadi  Janos"  bitter  water  in 
Great  Britain,  its  colonies  and  possessions  and  the  United  States  of 
America,  and  other  transmarine  countries  for  the  term  of  ten  years,  which 
contract  was  thereafter  further  extended  and  terminated  on  the  25th  day 
of  March,  1800. 

8.  That  about  the  time  when  said  contract  was  entered  into,  a  label 
was  designed  to  be  used  on  the  bottles  of  such  water  which  were  to  be 
.sold  through  said  "ApoUinaris  Company,  Limited,"  of  substantially  the 
same  contents  and  characteristic  parts  as  the  label  theretofore  used,  but 
of  a  different  color,  the  liody  of  the  label  being  of  blue  color,  while  the 
red  color  of  the  central  field  was  substantially  retained.     That  the  naiae 


8SG  ArrKNPix  ii. 

"Ih>n>n<ii  .Innou."  t«>;:t'thor  with  tl»n  lu«torionl  portrait  and  tin-  nanv 
of  ••Aiuln'RH  Saxlrhiu-r,"  wm-  rftaiiu'd  on  minu'  Inlwl  in  tho  nann-  manntT 
HH  lM-ft>n'.  HH  wan  alwi  tlu-  division  into  tlirc.-  lon^'itiidinHl  lii-ldn;  and  thf 
p-n«-ral  i»tyl«'  of  tin-  IwittlcH.  art  alno  tin-  jH|»siilf  and  imprint  tlun-on  uhovo 
dfiH-rilKil  nniaincd  tlif  Ham.-.  Tliat  naid  lalxl  wan  Hulmtantiallv  like  tli' 
1«Ik-I  UMtl  liy  vour  orator,  tin-  wuioHwir  of  Andnaw  Saxhlimr  in  said 
liUHintKM.  an  lun-inaftrr  n-fi'm-d  to.  Tliat  mhhx  tlifnaftt-r  tlu-n-  \\a«  added 
to  KMid  Mui-  and  n-d  lalnd  a  t*niall,  narrow  utrip  on  tin-  top  tlu-rt'of,  in  the 
Kami-  Iduf  ooh)r.  r»>ntiuiiin^  the  printed  w«)nlH  "Soh-  exporterH:  The  Apol- 
linarirt  I'onipany,  Limited.  Londoi\,"  whieh  strip  han  l>een  ninee  retained, 
the  readin;;  of  the  print  l>ein),'  thereafter  ehanp'd  to  Proprietor:  Firm 
of   Andreart  Saxh-liner.   Hudapest.   IIun;.'ary." 

J).  That  ever  hince  the  adoption  of  said  red  and  l>lue  ialiel.  as  iifore- 
Huid,  in  or  ahoiit  the  year  1S7«»,  lar^'e  ipiantities  of  such  hitter  water 
thu8  iKitth-d  and  lalK-hHl  were  exported  l>y  the  said  Andreas  Saxleiiner 
tlirou^'h  naid  ApoUinaris  Company,  Limited,  to  tlie  United  States  of 
Ameriea.  and  there  sohl  to  the  pulilic,  and  »&'\d  water  liecame  known  in 
tlie  I'nited  States  of  Ameriea  under  the  nam«'  of  '"Hunyadi  water."  and 
iMvann-  known  iind<-r  the  name  as  tlie  jtroperty  of  said  Andreas  Saxlehner. 
and  was  ordered  and  sold  under  sueh  name,  tlie  same  heinj,'  an  al)l>revia- 
tion  of  the  name  "Ilunyadi  .lanos."  That  a  lar;;e  traflie  and  i.usiness  in 
i-xiHirtinK  to  the  United  States,  and  vendinj;  therein  said  water,  was 
estaldishi'd  and  continuously  carried  on  and  is  now  carried  on  liy  your 
orator  as  successor  in  husiness  of  said  Andreas  Saxlehner. 

10.  That  on  Mav  24.  ISSit,  said  Andreas  Saxleliiier  died,  and  your 
orator,  his  widow,  thereupon  succeeded  him  in  said  l>usineas  of  l)ottlin;r 
and  exporting;  said  Hunyadi  .lanos  water,  and  l.ecame  and  is  the  pm 
prietor  theri'of. 

U.  That  since  the  termiiuition  of  said  contract  with  suid  Apcdlinaris 
Company,  Limited,  your  orator  has  continued  said  husimss  of  shijtpin;; 
to  the  Uniti'd  States,  and  selling  therein  said  Hunyadi  .Tanos  water, 
commonly  known  as  Hunyadi  water,  in  liotths  and  with  lalu-ls  and 
capsules  thereon  suiistantially  as  hereinltefore  last  descrii)ed,  e.xceptinn 
that  upon  said  laliels  the  statement  is  contained,  "Proprietor:  Firm  of 
Andreas  Saxlelnnr,  Hudapest,  Hun;,'ary,"  in  place  of  an  indication  of 
the  AjKillinarirt  Company  as  exporters.  That  yo»ir  orator  is  the  sole 
proprietor  of  the  firm  of  Andreas  S-ixlehner.  and  lawfully  (loin^:  I.usiness 
in  AuHtriaHnn;.'ary,  under  said  firm  name. 

12.  That  on  or  about  the  12th  day  of  November,  188«,  said  Andreas 
Saxlehner  duly  made  application  to  the  I'nited  Stat«-8  Patint  Ollice, 
according'  to  the  statute  of  the  I'nited  States  therefore  pn>vided,  for 
rejfistration  of  the  name  "Hunyadi"  as  his  tnulemark  for  natural  aperient 
wat4-rs.  and  suih  proceeding's  were  thereafter  had.  that  on  or  alu.ut  the 
5th  day  of  April,  1HH7,  u  certificate  of  re;;istration  of  said  trademark 
"Hunyadi"  was  duly  issued  to  him  l>y  said  United  States  I'atent  Otlice, 
dat4<i  on  said  last  mentioned  day,  and  numbered  14,2.V2  to  which  cr 
tiftcuti-,  or  a  certifie«l  c<»py  thi-reof,  ready  in  court  to  be  jiroduced,  your 
orator  refers  for  greater  certainty. 


FORMS  OF  BILIaS    AND    ANSWKRS.  887 

l:J.  That  liy  r<iin(iri  of  said  hiiIch  liy  ymir  c.rator  and  Iht  j)roilfC<'HH«)rH 
in  hiiHiiu-HH,  and  Imh  and  your  orator'H  a;,'riitH  uh  aforcHaid,  the  Baid  word 
"Iluiivadi"  on  said  lalnd  by  Imt  um-d  and  h<T  |irrdfct'HHor  an  afon-Haid, 
jloah-rs  in  niint-ral  wattT,  and  the  pnrrhawTH  and  coiiHunnTH  of  miid  wat<T 
^ont-rally  haM-  conif  to  know  and  have  loiij,'  known  yonr  orator'n  mineral 
water  un(hr  tiie  naim-H  and  traihinarks,  "llunyadi"  or  "Hunyadi  .JanoH," 
and  unchi*  tiie  Haid  hiliel,  and  in  the  Htyh-  of  hotth-H,  capHiih-H  and  lahcdn 
as  before  deHcrihed,  and  that  th»!  water  ho  furninhed  and  Hold  l>y  your 
orator  in  the  United  .States  is  procured  directly  from  tin?  well  or  wells 
aforesaid,  and,  therefore,  to  rely  upon  the  said  label  and  trademark  as 
an  assurance  and  ^'uarantee  of  the  ffenuinenesH,  stren^jth  and  purity  of 
the  said  water,  and  your  orator  allejics  that  said  assurance  and  ^'uar- 
antee  was  and  is  of  ^'rcat  value  to  your  orator  and  to  the  dealers  and 
consumers  of  said  watcT.  And  tiiat  said  water  so  sold  by  your  orator 
lias  come  generally  to  be  known  and  desijrnated  by  tlie  trade  so  called, 
and  by  purchasers  and  consumers  of  the  water  in  tin;  United  States  of 
America  by  the  first  and  characteristic  word  of  said  trademark,  "Hun- 
yadi," the  "Janos*'  bein^'  comparatively  seldom  used  in  common  parlance 
in  this  country. 

14.  And  your  orator  further  shows  unto  your  honors  tliat  the  de- 
fendant aI)ove  named,  wcdl  knowinj^  the  premises  and  the  ri^rhts  existing,' 
in  and  secured  to  your  orator  as  aforesaid,  but  contriving'  to  injure  your 
orator  and  deprive  her  of  the  benefits  and  advanta{,'e8  which  miyht  and 
otherwise  would  accrue  unto  her  from  the  enjoyment  of  such  rights  and 
to  injure  and  impose  upon  the  public,  subsequent  to  the  adoption  of  the 
said  trademark,  label,  bottle  and  capsules  by  your  orator  and  her  pred- 
ecessor, recently  and  before  the  commencement  of  the  suit,  as  your 
orator  is  informed  and  believes,  in  tlie  city  of  New  York  and  elsewhere, 
witliout  license  or  allowance  and  aj^ainst  tlu'  will  of  your  orator,  in 
violation  of  the  rij^hts  of  your  orator  and  infringinj,'  tlie  said  trademark, 
did  unlawfully  and  wron<,'fully  import  for  sale  and  sell  and  offer  for  sale 
bitter  water  not  coming  from  your  orator's  said  wells  in  bottles  of 
identical  shape  and  size  as  those  used  by  your  orator  and  with  certain 
capsules  thereon  stamped  with  a  portrait  in  imitation  of  that  impressed 
on  your  orator's  capsules,  surrounded  by  a  circular  inscription  and  the 
initials  II.  L.  and  with  labels  on  said  l)ottles  l)earin<,'  tlie  name  "llunyadi 
Laszlo,"  Budai  Keseriiviz,  and  a  ])ortrait  in  the  middle  field  of  said  label, 
set  in  a  medallion,  all  in  close  and  fraudulent  simulation  of  your  orator's 
trademark;  and  that  defendant's  said  labels  also  further  imitate  your 
orator's  labels  l)y  being  divided  in  three  longitudinal  fields,  covering  almost 
the  whole  body  of  the  bottle,  the  color  of  the  middle  field  being  red, 
and  that  of  the  body  of  the  label  being  blue,  and  in  many  other  partic- 
ulars, all  contrived  to  induce  the  public  to  take  defendant's  said  water 
as  and  in  place  of  your  orator's  water. 

And  that  otiier  l)ottles  of  such  water,  sold  by  said  defendant,  imitate 
your  orator's  bottles  in  sliape,  size  and  color,  capsule  and  label,  being 
marked  with  the  name   "Hunyadi   Matyas,"  and  bearing  a  label  designed 


8SS  ArPKNDlX    H. 

ill  cloBO  and  frauduKnt  Himiilation  of  vi.ur  orutor'rt  Raid  lalnl  in  color, 
division  into  thnM«  jmn.lrt  niul  printid  inattrr  contaimd  thonon.  inolud- 
in;r  a  nu-dallioii  portrait  in  tlir  rfntrul  pan.l  and  niu-atcd  t>n  tlio 
oapsnlo. 

ir».  And  vour  orator  fiirtluT  t«lio\vs  tluit  tlu'  similarity  l>ft\vfcn  tin- 
Maid  lK)ttK-H.  capHultH.  lalH-l8  and  nanu-s  used  rt-Hpcrtivily  liy  your  orator 
Nnd  tho  dtfi-ndnnt  i«  ho  pn-at  that  the  puldic  and  tonKumirH  and  pur 
fhas4ri«  arc  Kki-Iy  to  ho  doot-ivt-d  tlurHiy,  and  arc  in  fact  deceived  t«> 
jinp|>oi*«'  the  water  ho  Hold  hy  the  said  defendant  to  l.e  that  m.ld  l.y  your 
orator  and  therehy  t(»  eauw  your  t)rator  j^reat  loss  and  damage. 

1(5.  That  until  the  year  ISOO  yo\ir  orat«>r  antl  her  naiil  predecessor 
in  huHinesH  <litl  not  enjoy  adecpiatc  ])rotection  in  Hunj,'ary  in  the  use  of 
her  and  his  trademarks.  tra<lenames  and  laluls  on  accoiint  of  the  lack 
of  statutes  rejnilatin;;  such  matter,  hy  reason  of  which  fact  other  i)ersons 
usi'd  the  name  "Hunyadi"  in  connection  with  other  names  as  trademarks 
for  other  hitter  waters,  and  closely  imitated  your  orator's  lahels,  cap- 
sules and  lM)ttles,  and  your  orator's  predecessor  was  unahle  to  stop  such 
fraudulent  practices.  That  since  1S!>0,  tho  law  of  Hungary  has  been 
changed,  and  your  orator  has  succeeded  in  causing  all  tlwse  fraudulent 
marks  and  lahels  to  be  suppressed  by  proper  proceedings  brought  for 
this  purpos*'.  including  also  tiie  use  of  tlie  name  "Hunyadi  Laszlo"  and 
"Ilunyadi  Matyas,"  and  the  labels  upon  wliich  said  names  were  used 
by  the  proprietors  of  the  springs  from  which  said  defendant's  water 
came,  and  that  the  further  use  of  said  names  is  now  a  criminal  offense 
in  Hungary. 

That  your  orator  has  duly  notified  said  defendant  of  her  rights  and 
«laims  in  the  premises  and  re<juested  it  to  desist  from  such  furtiicr  sales, 
l)Ut  said  defendant  has  refused  and  still   refuses  so   to  do. 

19.  That  the  value  of  the  matti'r  in  dispute  between  your  orator  and 
the  di fondant,  exclusive  of  interest  and  costs,  exceeds  the  sum  of  two 
thousand  dollars. 

20.  That  by  reason  of  tlie  said  acts  done  or  tlireatened  and  intended 
to  be  done  by  said  dtfendant,  all  in  defiance  of  tlie  riglits  of  your  orator, 
as  aforesaid,  great  aii<l  irreparable  loss  and  injury  has  been,  is  and  will 
Im-  caused  to  your  orator,  and  slie  has  been  and  is  and  will  be  deprived 
of  great  gains,  profits  and  advantages  wliich  might  and  otherwise  would 
Ik-  obtained  and  enjoyed;  and  your  orator  is  informed  and  i)elieve8  that 
tlio  naid  defendant,  by  reawm  of  the  said  sales  «»f  the  said  water  under 
the  names  of  •Hunyadi  Laszlo,"  and  "Hunyadi  Matyas,"  and  the  said  labels, 
<-apHules  and  bottles,  has  made  and  realized  large  profits  and  advantages. 
and  now  has  in  its  possession  or  un<ler  its  control,  or  subject  to  its  order 
a  large  quantity  of  said  waters^ so  Itottled.  capsuled  and  labeled  which 
it  proposes  to  wdl,  liut  to  what  e.vtent  said  sales  have  be<'n  made  and 
how  large  profits  have  In-en  derived  tlierefrom,  your  orator  does  not 
know  and  prays  a  diHcovery  thereof.  And  your  orator  furtiii'r  says  that 
such  Hah-H  made  by  the  said  defendant,  and  the  threats  and  intention 
•  if   defen<lant   to   make   such    further    sales   and    said    unlawful    nets    in    dis- 


FORMi=;   OF   HIM>S    AND    ANSWERS.  889 

regard  and  dofinnro  of  tho  ri|,'litn  of  yniir  orator  hnvo  tho  oHoci  to  uml 
do  cncoura^'i'  and  iiidiKM-  otliiTH  to  iiitirfcrr  with  tlu-  Haid  tradi-murk  and 
lah(d,  and  to  violate  and  diHrc^'ard  your  orator'H  rif^ditH. 

And,  forasinucii  as  your  orator  can  have  no  adc<|uat<-  r<dii-f  except  in 
this  court,  to  tin-  rnd,  tlicrcforr,  tliat  tin-  waid  dcfmdant  may,  if  it  can, 
bIiow  wliy  your  «>rator  hUouM  not  liavi-  tlic  ndicf  lien-hy  pray«'d  and 
mav.  accordin;,'  to  the  hcHt  and  utmoHt  knowledge,  rememhrance,  infor- 
mation and  belief  of  its  ollicerH,  full,  true,  direct  and  perfect  anHwerrt 
make  to  the  premises  and  to  all  tiie  Heveral  matters  lu-reinlieforc  state*! 
and  charged  as  fully  and  particularly  as  if  severally  and  separately  inter 
rogated  as  to  each  and  every  of  such  matters,  and  may  he  com|)elled  to 
account  for  and  pay  to  your  orator  tlie  profits  hy  it  a(<|uired  and  tin- 
damages  sufTered  hy  your  orator  from  the  aforeHai<l  unlawful  acts.  Hut 
an  answer  under  oath  is  herohy  exi)ressly  waive<l. 

Your  orator  prays  tliat  the  said  defendant,  its  oflicers,  servants,  agents, 
attorneys  and  workmen,  and  each  and  every  of  them,  may  be  restrained 
and  enjoined  jjrovisionally  and  ])ermanently  hy  the  order  and  injunction 
of  this  honorable  court  from  procuring,  parting  with,  selling  or  attt-mpt- 
ing  to  sell  witliin  the  T^nited  States  of  America  any  water  or  liquid  not 
coming  from  tlie  said  wells  of  your  orator  under  the  name  or  designation 
of  '"Hunyadi  Laszlo"  or  ''Hunyadi  Matyas"  or  any  namo  or  designation  in 
which  the  word  '"Hunyadi"  occurs,  and  also  from  procuring,  parting  with, 
selling  or  attempting  to  sell  within  the  said  limits  any  such  water  in 
any  bottle  or  vessel  imitating  or  resembling  in  form,  color  and  general 
appearance  those  used  as  aforesaid  by  your  orator  and  her  predecessor 
in  business,  or  bearing  upon  it  any  capsule  stanqjcd  in  any  manner  imi- 
tating or  resembling  tiie  said  capsules  of  your  orator,  or  any  label  in 
form,  color,  design  and  general  ai)pearance  imitating  or  resembling  the 
said  label  of  your  orator  on  the  said  bottles  of  Ilunyadi  Janos  water, 
and  also  from  procuring,  parting  with  or  selling  or  attempting  to  sell 
•within  said  limits  any  such  water  put  up  or  contained  in  bottles  resem- 
bling and  bearing  capsules,  marks  and  labels  resembling  those  of  your 
orator  or  bearing  tlie  name  '"Ilunyadi." 

And  your  orator  also  jirays  that  defendant  may  be  decreed  to  deliver 
up  unto  your  orator  or  to  this  honorable  court  any  and  all  labels  in  its 
possession  upon  which  the  words  "Hunj'adi"  or  "Hunyadi  Laszlo"  and 
"Hunyadi  Matyas"  appear,  or  which  are  made  in  imitation  of  or  resembling 
those  adopted  and  used  by  your  orator,  and  any  and  all  bottles,  whetlu-r 
filled  or  unfilled,  and  all  capsules  which  imitate  or  resemble  the  bottles 
and  capsules  used  by  your  orator  for  said  '"Hunyadi  Janos"  water,  and 
to  pay  unto  your  orator  all  profits  derived  by  the  said  defendant  from 
the  sale  of  any  water  under  the  said  name  "Hunyadi  Laszlo"  or  "Hunyadi 
Matyas,"  or  any  name  or  designation  in  which  the  word  "Hunyadi"  ap- 
pears, or  any  vessel  upon  which  was  or  is  affixed  the  label  or  capsules 
resembling  those  adopted  and  used  as  aforesaid  by  your  orator,  as  well 
as  the  costs  of  this  suit;  and  that  your  orator  may  have  such  further 
relief  or  such  other  or  different  relief  as  to  this  honorable  court  shall  seem 
meet  and  as  shall  be  agreeable  to  equity. 


890  AIM'ENDIX   n. 

Mav  it  ploft!»<'  yotir  honors  to  urnnt  unto  yotir  orator  tho  writ  of  in- 
juiictinn,  ii«  wrll  provinional  hh  i»«rniani'nt,  issuinj;  out  of  and  uiulrr  the 
(H-al  of  thi»  lu>norulih>  court,  i-onimaiulin^',  i'nj«)iiiinj;  ami  rcHtraiiiiii),'  tho 
Miiil  lU'fondant,  itrt  ollicfrx,  wrvauts,  aj^-i-ntH,  attorrnvB  and  workmen,  and 
oadi  and  cwry  of  tlu-in  a«  i»  hcroinlH-fon"  and  in  tluit  hrhalf  prayed. 

May  it  pleasf  your  honors  to  grant  unto  your  orator  the  writ  of  Huh- 
jMvna  issuinj"  out  of  and  undi-r  thi-  wal  of  this  honorahlo  court  din-ct»'d 
to  tho  sjiid  dtf.ndant.  Kisnor  4  M.-ndi-lson  Company,  hy  a  cortain  day  and 
undiT  a  ct-rtain  jM-nalty  U>  \h'  and  appear  in  this  lionorahK-  court,  there 
and  tlien  to  answer  the  premises  and  to  stand  to  and  abide  such  order 
and  decree  as  may  In-  made  ajiainst  it. 

And  your  orator  will  ever  pray,  etc 

]?.  &  K.. 
C'jrtipUiiitatit's  Holicitora. 


BILL  OF  roMPLAINT. 
(Hennessy  v.  Herrmann.  SO  Fed.  Rep.  OCfl.) 

In  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United   States   for  the  Nortliern   Judicial 
District  of  the  State  of  California. 

jAcgiES   Richard  Maukick  Hennessy, 
Jacques   Fbancis  Henry   Hexnkssy, 
James    Richard   Chabi.es   He.nnes.sy 
Abuand    Castillon    and    Emmanuei    ^Iti  Kipiity. 
Castaiu.ve, 

against 
J.  H.  and  C.  S. 

To  the  nonnrahic  Juilgm  of  thr  Circuit  Court  of  the  Tm/rJ  l^tatrs  for 
the  yorthcm  Judicial  Dintrict  of  California: 
First.  J.  R.  M.  n.,  J.  F.  IT.  IT.,  J.  R.  C.  IT.,  A.  C.  and  K.  0..  all  of 
Cojrnac  in  France,  and  citizens  of  the  Republic  of  France,  brinjj  this  their 
bin  of  comj.laint  ajrainst  J.  H.  and  C  S.,  of  the  city  and  county  of  San 
Francisco,  State  of  California,  residents  of  the  Northern  Judicial  District 
aforesaid,    and    citizens    thereof,    and    thereupon    your    orators    complain 

and  say : 

Second.  Complainants  state  that  at  all  the  times  hereinafter  men- 
tioned they  were  copartners  under  the  firm  name  and  style  of  James  Hen- 
nessy  and  Company.  That  the  complaiiumts  are,  and  for  a  Ion;;  time 
previous  to  the  commission  of  the  grievances  hereinafter  mentioned  have 
Ix-en,  exporters,  J)ottlers  and  vendors  of  a  cordial  or  !i(|Uor  known  as 
Ilennessy  brandy,  which  the  complainants  and  their  jtredecessors  in  the 
partnerHhii.  business  have  for  upwards  of  thirty  years  last  past  produced, 

iHittled  and  sold. 

Third.  That  said  brandy  when  bottled  by  these  complainants  is  put 
I,,,   in    peculiar    tall.  <lark   colored   boltU-s,   to-wit,   twelve    inches   in   height. 


P'OUMS   Ol''   Hl\.\.>.    .\M>    AN.^\M,U.s.  891 

bonrinp  (a)  n  rcctnn^Milar  Inlxl  licariii;;  tlic  iiiHcription,  "Jafl.  IIonrn-Hfly 
A  Co.,  L'(i;,'Muc,"  ill  liitUl  lttt<rH  on  a  wliitc  j;r(Miiicl,  mrirclfd  liy  u  \vr<-uth 
of  vine  it-avrs  and  /^rapcn,  in  ^old,  Hiiid  wrt-utli  Ixiii;,'  Huniujuntcd  by  an 
arm  bearing  a  liattle  axe,  alnu  in  gold;  (b)  a  Hmall  ublong  label  of  whiU: 
with  gold  border  lines,  iwaring  the  word  "France"  in  gold;  (c)  a  crencent- 
Hhaped  label;  (d)  a  eork  branded  with  the  wordn  "JameH  HenneHHy 
&  Co.";  (e)  a  metal  capsule;  all  with  their  own  proper  devices  and  tradu- 
markrt  ado|>ted  by  tlie  coniplaiiiantH  for  that  purpose  tlie  year  A.  I).  1H70, 
and  all  eiuased  in  wpiare  wooden  Ixixch  holding  twelve  bottles  each. 

Fourtli.  That  eonipiainant.s'  trademarks  have  been  duly  registered 
under  tlie  proviHioiis  of  the  statutt'  <tf  tin-  United  States  in  tin;  year  A.  I). 
ISSl.  Tliat  by  nasoii  of  the  long  experience  and  great  care  of  the  com- 
plainants in  tlieir  said  business,  and  the  good  quality  of  said  brandy, 
distinguished  as  it  was  by  its  trademarks,  tradenames,  labels,  corks,  cap- 
sules, and  the  shape,  size  and  color  of  its  bottles,  the  same  has  become 
widely  known  in  the  community  and  tliroughout  the  world  as  a  useful 
and  valualile  cordial  aiu'  ai(iuired  a  high  reputation  as  such,  and  has 
commanded  and  still  commands  an  extensive  sale  tliroughout  the  United 
States  and  l-hirop*',  which  is  and  has  been  a  source  of  great  profit  to  these 
complainants.  That  your  orators'  tradename  and  trademarks  ure  of  a 
value  of  two  thousand  dollars  and  upwards.  That  said  brandy  when 
bottled  by  complainants  is  known  as  such  brandy  to  the  public,  buyers 
and  consumers  thereof  by  the  said  name  of  James  Hennessy  &  Company's 
brandy,  or  Hennessy  brandy,  or  Hennessy  cognac,  together  with  the  com- 
plainants' own  proper  devices,  tradenames,  and  trademarks  aforesaid, 
and  by  its  straw  wrappers  or  casings  accompanying  and  enclosing  said 
bottles,  and  by  the  peculiar  shape  and  color  of  tiie  bottles  themselves. 

Fifth.  Comjjlainants  state  that,  notwithstanding  the  long  and  quiet 
use  and  enjoyment  by  the  complainants  of  said  tradename  and  trademark 
and  to  the  form,  device  and  descriptive  matter  of  said  labels,  the  defend- 
ants, well  knowing  the  premises  and  witli  the  j)reconceived  intention  to 
injure  the  complainants,  and  with  the  purpose  to  defraud  them,  and  witli 
the  purpose  to  deprive  tliese  complainants  of  tiie  benefits  and  profits 
resulting  from  the  great  reputation  ae(juired  for  said  brandy,  and  the 
consequent  demand  therefor,  and  with  the  intent  to  acquire  for  themselves 
the  benefits  and  profits  of  said  reputation,  and  with  the  intent  to  assist 
others  to  palm  ofT  on  the  public  brandy  not  being  exported,  sold  or 
bottled  by  complainants,  as  the  goods  of  the  complainants,  and  in  wilful 
disregard  of  complainants'  rights  in  the  premises,  kept,  offered  for  sale 
and  sold,  and  advertised  for  sale,  and  now  keep,  ofTer  for  sale  and  sell 
in  the  city  and  county  of  San  Francisco  and  State  of  California,  and 
elsewhere  in  the  United  States  of  America,  counterfeit  labels  in  imitation 
of  complainants'  labels  under  the  name  of  "Hennessy  &  Co.,"  using  fac- 
similes of  complainants'  tradename,  devices  and  labels,  which  with  intent 
to  deceive  and  defraud  the  public  and  the  buyers  and  consumers  thereof, 
they  have  caused  to  be  sold  to  dealers  engaged  in  counterfeiting  the 
bottled  brandy  of  your  orators;   that  defendants  sold  said   labels  for  the 


892  Al'rKNDLX   II. 

purpofto  nnd  with  tlio  intent  tlint  thi>y  kIxuiIiI  so  hv  iiwd.  ami  tlint  in 
fai't  tlu'V   liH\«'  Ui'ii  h«>  iiHi'il,  ill   friiiul  of  your  onitorn'  ri;.'litH. 

Sixtli.  That  hucIi  imitation  hilu'la  arc  cah'uhitcd  to  deceive  Iht*  pur- 
chatxTD  and  ci>niiuincr8  of  itaid  lirundy,  nnd  arc  c-ah-uhitcd  to  nium*  tho 
piihlio  and  the  huyorn  and  conHtmuTH  tht-n-tif  to  h«dirvr  that  tho  lirundy 
ki'pt  and  oITitihI  for  wih-  and  Hold  liy  dcfi-ndantH*  ciiHtomiTH  ia  the  brandy 
••x|Mirt«-d,   liottli'd  and   mdd  l>y   thi-  romplainantn. 

S-\«-ntli.  Tliat  HUfli  imitation  ft*  rah-uhUfd  to  chrcivi-  and  iniHh'ad  the 
purchas«rh  and  f«>nHum«Ts  of  tlie  coniphiinants'  hrandy,  and  lias  aetually 
dttH-ivj-fl  and  niiHli'd  and  ntill  docs  niishad  many  of  tlu-m  to  huy  the 
hrandv  or  liijnor  w)Ul  l>y  the  defemhints"  i-ustonicrH  in  the  belief  that  it 
is  the  brandy  exported  and  bottled  by  the  eomplainants,  to  the  great  loss, 
injury  and  damajje  of  tlie  (>om]>lainants.  Tliat  the  artiele  ho  put  up  ami 
wdd  by  the  defendants'  eiistoniers  is  of  greatly  inferior  quality  to  that  of 
the  e«>ni|ilainants.  and  deleterious  to  the  health  of  the  eonsumer,  and  the 
general  estt-em  antl  rej>utation  of  the  lirandy  exported  i»y  the  eomplainantH 
has  U'en  and  is  now  l>eing   injured  and  damaged  tliereby. 

Kighth.  Korasmueh  as  your  orators  can  have  no  adequate  relief  except 
in  this  court,  and  to  tin-  end,  therefore,  that  the  defendants  may,  if  they 
can,  sIjow  why  your  orators  should  not  have  the  relief  hereby  pray«'d,  and 
may  make  a  full  disclosure  and  discovery  of  ail  the  matters  aforesaid,  and 
according  to  the  best  and  utmost  of  their  knowledge,  remembrance,  informa- 
tion and  belief,  full,  true,  direct  and  perfect  answer  make  to  tiie  mattt-rs 
hereinbi^ore  stated  and  cliarged,  but  not  under  oath,  an  answer  under  oath 
In-ing  exj)res8ly  waived. 

And  that  the  defendants  may  be  decn-ed  to  account  for  and  i>ay  over 
adi-quate  danuiges  arising  from  their  aforesaid  acts  in  violation  of  your 
orators'  rights,  your  orators  pray  that  your  honors  may  grant  a  writ 
of  injunction  issuing  out  of  and  under  the  seal  of  this  honorable  court, 
perj>etually  enjoining  and  n-straining  the  said  defendants,  tlwir  clerks, 
attorneys,  agents  and  servants  from  keejiing,  olTering  for  sale,  or  selling 
any  brandy  not  Ix-ing  the  i)randy  exported  and  bottled  liy  yovir  t>rators, 
put  up  in  bottles  of  th«'  general  form,  shape  and  color  of  complainants' 
lK>ttles,  and  wrapped  with  lalnds  of  the  form,  device  and  in  tlie  manner 
complained  of,  or  in  any  other  form  and  device  which  shall  Iw  a  color- 
able imitation  of  complainants'  brandy,  or  from  applying  to  any  sudh 
brandy  the  name  "Ilennessy  Brandy,"  or  from  using  upon  or  in  connection 
witli  wiid  l>raMily  or  any  cojinterfeit  of  your  orators'  labels  or  cases  the 
name  "HennesBy,"  or  any  combination  of  B\ich  name  or  name  of  like  sound, 
and  that  the  defendants  deliver  up  to  your  orators  all  bottli-s  having 
thertHiU  Kaid  false  lal)el,  and  also  all  such  faUe  labels  in  their  |K)ss«'ssion 
or  under  their  control,  to  the  end  and  puri>ose  that  the  same  may  be 
destroyed. 

And  that  your  lionors  upon  the  rendering  of  th.'  decrei"  above  jirayed 
mav  aswHH,  or  cause  to  be  assessed,  the  damages  your  orators  have  sustained 
by  reason  of  the  premises. 


FOUMS   OF   HII.LS    AND    ANSWKKH.  HO^l 

Mav  it  plciisf  vdur  linnnrs  to  prnnt  untf-  your  orntorH  not  only  a  writ 
of  iiijiirutioii  confonnatilc  to  tlic  prayer  of  tliin  hill,  lait  alno  a  writ  of 
Hiil>|)(i'iia  of  the  Tnitfil  StatcH  of  Ann-rica.  din-ctcil  to  tin-  Haiil  J.  H.  and 
('.  S.,  coninuuidin','  tlit'in  on  a  day  certain  to  appear  and  anHWcr  unto 
tlii8  lull  of  foniplaint,  and  to  abide  and  perform  Hueh  onler  and  decrw; 
in  tlic  premises  as  to  the  court  shall  seem  pn.per  and  re<|uir.(i  )iy  th« 
priiK-ipleH  of  eipiitv  and  good  conscience. 

.1.  L.  H.,  A.  I..   I'.  an<l  .1.  L,  1!.. 

Of   Counsel.  fioUcilors  for   ('oinphiiinnits. 

Unitkd  States  oh  Amkkica, 
\orihcrn  Judicial  District  uf  California,    ss. 

J.  L.  II.,  on  Ixiialf  of  the  said  complainants,  Jacques  Richard  Mauricn 
Ilennessy,  .Jacques  Francis  Henry  Ilenne.ssy,  James  Richard  Cliarles  Hen- 
nessy,  Armand  Castillon  and  lunmanucd  ('astai;,me,  and  duly  authori^'.ed  to 
act  for  tlum  herein,  lieinj;  on  his  oath  sworn.  dei)oseth  and  says  that  h« 
has  read  the  above  hill  of  complaint,  and  tliat  the  matters  therein  set 
forth  are  true  to  his  best  knowledge,  information  and  belief. 
Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  this  Iflth  day  of  July,  18U8. 

S.   H., 
Cleric  U.  .S'.  Cir.  Ct.,  .V.  D.  C. 


ANSWER. 

(Benkert  v.  Fedcr,  .'U  K.d.  U.p.  r)34.) 

In  the  Circ\iit   Court    of    tlie    I "nited   .States    in  and   for  tlie   Ninth  Circuit 
and    District    of    California. 


WiM.iAM  J.    Rknkkkt.   Cumi)lainunt, 

vs. 

"MoRRLS     RosENTiiAi.    and     Sami  i;i.     Kkdkr, 

Defendants. 


No.  3.-)07. 


The  answer  of  M.  U.  and  S.  F.  to  the  bill  of  complaint  of  W.  J.  B., 
comi)laiiiant. 

These  defendants,  saving  and  reserving  to  themselves  all  right  of  excep- 
tion to  said  bill  of  complaint  on  account  of  the  many  errors  therein  con- 
tained, for  answer  thereto  or  to  so  much  and  such  parts  thereof  as  they 
are  advised  by  counsel  it  is  necessary  or  important  for  them  to  make 
answer  unto,  answering,  say: 

That  they  have  no  knowledge  or  information  other  than  from  said 
bill  of  complaint  as  to  the  partner.ship  or  business  of  the  comi)lainant 
and  Casper  Benkert,  or  the  continuance  thereof,  and  can  not  admit  or 
deny  the  allegations  of  said  bill  relative  thereto,  and  insist  that  coni])lain- 
ant  make  proof  thereof. 

Defendants  say  that  they  have  no  knowledge  or  imormation  other  than 
from   said  bill   of   complaint   as   to   the   sale   by   Casper   Benkert   to    com- 


S!'J  Vl'l'KNOIX    II. 

j'liimniu  i>i  nm  imm^t  m  snu\  nllo^'Oil  luifiinoHS  nml  tiif  onrryin"  on  and 
owiKrsliip  nnd  proprit-torHliip  tlu-rcdf,  atul  ciin  not  admit  (ir  deny  tli<> 
nlliTjationH  of  said  liill  nlativo  tlu-rcto.  an<l  inHint  that  complainant  muk<- 
priHif   thiTiMif. 

Dcfc-ndaiitH  Kiiy  tliat  tlx-y  liavc  no  knowlcd^i-  or  infornnitioii  otiicr  than 
from  Niid  l>ill  of  oimiphiint  as  to  tin-  InisincHH  of  tli<>  partncrsliip  of  C. 
Urnkt-rt  &  S<»n  nnd  of  complainant,  or  of  tht-  hoots  and  shews  maniifacturcil 
and  sold  by  th«-m  or  fitiicr  «)f  tlx-m,  or  of  the  quality,  (pianlity  and  price 
of  such  lKK)ts  and  sho<'s.  or  tin-  mark  or  otiicr  dcBi;^tuition  tlicrcof  or 
thereon,  and  can  not  admit  or  deny  tlie  allepitions  of  said  hill  rehitive 
tht-reto,  and   insist   that  lomplainant  nutke  proof  tiiereof. 

Defendants  say  tliat  tlu-y  have  no  knowh'd;,'e  or  inforniation  otlier  than 
from  said  hill  of  complaint  as  to  the  placin;;  as  a  trademark  upon  said 
IkhUs  and  sIkh'S.  and  to  indicate  the  ownership  and  ori^'in  thereof,  the 
words  "C".  Benkert  &  Son,"  and  to  the  knowing  of  said  lK>ot8  and  shucA 
by  the  name  of  "('.  Hcnkert  &  Son,"  and  can  not  admit  or  deny  the 
allejrations  of  said  hill  relative  thereto,  and  insist  that  complainant  make 
j)roof  thereof. 

Defendants  say  that  (hey  have  no  knowled;;e  or  information  other  tlian 
from  said  l)ill  of  complaint  as  to  the  name  of  "t".  Benkert  &  Son"  hein;^ 
a  trademark,  or  the  ownership  of  said  name,  or  the  ri;,'l>t  to  use  and 
place  the  same  upon  hoots  or  slux's.  and  can  not  admit  or  deny  ii\^^ 
nllegations  of  said  hill  n-Iative  tliereto,  and  insist  tliat  i-onijilainant  make 
proof  thereof. 

These  defendants  and  each  of  tliem  deny  that  tliey  liave  for  more  tlian 
five  years  last  past  Ix-en  jiartners  in  trade  as  set  forth  in  said  hill  of 
complaint,  «'xcept  as  follows:  for  the  four  years  previous  to  the  montli 
of  March,  1SS4,  they,  with  one  Bromher;rer,  wen-  partners  in  trade  under 
the  firm  name  of  Rosenthal.  Feder  &  (  o.,  and  in  said  month  said  Brom- 
lK'r<.'er  retired  from  the  co-partnership  formed  l>y  them:  since  said  month 
these  defendants  have  been  partners  in  trade  as  set  forth  in  said  hill 
of  complaint. 

Tliew  defendants  and  each  of  them  deny  that  within  five  years  or  at 
any  time  or  times  whatsoever  thiy  or  either  of  them  had  maiuifactured 
or  sold,  or  an-  now  manufacturing  or  wiling,  large  or  any  (juantities 
of  iHJots  and  shoes  or  hoots  or  shoes,  or  each  or  eitln-r,  on  any  of  which 
they  have  placed  in  plain  or  conspicuous  letters,  or  at  all,  the  name  of 
"C.  F.  Benkert  i  Son,"  in  imitation  of  tlie  name  of  '•('.  Benkert  Jt  Son," 
as  alleged   in   said  hill  of  complaint,  or  at  all. 

Defendants  and  each  of  tln-m  deny  that  they  or  either  of  them  have 
stamped  in  soli-leather  or  huttons  or  any  other  ]iart  of  said  hoots  and  shoes, 
or  any  iKiots  or  shoes  wliatsoev«'r,  in  plain  consjiicuous  letters  or  other- 
wise, the  name  or  words  "('.    V.  Benkert  &   Son,   Phila." 

Dt'fendants  deny  that  they  have  manufactured  or  are  still  manufac- 
turing said  hoots  and  shoi-s  or  any  hoots  or  shoes  marked  with  the 
name  of  "('.  F.  Benkert  &  Son"  in  San  Francisco,  Hawaiian  Islands, 
other  domestic  or  fon-ign  markets  or  (dsewhere.  and  admit  and  show  to 
thie  court  that  they   have  sold   in  San   Francisco  and  <'lsewliere  a  small 


FORMS  OF  BILLS    AND    ANSWKKH.  895 

qimntity  of  l)o<)trt  niul  hIioch  marked  '•('.  F.  Uciikcrt  &  Son,"  c-ompriHiny 
not  mori"  tluin  two  hundred  und  fifty  do/.i-n  puirH  tht-n-of;  and  fiirtht-r 
Htutf  and  wliow  tliat  tlu-  boots  and  elioi-a  ho  Hold  wt-re  of  an  entirely 
dUr»n-iit  cUiHs,  style,  niitun-  and  f,'radc  from  tin-  ImotH  and  nhoeH  alluf^ed 
in  Huid  1)111  of  t-onijilaint  to  lie  maMufactund  \>y  tlu-  complainant  and  an 
Hucli  were  rocogni/.cd  l>y  and  sold  to  th.'  tuHtomtTM  and  jiatroiirt  of  tin-Hi; 
defendants. 

Defendants  nay  they  have  no  knowled^'e  or  information  other  than  from 
said  hill  of  complaint  as  to  tlie  relative  quality,  cost  of  manufacture 
and  prices  of  sale  of  said  hoots  and  shoes  and  the  hoots  and  slioes  madi- 
by  the  complainant,  and  can  not  admit  or  deny  the  allegations  of  said 
bill  rtdtttive  thereto,  and  insist  that  complainant  make  proof  thereof. 

Defendants  and  each  of  tliem  deny  that  they  have  had  manufactured 
for  them  as  set  forth  in  said  l)ill  of  complaint  large  or  any  qiuintitie«» 
of  boots  or  shoes  or  any  boots  or  shoes  whatever  on  which  was  printed 
tlie  name  "C.  F.  Benkert  &  Son"  or  stamped  "C.  F.  Benkert  &  Son.  Phila.," 
as  set  forth  in  said  bill  of  complaint,  excepting  not  more  than  thn-e 
hundred  and  twenty-one  dozens  thereof,  and  the  defendants  and  each  of 
them  deny  that  they  have  sold  or  are  still  selling  l)oots  and  shoes  with 
said  words  printed  or  stamped  thereon  in  San  Francisco  or  elsewhere, 
excepting  that  they  have  lieretofore  sold  not  more  than  the  two  hundred 
and  fifty  do7A"ns  thereof  aforesaid. 

The  defendants  and  »'ach  of  them  deny  that  they  have  j)Iaced  or  caused 
to  be  placed  on  said  boots  or  shoes  alleged  to  have  been  sold  by  them 
or  upon  any  other  boots  or  shoes  whatsoever  said  words,  to  wit,  "C.  F. 
Benkert  &  Son,"  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  tlie  jiublic  or  jiurchasers 
<renerally,  or  any  other  person,  or  causing  them  or  any  of  them  to  believe 
the  said  boots  or  shoes  were  nvanufactured  by  the  comjilainant  or  at 
all.  They  deny  that  the  public  or  purchasers  generally  or  any  of  them 
have  been  deceived  or  have  believed  on  account  of  said  names  being  on 
said  boots  or  shoes  that  the  same  were  genuine  or  other  boots  or  shoes  inanu- 
facturixl  by  the  complainant,  and  that  being  deceived  as  alleged  in  said 
bill  of  complaint,  or  lieing  deceived  at  all,  have  purchased  or  are  now 
purchasing,  or  these  defendants  have  sold  or  are  now  selling,  said  boots 
or  shoes  as  or  for  genuine  or  other  boots  or  shoes  manufactured  by  the 
complainant.  They  deny  that  by  any  of  the  acts  and  doings  set  forth 
in  said  bill  of  complaint  they  or  either  of  them  have  unlawfully  or  other- 
wise "reatly  or  at  all  injured  or  depreciated  the  complainants'  trade  in 
fine  or  other  boots  or  shoes,  or  the  good  or  other  reputation  or  standing 
of  said  boots  or  slioes,  alleged  in  said  bill  of  complaint  to  have  been 
had  by  them. 

Defendants  and  each  of  them  deny  that,  unless  restrained  by  injunc- 
tion, they  by  using  said  name  on  the  boots  and  shoes  sold  Ity  them  will 
infringe  on  the  alleged  name  and  trademark  of  the  complainant  and 
deny  that  they  have  already  at  any  time  been  doing  the  same. 

The  defendants  state  and  show  that  they  have  sold  not  more  tiian 
two  hundred   and   fifty  dozens  of  boots  and  shoes  marked  "C.   F.   Benkert 


896  Ai'i'KNnix  n. 

A  StiM,"  iiul  li«\.'  r  iili/.tnl  thrrofrom  n  profit  of  nlwMif  nn<l  not  mor.>  tlmn 
llv.«  huntlnd    ( :.()()»   «lollnrn. 

Th.>  a«f.iHluntH  iinii  nuh  of  tlum  «l«ny  tliiit  l>y  rniKoii  of  tin-  hhuI  iill.^,'*^* 
infrinp-m.-nt.  tr  <if  umv  oIIht  lu-t  or  doiiiK  of  Uu-s*-  (Uffiidants  or  ritli.r 
of  tlum,  tin-  oom|>lHimint  has  sulTrnd  Ions  or  ilani«j;<'  to  a  v.rv  lar^T 
or  otIuT  nniount  or  any   Iohh  or  tlaina^-c  \v|int»4wvrr. 

Without  tluH  tliat  tlun-  i«  any  otln  r  mattir.  tanw  or  lliiny  in  tlic  ^aiil 
liill  of  complaint  rontaintnl  material  t>r  nrcrsaary  for  iIh-m-  «U>frndants 
or  oitluT  of  tlu-m  to  makf  anHWi-r  unto  and  not  licrrin  and  ln'n'l>y  wtdl 
and  siiflirifntly  answorod.  oonfr^M-d,  travfrsi'd  and  nvoiilcd  is  tnn>  to  tlu* 
kno\vl«'dj.M>  i>r  Udiff  of  tln>«4'  dofriidants;  all  of  wliii-li  niatt«-rs  and  tliin^'K 
th«'^«'  di'f.iulants  arc  nady  and  willing  to  avi-r.  maintain  and  prove  an 
this  hontiraldc  court  shall  din-ot,  ami  liumldy  pray  to  lu-  hence  dismiswd 
^^»th  tlieir  reasonalde  costs  and  charges  in  this  I.ehalf  most  wrongfully 
8ust«ine<l. 

M..  H.  A  ^r., 

I.  s.   H.,  Suliciturs  fur  JJcfvndantH. 

Of  Counarl  for  Defendants. 


ANSWER. 

(Brown  Chemical  Co.  v.  Mey.r.   1.10  T'.  S.  540.) 

TWY.    JOINT    ANSWKi;    ol"    ClIlMSri.W    V.    C    MKYKU.    et    al.    to   the 
Bill    of    Complaint    ..f    the    HKnWN    CIIKMICAL    COMPANY. 

Those  defendants  now  and  at  all  times  hereafter  saving  and  reserv- 
ing unto  themwlvea  all  henefit  and  advantage  of  exception  which  can  or 
may  he  had  or  taken  to  the,  many  errors.  uncertainti«'S  and  other  imper- 
f.H-tions  in  tiie  said  hill  contained  for  answi-r  thereto  or  to  wi  much  and 
parts  then-of  as  these  defendants  are  advised  it  is  material  or  necessjiry 
for  them  t<»  make  answer  unto,  say.  et<\ 

These  defendants  have  no  information  suliici«iit  to  form  a  helief  an 
to  whether  or  not  said  complainant  has  for  a  perit)d  of  many  years  last 
past  IxH'n  engaged  in  tin-  i>reparation  and  sale  of  a  certain  medicine  at 
the  city  of  Baltimore  and  tln-refore  call  for  strict  proof  of  same  although 
defendants  are  informed  and  ludieve  that  complainant  has  lu-en  »-ngaged 
in  the  ])re|iaration  and  sale  «»f  a  medicine,  hut  these  defendants  on  inform- 
ation and  iM-lief  deny  that  said  me<licine  has  accpiired  or  long  enjoyed 
!i  very  high  or  any  jiarticular  reputation  iis  a  remedy  for  tlie  |irevention 
or  cure  of  many  or  any  diwa8«'s,  hut  whether  it  is  sold  in  immense  or 
any  consideralde  tpuintities  to  comphiiiuint's  great  |)rofit  these  defendants 
liave  no  information  suflicient  to  form  alielief  althojigh  di-fendants  helievo 
that  complainant  has  sold  enough  of  said   medicim-  to  make  some   jtrofit. 

Them-  di-fendants  furtlwr  answering  said  hill  of  complaint  admit, 
on  information  ami  helief,  that  said  complainant  as  alleged  in  saiil  hill 
has  adopted,  applied  and  used,  nnd  is  using  a  certain  lahel  with  the 
words  and   r-prewntations   •"•  Je.«ci  ibed  and   set   forth    in   said   hill,   liut  as 


FOK.MS   OK    HII.I.S    AND     VNSWKUS.  897 

to  whctlHT  or  not  uh  m-t  forth  in  said  Mil  said  lulx-l  Iiiih  Ix-cn  um-d  Hincc 
alxmt  tli(  yiar  1H7!I,  or  an  to  wlu-tluT  or  not  wiid  compluiiiHnt  di-viwd 
or  ori^jinatfd  said  lahfl,  tlicst-  dcfciidantH  liavc  no  information  Mullui<-nt 
to   form   a   indit-f,  uiid   tlu-rt-fort"  rails   for  strict    |iro<if  of  said   all<-j,'ationH. 

Thesi-  defondantH  furtluT  answcrinn  wiid  l>i!l  of  foni|)laiiit  admit  on 
information  and  Indiof  that  tin-  dt-sifiiiation  "HrownH  Iron  UitttrH"  had 
come  to  l)t'  anHK-iatod  witii  complainant'H  medicine  or  product,  hut  whether 
or  not  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  defendants  can  not  Hay  as  matter 
of  law,  hut  defendants  say  as  matter  of  fact,  no  otlier  Hrown  Iron  Hitlera 
are  known  to  these  defendants,  and  that  tliose  di-sirin;,'  efmiplainant'fl 
medicine  are  in  the  hai)it  of  nsiiij;  the  desi^'nation  '•Brown's  Iron  Hitters" 
with  the  understandin;:  that  it  means  comjilainant's  medicine  alone  since 
th»'re  are  no  other  Brown's  Iron  IJittera  made  up  or  sold  to  the  trade  as 
defendants  are  informed  and  helieve;  and  that  whenever  the  said  desig- 
nation, Hrown's  Iron  Bitters  are  used,  it  means  a  medicine  prepared  and 
put  up  by  complainant  at  tiic  city  of  Baltimore,  in  tlie  state  of  Maryland. 

These  defendants  furtlier  answcrin;,'  said  Iiill  of  complaint  say  they 
Iiave  no  information  sudicicnt  to  form  a  lulief  as  to  whether  or  not  said 
complainant  has  spent  lar-ie  sums  of  money  in  advert isinf,'  amountinj,' 
to  liundreds  of  thousands  annually,  althou},di  defendants  helieve  com- 
plainant has  advertised  extensively.  Defendants  admit  that  complain- 
ant's output  has  been  of  {jreat  magnitude,  amountiu}^  to  many  thousands 
of  bottles  annually,  but  as  to  whether  or  not  said  bottler  have  all  borne 
a  label  consisting  in  jtart  of  the  words  "Brown's  Iron  Bitters,"  these 
defendants  do  not  know,  but  iielieve  and  suppose  it  is  so. 

These  defendants  admit  on  information  and  belief  that  the  said  desij;- 
nation  "Brown's  Iron  Bitters"  lias  come  to  be  identified  with  said  com- 
plainant's p-oduct,  but  not  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others  as  matter  of 
legal  rijiht,  although  as  before  stated,  these  defendants  know  of  no  other 
"Brown's  Iron  Bitters*'  in  the  trade.  Defendants  do  not  know  whether 
or  not  said  designation  is  known  and  is  now  used  in  all  parts  of  the  United 
States  by  ccmsumers  generally  wiien  they  desire  to  obtain  the  said  prep- 
aration of  complainant,  although  these  defendants  know  of  no  otiier  jirep- 
aration  of  the  same  designation. 

These  defendants  further  answering  said  bill  of  complaint  say  they 
have  no  information  sullicieiit  to  form  a  belief  as  to  whether  or  not  said 
designation  has  ever  been  employed  in  connection  with  any  other  prep- 
aration or  remedy,  and  therefore  calls  for  strict  proof  of  the  same; 
but  these  defendants  deny  that  the  said  designation  is  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  or  to  any  intent  or  purpose  complainant's  tradename  or  trade- 
mark, or  that  said  complainant  now  has  or  has  ever  had  the  exclusive 
right  to  the  use  of  said  designation  as  a  tradename  or  trademark  for  a 
medicinal  prejiaration  or  otherwise,  or  that  no  one  except  complainant 
has  had.  or  now  has  any  right  to  use  said  designation  as  a  tradename 
or  trademark  for  a  medicinal  j)reparation  or  otherwise;  and  these  defend- 
ants further  answering  deny  that  they  have  done  anything  which  is  fraud- 
ulent or  which   will  be  restrained  bv  this  Honorable  Court. 


898  APPENDIX  n. 

Those  dcfondftntH  furth.r  uiiKW.Tinjj  enid  l.ill  <>f  (•.•mi>l»int  a.lmif  that 
thfv  wiTO  t-nnHjii'd  in  liUHiiu-ns  an  wholowiU-  tlru^'jiibtH  at  tin*  rity  of  .St. 
Luiuii,  in  thi-  Ht«l«>  «>f  .MiK»«».uii.  luit  <l.iiv  tiiat  tluy  liavt-  Ik-.-h  loui',  or  at 
«U  ct)jjniwint  of  tin-  hinh  nputatiuii  or  uny  |.artiiular  npulatioii  of 
comiilMiiiHiitH  n»-<licin«',  hut  ailmit  lliat  for  boni.  tiinr  tiny  ha\<-  known 
of   till-  H«i«l   «UHijination   'Hrown'B   Iron   HittrrH." 

Tlu'W  tlof«-ndant«  furtlwr  nn«wfrin>;  Nii<l  lull  of  roniplaint  atlinit  (hat 
prior  to  thi>  ronim»nc<-inrnt  t>f  this  nuit  and  as  wrll  sine,  tiit-y  hml  and 
ha\<'  cold  nM'difiiH'  put  up  in  lM)tths  to  wliicli*  havi-  U-.n  attachi-d  and 
Hppliid  laU'lH  oontuininn  tin-  wordn  -'Urown'H  Iron  Tonic."  hut  tluw-  dtfiiid- 
ant(«  ixplicitly  <l«ny  that  nurli  sahrt  or  any  of  th.ni  wore  or  huvr  Imh'U 
niadf  in  ord.r  to  injun-  <nni|dainant  hy  dixirtin;;  any  protitH  of  com- 
plainant in  tln>  Half  .d  itrt  nnditinc  or  oUu'rwiw.  or  that  Huch  khIis  wrra 
fraudul.ntly  nnul.-.  <.r  that  tin-  hottl.-s  or  thi-  lalndH  thi-rt'on  oontainiuK 
tlu-  wordrt  •llrowns  Iron  Ttniic."  wire  intondod  hy  tluMc  d«'ft'ndantH  or 
anv  of  th.-ni  to  indinitc  that  tin-  m.-dicinr  contained  in  said  hotth's  was 
pn-par.d  and  put  uj)  hy  complainant;  and  these  defendantrt  deny  that 
they  ever  have  frautluhntly  olTend  or  cauwd  to  he  olTered  or  sold  or  that 
they  Htill  frauduhntly  olfer  «ir  cause  to  he  offered  or  sohl  in  larj;e  or  an? 
quantities  the  said  medicine  so  as  afon-said  lahelled  "Bn>\virrt  Iron  Tonic." 
althou^'h  thew  defendants  admit  that  tlu-y  have,  as  of  rijiht  they  mi^ht, 
offered  and  sold  and  still  offer  for  sale  said  "iJn.wn's  Iron  Tonic;"  as  they 
have  hou;.'ht  and  sold  complainant's  said  m-dicine.  hut  without  h)sa  or 
injury  to  said  complainant. 

Thew  defendants  further  answerin;:  sai<l  hill  of  complaint,  deny  that 
larpe  or  small,  or  any  <juantities  or  quality  of  said  Hrown's  Iron  Tonic 
have  heen.  throu;;h  any  act  «>f  these  defendants,  or  any  of  them,  or 
throu(;h  any  use  hy  tlum  of  said  desij,'nation  of  "Brown's  Iron  Tonic" 
at  any  time  sold  as  or  for  complainant's  "Brown's  Iron  Bitters"  or 
mistaken  therefor  in  any  instance,  or  tliat  said  complainant  has  lost 
anythin;j  or  U'cn  inj»iri'd  therehy. 

Thest-  defendants  further  answerin;;  said  hill  of  com|>laint.  deny  that 
it  was  their  jmrpose  to  ollVr  or  sell  said  "Brown's  Iron  Tonic"  upon  any 
reputation  estahlislu-d  hy  complainant  or  as  or  for  complainant's  said 
alle;.'ed  celehrated  'Brown's  Iron  Bitters";  and  jlefendants  deny  that  any 
of  their  acts  in  the  premises  have  heen  or  are  contrary  to  «'<piity  or  pood 
o<»n8cience,  or  that  they  oupht  to  he  enjoined  from  tin-  further  bule  of 
Mtid   "Brown's    Iron   Tonic." 

These  difendants  further  answering  said  hill  of  «-omplaint  state  that 
while  they  claim  and  allep'  that  the  words  "Brown's  Iron  Bitters"  are 
not  the  suhject  of  trademark  or  trademime.  and  that  <hfendants  or 
anylKKly  elw  mipht  lef^ally  use  the  same  words  especially  if  as  in  this 
case,  the  entire  designation  is  not  used  hut  is  clumped  so  as  t«»  exclude 
the  idea  of  any  mish-adinp  or  fraudulent  pirpose;  yet  thew  defendants 
Iiave  as  pood  ripht  as  eomplaimmt  possihly  could  ha\c  (<>  tlie  usi-  of 
the  entire  (lesipnation  "Brown's  Iron  Bitters"  and  as  prouml  of  this  idaim 
and   as  further   unawcr    to   said   hill   of   complaint,    these    defendants   aver 


FOI{MS   OF    nil. I.-     \Mi     \N^\M.l(>.  ^■'''' 

oil  iiifornifttion  nnd  lii-lirf,  niul  clinr^c  tin-  truth  to  lip  Hint  in  m  Uiiir 
tin-  MuiniiHT  of  IKSl,  iitic  K.  L.  It.  in  connrc-tinn  with  oih-  ( '.  .1.  I,, 
coniini-nccd  putting  up  im<l  mllinjj  thi-  xiii<l  |)n-p)iratinii  •lirDWiih  Iron 
Tonic"  at  Littif  Uock,  AikiiiiHHH.  hh  a  wholly  (iintin*!  pn-pKration  from 
"Brown'H  Iron  Bitt«TH,"  ami  uithnut  any  iiiti-ntion  or  purpohf  to  iinitat.- 
coniplainaiit'H  said  pn-paration.  which  at  that  time  had  not  hf.-n  advcr* 
tiscd  or  sold  to  any  frn-at  «'xtf'iit,  as  tlu-Hc  dofcndnntH  on  information 
and  hclicf  av.r.  Sui>Hc<|ui'ntly  to  thin  (hitc,  an  thcw  d'-fi-ndantn  on 
information  and  hrlii'f,  avt-r,  Kaid  H.  sold  out  liiw  int<TfHt  in  naid  pn-pa- 
rution  to  Haid  V.  .1.  L.,  who  ha«  siiu-f  that  tinn-  iircn  puttinj,'  up,  at 
Litth'  Hofk,  ArkansaH,  said  medicine,  and  ofTcrin^'  it  to  tlic  pulilic,  and 
th«'Hc  defendants  have  h<»uj;ht  Home  of  it  and  s<dd  some  of  it,  viz:  Four 
jrroaa  hottles  hefore  Marcii  24t!i,  IHSd.  and  Hince  that  date  ahout  seven 
yro88  ho<?tle8. 

These  deft-ndants  further  aver  tliat  tlie  said  preparation  "IJrown's  Iron 
Tonic"  as  olFered  and  sold  liy  him,  as  well  as  hy  Kaid  B.  &  L.  and  since 
hy  said  L.,  has  heen  \nit  up  in  cartons  and  hottles  wholly  dilFerin^  in 
size,  color  and  appearance  from  said  complainant's  hottles  and  with 
lahels  adapted  and  applied  to  tlie  hottles  wholly  difTerin;,'  in  Hizo,  color, 
appearance  and  details  from  complainant's  laixds,  which  arc  enclosed 
in  wrappers  wliolly  ditferent  from  said  cartons  of  "Bmwn's  Iron  'Ionic," 
so  that  the  public  could  not  he  misled  or  the  complainant  injured,  which 
has  always  been  very  far  from  those  defendants'  purpose  or  object,  and 
as  well  very  far  from  said  B.  and  L.'s  purpose  or  obji'ct  as  these  defendants 
believe;  these  defendants  exhiliit  and  file  with  this  answer  a  bottle  of 
"Brown's  Iron  Tonic"  with  its  carton  and  lal)el  marked  exhibit  "C"  and 
as  well  a  label,  wrapper  and  bottle  of  complainant's  preparation,  marked 
Exhibit  '"n,"  and  i)r:iy  that  the  court  will  consider  them  as  part  of  this 
answer. 

These  defendants  further  answering,'  said  bill  of  complaint,  on  informa- 
tion and  belief,  ave-r  and  char<,'e  the  truth  to  be  that  early  in  1882,  tha 
said  complainant  entered  into  a  correspondence  with  said  L.  &  B.  with 
res^iect  to  said  "Brown's  Iron  Tonic,"'  and  said  L.  &  B.  sent  complainant 
a  sample  bottle  of  their  Tonic,  wrapper  and  lalxl.  ^^■hcreupon  as  a 
result  of  said  correspondence  and  examination,  said  complainant  in  a 
Itftter  to  said  L.  &  B.  ('Xjiressed  themselves  as  satisfied  that  said  "Brown's 
Iron  Tonic"'  did  not  conflict  with  said  "Brown"s  Iron  Bitters."  wliich 
Ivtter  was  and  is  in  words  and  figures  as  follows:  — 

BAi.TiNfoRK,  August  2Sth,   IHSi 

^Ikss.  C.  J.  Lincoln  &  Co., 

Little  Rock,  Ark. 
(loitlcmot : — Inclosing     your     invoice     thank    you     for    your    kind     and 
satisfactory   letter.      We  wish  the   Brown's    Iron   Tonic   a    success   as   ujxin 
examination   we   can   not  see  whore  it   can  conflict  with    us  except   in   the 
multiplicity    of    the    Brown    family. 

Your  fr'ds, 

Brown   Chemical   Co. 


900  APPKNDIX    II. 

Snitl  ootn|ilHinHnt  lui!*,  n«  th«•^4•  (lifi-iuliiiit^  art-  infornii'd  am!  lulirvo, 
rv«T  Kint-c  tin*  «lHt«'  nf  miiil  Ifttrr.  witli  full  kiinwlrdp-  of  all  tlit-  factn 
Hiiii  Mft«T  fXHniinHtioii  witli  ri-H|Mft  to  Kanu-.  iiunlr  ih»  complaint  of  or 
oltji-ctiuiiM  to  tlio  putting:  up  and  Half  of  Bwiil  '•Brown'H  Iron  T«»nio"'  until 
juHt  iM'foM-  tliiH  suit  \\ni«  l>n)U)>lit,  and  so  Ity  its  Huid  Ictti-r  and  itrt  lon^ 
j»il«<nii'  Hnd  Hi-tniit-mfun*  in  tin-  manufiictun"  and  hhIi*  <if  wiid  "BrowirH 
Iron  Tonic"  mtid  coinplaiiuint  tni;>lit  not  in  •tpiity  and  pmkI  ocuiwimci', 
if  for  no  othiT  n-aHon,  to  !>«•  ;;rant«d  in  a  »Miurt  of  ciiuity  any  relief  in 
till'  pnniif«<'i*. 

Them-  defendants  furtlur  answering,'  said  liill  of  i-..nipl:iint.  ileny  that 
tlft-  (Vtniplainant  lias  sulTere<l  liy  tlie  nets  of  these  defi-ndants.  danui^c  t<)  the 
extent  of  Ten  ThouHtind  Dollars,  or  any  other  Hum.  or  that  »uid  com- 
plainant haa  Ikh-h  done  any  wron;:  liy  the««-  defe.iilantH  or  is  (Mititlcd 
to  any   ndief  in  the  premis«'s. 

And  tlicM-  defendants  deny  all  and  all  inaiimr  of  unlawful  romhination 
and  confederaey.  wherewith  tlu-y  are  by  the  said  itill  rhar;.'ed,  without 
this,  that  any  other  matter,  cause  or  thin;,'  in  the  complainant's  said 
bill  of  complaint  contained,  material  or  nt-cessary  for  these  d<-fendants 
to  make  answer  unto,  and  not  herein  and  hereby  well  and  ButTiciiutly 
ansiworwl,  confessotl,  traversed  an<l  avoidiil  or  denied,  is  true,  to  the 
knowled;;e  or  belief  of  these  defendants;  all  which  matter  and  thinjr^  these 
defendants  are  ready  and  willing;  to  aver,  maintain  and  prove,  as  thi« 
Honorable  Court  shall  ilireet:  and  pray  to  be  lieiu-e  dismissed  witli  their 
reasonaldc  costs  i'ud   char;,'cs  in   this   behalf   most    wron;:fully   sustained. 

H.   A.  &MeK., 
Huliviturn  fur  Dvfcndanln. 


APPENDIX  I 

FORMS  OF  INJUNCTION. 

iNTKKi.ocridKV  i)i;(  i;i;i;. 

(H.iikcrt  V.    l-'i(l.r,  M   K.-d.   Kci..  .'i;{4.) 

Ill    tlu'   I'liitrd    Statis   (  irciiit   Court,    N«»rtli»'rti   DiHtrict  of 
(  iilifiiniiii,   Niiitli   Juilicial    Circuit. 

Wii.i.iA.M    .1.    Hknkkkt,    (  omplaiiiiint,  \ 

V8.  I 

Samuel    Fedku    and    Ai  kki.ia    Hose.nthai,,  I     , 

Executrix  of   the   Last   Will   and   Tosta-   ^  ^"-  "*■'"'■ 
mont  of   MoRBis   Rosenthal,   Docoasod, 
Defendants. 

At  a  state<l  term,  to-\vit,  tlie  Febrtiary  term.  18S8,  of  tlio  Circuit  Court 
of  the  United  States  of  America  of  the  ninth  judicial  circuit,  in  and 
for  the  northern  district  of  California,  held  at  the  court  room  thereof, 
in  the  city  and  county  of  San  Francisco,  on  Monday,  the  Ist  day  of  June, 
A.  D.,  1888. 

Present:     The    Honorable    Lorenzo   Sawyer,   circuit   judge. 

This  cause  having  come  on  to  he  heard  upon  the  bill  of  complaint 
herein,  the  answer  of  the  defendants,  and  replication  of  the  complain- 
ant, the  bill  of  revivor,  the  stipulation  of  the  parties  in  regard  thereto, 
and  the  proofs,  documentary  and  written,  taken  and  filed  in  said  cause, 
and  having  been  argued  l)y  counsel  for  the  respective  parties  and  sub- 
mitted to  tlie  court  for  consideration  and  decision: 

Now,  therefore,  on  consideration  thereof,  it  is  ordered,  adjudged  and 
decreed,  and  tlie  court  doth  hereby  order,  adjudge  and  decree,  as  follows, 
to- wit: 

That  the  name  of  "C.  Benkert  &  Son"  has  been  a  tradename  and  also 
a  trademark  upon  boots  and  shoes  for  upwards  of  twenty-five  years  last 
past,  and  as  such  tradename  and  trademark  is  good  and  valid   in   law. 

That  the  complainant,  William  J.  Benkert,  is,  and  ever  since  the  year 
1876  has  been,  tlie  exclusive  owner  of  said  tradename  and  trademark, 
and  during  a.11  said  time,  at  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  in  the  state  of 
Pennsylvania,  has  carried  on  tlie  business,  under  the  said  tradename, 
of  manufacturing  and  selling  boots  and  shoes,  and  during  all  said  tim-- 
has  stamped  and  printed,  and  used  upon  all  the  said  boots  and  shoes  so 
made  and  sold  by  him,  the  said  words  "C.  Benkert  &  Son"  as  a  trademark. 

That  the  original  defendants  herein,  Samuel  Feder  and  Morris  Rosenthal, 
made  and  sold  by  him.  the  said  words  "C.  Benkert  &  Son"  as  a  trademark, 
exclusive  rights  of   the   complainant  under  the   same — that  is  to   say,   by 

901 


002  a!Mm;nhi.\  i 

mfttmfftcturin;;  uml  m-llin^  within  tin-  t.n  vnirH  iii^t  past.  an. I  prior  t.i 
tlir  roinnuiHTiUiMit  of  tliin  niiit.  liiffif  quHiititifK  of  ImkiIh  nn«l  hIum-h  ujh)!! 
i-iu-li  of  wliii-h  thfv  liaxf  plao'il  in  plain,  i-onHpiiuouH.  printnl  litt«T» 
th»-  nnnu-  "•(.'.  K.  Hmkirt  A  Son"  in  imitation  of  th.-  nainr  ■(.  Hcnkirt  4 
Son"  »iH  oliarj;f<l  in  tin-  liill  of  i-omplaint. 

And  it  in  furtInT  onliTi-cl.  ««lju(lm'<l  an<l  dccn.d,  that  tin-  r<im|ihkitiant 
do  hav«'  and  nHtJXt-r  of  aftd  from  tJu-  cIoft-ndnntB,  Samurl  I'VdiT  nn«l  Aurt-IiH 
HoH4>nthiil,  fxifutrix  of  thi*  last  will  and  ti-»tam»'nt  of  Morris  Iturtt-ntlial. 
d«v«-awd,  the  prolitu,  f^ainH  ami  a<lvanta;i«'H  whioli  tin-  Haiti  di-ffmlunts  or 
fitiuT  of  tht-m  liavo  n-ri-ivrd  or  ma<li',  or  which  have  arim-n  or  a«»-ru«'<l 
to  thi'm,  or  ritlit-r  of  thmi.  from  the  infrin;,'«'m<'nt  of  the  waid  trailcnamc 
and  Kaid  trademark  of  "('.  Hi-nkt-rt  &  Son"  hy  th.-  makiri;:.  uninj;  and 
wiling;,  or  tin-  making',  iisin;;  or  selling'  of  said  hoots  and  Hh»wrt  liavinj; 
plaotHi  tliiTitm  the  namr  "C.  F.  Hcnki-rt  &  Son"  or  any  ot!nr  name  in 
imitation  of  complainant's  traih-namc  an<l  trademark  of  "('.  Hmkcrt  4 
Son." 

And  it  irt  fiirtlur  orthT4'<l.  adjud^rid  and  ihrn-cd.  tliat  the  said  c(mi- 
jdainant  do  nroviT  of  the  defi-ndants  his  costs  and  charges  and  «lis»Mirw- 
ments  in  this  suit  to  he  taxed. 

And  it  is  further  orden-d,  adjud;,'ed  and  d.cr.ed,  tliat  it  he  referred 
to  S.  V.  Hou>;liton,  Ks*].,  the  standing;  master  in  chancery  of  tliis  court, 
rcBidinjj  in  the  city  and  county  of  San  Francisco,  northern  district,  and 
state  of  California,  to  ascertain  and  take,  and  state,  and  report  to  this 
ctnirt,  an  account  of  the  numher  of  pairs  of  hoots  and  shoes  manufactured 
and  sold  or  manufactured  or  sold  hy  the  orij:inal  defendants,  Samuel 
Feder  an<l  Morris  Uoseiitlial,  or  «'ither  of  tlu-m.  and  al.xo  the  -.'ains.  profits 
and  advantap-s  which  the  said  ori;,'inal  defendants  or  eitlier  of  them,  or 
the  estate  of  said  Morris  Rosenthal,  have  received,  or  made,  or  which  have 
arisen  or  accrue<l  to  them  or  either  of  tlum.  or  it,  from  infrin^'in;,'  the 
Baid  exclusive  ri;ihts  of  the  said  complainant  hy  the  manufacturing,'  and 
Bollin};,  or  manufacturing;  or  s<-llin;r,  of  hoots  and  shoes  liavin;:  stamped 
and  placed  up<m  them  the  infrin^'inj?  trademark  in  imitation  of  the 
trademark  of  "('.  Benkert  &  Son." 

And  it  is  furthi-r  onlered,  adj>id;:eil  and  decreed,  tliat  the  complainant 
on  such  acc<iuntin;.'  have  the  ri;.'ht  to  cause  an  examiinition  of  tiie  ch-fend- 
ants,  Samuel  Fedc-r  and  Aurelia  Rosenthal,  and  each  of  them,  and  their 
and  each  of  their  ap-nts,  si-rvants.  or  workmen  or  other  witnt-sses  as 
may  Im-  nwessary  t<»  take  said  accounting,  and  also  the  produeti(»n  of  the 
Itooka,  vouchora  and  dcK'umenta  of  which  said  d.-fendants.  Samuel  Feder 
or  Aurelia  Ros«'nthal.  and  their  and  each  of  their  attorneys,  servants, 
ap-nts  and  workmen  may  !«•  poshess«'d.  and  caum-  them  to  attend  for  such 
purjKiWH  iM'fore  said  master  from  time  to  time  as  such  mast<'r  sluill  direct. 
And  it  is  fiirtlur  ordered.  adjiKlp-d  and  decreed,  that  a  perpetual 
injunction  he  issiii-d  in  thiK  cane,  against  the  said  defendants,  Samuel 
VitU-r  and  Aurelia  R«>wnthal.  reMtrainin;:  and  perpetually  eiijoinin",'  tlu-m 
and  each  of  them,  and  their  an<l  each  of  their  servants,  a.'eiits.  clerks 
an<l  workmen,  and  all  persons  elaiminj;  or  hohlinc  un<ler  or  llirou;.'l»  thi-m. 
from  manufacturing  or  UHJng  (.r  mdlin};,  or  in  any  way  disposing  of.  h..ots 


FOK.MS   (»!•'    IN.irNCTION.  M03 

and  hIjooh  or  IiooIh  <»r  .shoes  luiviiij^  Htiiin|)<<l,  or  |iriiit<'il,  <ir  in  any  way 
marked  tlii-reon  the  name  "('.  K.  Henkert  &  Son,"  or  any  other  iianw  in 
imitation  or  Mimulation  of  the  naid  truth-murk  "I  .  Henkert  A.  Son.  "  pwr- 
biiunt   to  the  prayir  df   the   baid   Mil   nf  coinplaint 

I.OKi;.\/.()    S.WVYKlt. 
(,'uilcil  StdliH  Cinuil  Ju<J(j<-,   \  inlh 
Judicial  Circuit. 


WlUr  or    I.N.IL'NCTIOX. 

In  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  Stat»'H  for  the  Ninth.  Judicial  Circuit 
in  and   for  the  Xortliern    Distriet  of  California. 

BooiU)  i  Son,  ('i)in]ihiiiiant,  J 

IS.  y    111    Ivpiity. 

K.  (i.  Lyons  Co.mi'.xny,  luspdndeiit.    \ 

The  President  of  the  I'uitcd  States,  To  E.  d.  Lyotm  Company,  its  rlcrks, 
agents,  servants  and  employes,  Orecting : 
Whereas,  It  has  boon  reprosonted  to  us  in  tlie  Circuit  Court  of  the 
United  Statea  for  the  northern  district  of  California  that  Boord  &  Son, 
a  corporation,  of  London,  Hnj,'hind,  have  a  valid  trademark  in  a  device 
c-onsistinfj  of  a  cat  standing  upon  a  harrel,  as  applied  to  hottled  gin, 
and  tliat  you,  tlie  said  K.  G.  Lyons  Company,  have  infringed  said  right 
hy  dealing  in  hottled  gin  bearing  an  imitation  of  said  trademark: 

Now,  therefore,  you,  the  said  E.  G.  Lyons  Company,  your  clerks,  agents, 
servants  and  employes,  are  strictly  commanded  and  enjoined  under  th<; 
pains  and  penalties  which  may  fall  upon  you,  and  each  of  you,  in  casij 
of  di8ol)edience,  tliat  you  forthwith  and  until  the  further  order,  judgment 
and  decree  of  this  court,  desist  from  dealing  in  any  gin  bottled  in  imitation, 
of  complainant's  gin  and  bearing  the  device  of  a  cat  standing  upon  a 
barrel. 

Witness,   tlie   Honorable   Melville   W.    Fuller,   Chief   Justice    of   the 
United    States,    this    14th    day    of    ()ctol)er,    in    the    year    of    our 
{seal]      Lord  one   thousand   eight   hundred   and   ninety-eiglit,  and   of   our 
Independence   tlie    12.{d. 

yOLTUAUU    iloi'FMA.N,    Vlcrk. 


FINAL  DFCRFE. 

(Royal    Baking   Powder  Co.   v.    Royal  Cliemioal   Co., 
Price  &    Steuart,    1.1 

This  cause  having  bei-n  tried  at  a  special  term  of  this  court,  before 
-the  Hon.  Hooper  C.  Van  Vorst,  one  of  the  justices  thereof,  without  a 
jury,  and  the  proofs  and  allegations  of  the  parties  having  been  heard, 
the    said   court   gave    its   decision    in   writing    in    favor    of    the   plaintiffs, 


«)04  .U'PKNDIX    I. 

nnd  n^'iunot  th.-  a.-f.-mlHutH.  w  itii  i««bts,  uliiili  dfciHion  liii«  lut-n  lilfd 
with  tin-  rh-rk  of  tluH  rtnirt : 

Now.  in  |.urHunno.-  tlurcof.  it  in  lu'n-by  ucljudni-d  tliiit  tin-  pIiiintiirH 
ur«'  •iititlftl  to  jud;:m.nt  on  all  tin-  iHbU«-H,  and  judnnunt  iH  ln-n-lty 
rrndonnl  in  favor  of  tin-  plaintilfH.  and  unainKt  tin-  difciidantH  tlurt'on, 
and  it  is  luTi-by  nKo  a.ljnd^T.I  tliat  tin-  |>laintilT>.  ar<-  .iitith-tl  to  tlu' 
rxoluHivi-  uw  «»f  tlir  tiTin  "Htiyal."  ac  tli.ir  tra<limark.  on  lalxlH  attaclu-d 
to  hakin};  jMJwdrr  nninufactun-d  liy  tlicm,  and  in  ronnn-tion  willi  tlw 
word-  "l.akinn  |Hi\vdi  r  "  And  it  is  fnrtluT  adj»nlK«'d.  that  thr  use  \n  th.- 
tlof«ndant«  »>f  tin-  wortl  •Uoyal'  on  hiladH  nfllxi'd  to  hakin^  powder,  mudi- 
l>v  till"  dt-ft-ndants.  or  printtd  or  \vntt<-n  «»n  hoxoH.  lulads  or  othorwiec 
howwH-vrr.  in  ronntntion  witli  hakin;.'  powd.r  mad.-  l.y  lli.-in.  was  in 
vi<dation   of    thi-    phiintiir's    ri;;lits. 

And  it  irt  fnrtlirr  adjnd;;fd.  that  flu-  dffcndantH,  tln-ir  a^'cnts,  cdcrks. 
worknu-n.  wrvantH  and  attonu-ys.  prrp<'t\ially  nfraiii.  and  tlu-y  are  hcn-hy 
jxTpt-tually  rnjoinrd  and  n-ntrainrd,  from  iiHing  tin'  t«'rm  or  dt'sij^nation 
"Koval"  on.  or  aronnd.  or  in  coinu'ction  witli,  any  can«,  boxes  or  other 
i»ackapi'ft,  of  aiiv  natnrc  or  kiinl  wliatever,  containing;  baking  powder, 
or  in  any  si^m.  invoice,  billhead,  card,  circular,  advertisement,  in  con- 
nection with  baking;  powder,  and  from  usinf;  tlie  name  "Royal  Uakin^' 
Powder,"  and  from  8ellin<.'  and  disponinj,'  of  any  liakin^'  powder  witli  the 
word  "Uoyal"  attaelied  thereto,  except  on  such  l)akin^'  powder  uh  id 
obtained  from  the  plaiiitilTs. 

And  it  is  further  adjud^'ed.  tliat  the  plaintilfh  recover  uf  the  defend- 
ants their  costs  and  disbursements  in  this  action. 


INMUNCTIOX. 
(dillis  V.  Hall.  2  Browst.  342.) 
Defendants  enjoined  "from  makin;:  and  Helling'  any  i)reparation  as  and 
for  the  preparations  specified  in  plaintilTs  lalxl,  and  from  usin;;  the 
namt-  of  Hall,  or  K.  1*.  Hall,  or  Heuben  1*.  Hall,  either  sin;;ly  or  in 
connection  with  others,  u]>on  any  such  preparation;  or  from  making;  r)r 
usin^.'  any  trademark,  laliel  or  wrapper  in  imitation  of  those  now  in 
uw  by  plaintifF." 

(Colton  V.  Thomas,  2  Brewst.  308.) 
Injunction  against  defendant  "restraining  the  further  use  of  the  cards 
and  signs  complained  against  in  the  bill;  and  also  to  restrain  tlie 
emplovment  by  him  <»f  any  device  by  which  the  patients  nnd  patrons  of 
the  plaintiff,  without  the  exerciw-  of  excessivi-  care,  will  be  induce<l  to 
suppos<-  that  tiie  defendant's  plact-  <if  business  is  the  place  of  business  of 
the  Colton   Dental   Association." 

(dillott  V.   Ksterbrook,  47    Barb.   4r).'i,) 
"Ordered    atnl    adjinlged    that    the    said    defendants.    R.    K..    R.    Iv.    .Tr  , 
J.    C,   Jr.,    and    J.    B.,    and    each    of   them,    their    n>,'ents   and    wrvants,    do 


FOKMS   OK    IN'.irSf   rioN'.  ItO.'t 

alisdliitrly  nnd  |)cr|M(iiiillv  ili'siht  ami  nirain  finm  iiil'riii>;iii;,'  or  iiHiti;.' 
tlic  Hiiid  tradfinark  of  tin-  {tlaiiitiir,  and  from  riiakiii;^  or  wlliii;,'  [xiin 
with  Haid  imnicralrt  "M)'.i'  iinpn-Hwd  on  the  l>(»xrH  or  i>u<rkaj.'i-H  conluiii- 
ing  stt't'l  |Hiiw." 

(.I\irj,'cnv;on  v.  Alexander,  iJ   lluu.   I'r.  H'l'.^:  Cox,  208. » 

Ordered:  (ll  '  Tliat  tlie  defendant,  hiu  apontn,  elerkH,  servaiitH  and 
all  otluTH  eni|>loye«l  under  or  in  connection  witii  him  he  perpetually 
enjoined  and  restrained  from  dinposini^  of,  selling  or  cauuing  to  bo 
dispoHed  of  or  Hold,  any  watchea  hearing  the  false,  Himulated  and 
spurious    stamp   or    mark.    Mules   .Jurgensen,    Co]H'niiagen.'  " 

2.  "That  tlie  (li-feiidant  do  produce  before  Nathaniel  .larvis,  Krt<|., 
appointed  herein  referee  for  sudi  ])urp()fle,  tlie  said  watches,  whicii 
at  the  time  of  the  commencement  of  this  suit  were  in  defendanfn 
poRsession,  and  had  upon  them  the  said  false,  simulated  and  spurious 
trademark,  to  he  erased  or  obliterated  therefrom,  by  or  under  the 
«lirection  of  the  said  referci-.  at  the  cost  and  exiK-nse  of  the  said  de- 
fondant." 

(CofTeen    v.    Rrunton,    4    McLean,    'yU);    Cox,    82.) 

"To  enjoin  the  defendant  from  using  the  label  or  directions  accom- 
panying the  liniment  he  sells  as  aforesaid,  or  other  labels  or  directions, 
or  any  advertisements  or  handbills  respecting  the  same  words  which 
are  us<h1  by  the  complainant  on  his  label  or  directions,  and  whicli  tend 
to  produce  an  impression  on  the  purchaser  and  the  public  that  the  lini- 
ment sold  by  the  defendant  contains  the  same  ingredients  as  the 
'Chinese    Liniment,'    and    is,    in    etFcct,    the    same   medicine." 

(N.  K.  Fairbank  Co.  v.   R.  W.  Bell  Mfg.  Co.,  77  Fed.  Rep.  860.) 

Defendant  enjoined  from  putting  up  and  selling  or  offering  for  sale 
"The  particular  form  of  packages  which  has  been  referred  to  in  the 
bill  and  put  in  evidence  as  'defendant's  second  package,'  or  any  other 
form  of  package  which  shall,  by  reason  of  the  collocation  of  size,  shape, 
colors,  lettering,  spacing  and  ornamentation,  presimt  a  general  appear- 
ance as  closely  resembling  tlie  'complainant's  package,'  referred  to  in 
the  bill  and  marked  in  evidence,  as  does  the  said  'defendant's  second 
j)ackage.'  This  injunction  shall  not  be  construed  as  restraining  de- 
fendant from  selling  packages  of  the  size,  weight,  and  shape  of  com- 
plainant's package,  nor  from  using  the  designation  'Buffalo  soap  powder' 
nor  from  making  a  powder  having  the  appearance  of  complainant's 
'Hold  Dust.'  nor  from  using  paper  of  a  yellow  color  as  wrappers  for  its 
packages,  provided  such  packages  are  so  differentiated  in  general  ap- 
pearance from  said  'complainant's  package'  that  tluy  are  not  calculated 
to  deceive  the  ordinary  puichascr." 


POfi  M'lMNDlX    \. 

MANPATi:    OK    CIluriT    inritr    »>K    ATPKALS.    Al  FIltMINC 
DKCUKK    OK    IX.U'NCTION. 

(I'V.l.r   V.    H.iik.Tt,   7(i    K,(l.    K.|i.   iW.i.) 

I'MTKlt    STATKS    »)K    AxtKllllA-    SS. 

77i<-  rnsiilrut  nf  thr  luilrd  Stotrs  »f  Atnrricn.  T<>  tli>  Ifiniiirahlc  thT 
.hidrirs  of  thr  Cirniit  f'oi/rf  .)/  Ili<  Ivilr,!  SInl.s  fnr  thr  \i,rthrrn 
District    nf   Calif oniia,    (Irrctiug: 

WiiKREAS,  Intoly  in  tli«'  Circuit  Court  of  (lu-  rnilr.l  States  for  tin* 
northern  district  of  Californiii.  lu-forc  vou,  or  hoiin'  of  voii,  in  a  cause 
lu-tweeii  William  .1.  llenkert.  comi)luinai.t.  and  Samuel  Fed'i ,  and  Aureliii 
Uo>entlial.  executrix  of  tlie  laf.t  will  iiiid  te^taiiKnt  of  Morris  Itoscntliai, 
deceased,  respondents,  a  di'creo  \va>  iliilv  entered  in  favcw  of  the  said 
complainant,  which  said  decree  is  of  record  in  the  olliee  of  the  ch-rk  of 
the  said  circuit  court,  to  which  record  reference  is  lierehy  made  and  the 
8ame  is  herchy  expressly  made  a  jiart  Inreof,  and  as  liy  the  inspection 
of  the  transcript  of  tin-  record  of  tlie  said  circuit  court,  which  was 
firoufiht  into  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  nintli 
circuit,  hy  virtu.-  of  an  api>eal  a^'reealdy  to  tlie  Act  of  Conjircss.  in  such 
cases  made  and  i)rovided.  fully  and  at  laru'c  appears. 

ANn  WllKKKAS,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  ei<:ht  hundred 
and  ninety-five,  the  said  cause  came  to  be  heard  before  the  said  circuit 
court   <'f   a|)peals.   on    tlie    said    transcript    of   record,    and    was    ar;,'ued    l.y 

counstd : 

On  consideration  wli.reof.  it  is  now  h.re  ordered,  adjud^'cd  and  de- 
creed, that  the  decree  of  the  said  circuit  court  in  this  cause  he,  and  the 
same  is  hereby,  allirmed,  with  costs. 

You.  therefore,  are  hereby  commanded  that  such  further  proccedin<,'s 
be  had  in  said  causi-  as  accordinj,'  to  rifjht  and  justice,  and  the  laws 
of  the   United   States.  ou;.'ht   to   Iw   had.   the   said  appeal    notwithstandin;:. 

Witness,  the  Honorable  Melville  W.  Fuller.  Chief  .lustic  of  the  United 
States,  the  Kith  day  of  Novt-mlMr.  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  niic  tlii)usand 
eight  hundred  and  ninety-five. 

F.      1).      Mo.M'KTON. 

Clerk-  of  thr   I'nitiii  S(>it(s  Cirruit   Court 

of  Appeals  for  the  Mnth   Circuit. 


APPENDIX  J 

CLASSIFICATION  OF  TRADEMARKS. 

The  follouini;  classification  of  rofristcrcd  trademarks  lias  hccii 
published  in  connection  with  the  rules  of  the  Patent  Office.  It 
is  nndcistood  to  be  a  classification  of  pre-existiiif,'  ref,Mst  rat  ions 
rather  than  as  a  guide  to  the  classification  to  be  observed  in 
filing  application : 

CLASSIFICATION   OF   MFKCHANDISK   I  NDFR  THE  ACT  OF   MAY   4,   1906. 

1.  Raw   or   partly    jjri'parcd    materials. 

2.  Receptacles. 

3.  Ba<,'j,'a<;e,    horse    e(niipni(iits.    portfolios,    and    pockethooks. 

4.  Abrasive,   deter>,'ent,    and    ])olisliin;,'    materials. 

5.  Adhesives. 

6.  Chemicals,    jnedieiiies,    and     pliannacevitical     preparations. 

7.  Cordage. 

S.  Smokers'  articles,  not  includinfr  tol)acco   products. 

9.  Explosives,   tirearms,   e(iuipments,    and   projectiles. 

10.  Fertilizers. 

11.  Inks    and    inking    materials. 

12.  Construction    materials. 

13.  Hardware  and  plumbing  and   steam-fitting  supplies. 

14.  Metals   and   metal   castings   and  forgings. 

15.  Oils  and  greases. 

10.  Paints    and    painters'    materials. 
17.  Tobacco  products. 

19.  Vehicles,   not   including  engines. 

20.  Linoleum    and   oiled    cloth. 

21.  Electrical    apparatus,    machines,    and    supplies. 

22.  Games,  toys,  and  sporting  goods. 

23.  Cutlery,  machinery,  and  tools,  and   parts  thereof. 

24.  Laundry   appliances   and   machines. 

25.  Locks  and  safes. 

26.  ^Measuring   and   scientific  appliances. 

27.  Horological    instruments. 

28.  Jewelry  and  precious-metal  ware. 

29.  Brooms,  brushes,   and   dusters. 

30.  Crockery,   earthenware,   and   porcelain. 

31.  Filters  and  refrigerators. 

32.  Furniture  and  upholstery. 

33.  Glassware. 

007 


i'OS  Ari'KNIMX    .1. 

34.  Hfjitiii;,'.  lif^'litiiii.',  and  v«nt iliif in;;  apparntiis.  not    includinf;  clfotricHl 

apparatus. 

35.  Hcltin;;.    Imsc.    machinery    paikin;:.    and    noii  imtallii'    tires. 
'M\.   Musical    instninients   and    siipplieH. 

37.  I'apcr   and    stationery. 

38.  I'rintH    and    puldications. 

39.  Cloth  in;:. 

40.  Fancy    p)o<ls.    furnish in;.;s.    and    notions. 

41.  (."anes,    parasols,    and    unihrellas. 

42.  Knitted,    netted,   and    textile    falirics. 

43.  Thread   and   yarn. 

44.  Dental,   medical,  and   sur;;ical   appliances.  , 
4.'>.  Bi'verayes,  non-alcoholic. 

46.  Foods  and  ingredients  of  foods. 

47.  Wines. 

48.  Malt    extracts    and    li<juor8. 

49.  Distilled  alcoholic  li(|Uors. 

50.  Merchandise   not    otherwise   classified. 

Note. — Class  lb  was  aboliahed  February  24,  1909. 


APPENDIX  K 

INTERNATIONAL  ARRANGEMENTS. 

INTKHNA'IIONAL    (( )N\  KNI  1«».\     I'l'll    THK    IMIO  TKITION    OF 
INDUSTHIAL    PKOrKinV. 

(Signed    at    Paris,   JIartli    20,    18S:5.       I{atificati()nH   exchanged    at    PariB, 

.June   (•),    1884.) 

(Ofjitidl    Tiintshition.) 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  Belgians,  His  Maj.-sty  the  Emperor  of 
Brazil.  His  Majesty  tlu'  King  of  Spain,  tlie  PreHi<lent  of  tlie  Frencli 
Hcpuhlie,  the  President  of  tlie  Republic  of  Guatemala,  Etis  Majesty  tli-j 
King  of  Italy,  His  Maji-sty  the  King  of  the  Netlierlands,  His  Majesty 
the  King  of  Portugal  and  the  Algarves,  the  President  of  the  R.'public  of 
Salvador,  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Servia,  and  the  Federal  Council  of 
tiie  Swiss  Confederation, 

Being  equally  animated  with  the  desire  to  secure  by  mutual  agree- 
ment complete  and  eflectual  protection  for  the  industry  and  commerce 
of  their  respective  subjects  and  citizens,  and  to  provide  a  guarantee  for 
the  rights  of  inventors,  and  for  the  loyalty  of  commercial  transactions, 
have  resolved  to  conclude  a  convention  to  that  effect,  and  have  named 
as  tlu'ir  plenipotentiaries,  that  is  to  say:  [Here  follow  the  appoint- 
ments of  the  plenipotentiaries.] 

Wlio  liaving  communicated  to  each  other  their  respective  full  powers, 
found  in   good   and   due   form,   have   agreed   upon  the   following   Articles: 

Article  I. 

The  governments  of  Belgium,  Brazil,  Spain,  France,  Guatemala,  Italy, 
Holland,  Portugal,  Salvador,  Servia  and  Switzerland  constitute  them- 
selves into  a  union  for  the  protection  of  industrial  property. 

Article  TI. 

The  subjects  or  citizens  of  each  of  the  contracting  states  shall,  in 
all  the  other  states  of  the  union,  as  regards  patents,  industrial  designs 
or  models,  trademarks  and  tradenames,  enjoy  the  advantages  that  their 
respective  laws  now  grant,  or  shall  hereafter  grant,  to  their  own  sub- 
jects  or  citizens. 

Consequently  they  shall  liave  the  same  protection  as  the  latter,  and 
the  same  legal  remedy  against  any  infringement  of  tlieir  rights,  pro- 
vided they  observe  the  formalities  and  conditions  imposed  on  subjects 
or  citizens  by  the  internal  legislation  of  each   state. 

909 


mo  .M'PKKDIX    K. 

Akiuik    III. 

Siilijtt'tH  or  citi/.t'iJH  i>f  Htuti'H  not  fonuiii;;  part  of  tho  union,  who  Jir.« 
iltimii'iliHl  or  havi-  intlurttriul  or  romnu-rfial  futaltlislimrnts  in  tin-  ter- 
ritory of  any  of  tho  ntHli-H  of  tin-  union,  nliall  In-  assimilated  to  tin-  huli- 
jjvtH  or  citizi-ntt  o(   the  eontraetinj,'  Ktates. 

Aktii  1  K    l\. 

Anv  pernon  who  has  duly  applie<l  for  a  patent,  industrial  degipn  or 
nuxlel.  or  trademark  in  one  of  the  <'ontraetin>;  states,  shall  enjoy,  om 
re^'ards  ref;istrati«in  in  the  other  states,  and  reserving'  tin-  ri^'hts  of 
third    parties,    a    ri;:lit    of    priority    durin;^    the    perio<lrt   hereinafter    stated. 

Conw-tpiently,  sul>se<iuent  rej,'istration  in  any  «>f  the  other  stat«'H  of 
the  union  hefore  expiry  of  thes«'  perio<ls  sliall  not  he  invali<lated  throu^li 
any  acts  accompliBh«Hi  in  the  interval;  oiUuT,  for  instance,  hy  another 
registration,  hy  puhlieation  of  the  invention,  or  liy  the  workin;,'  of  it  hy 
a  third  party,  hy  the  sale  of  copies  of  the  design  or  modi-l,  or  hy  us«! 
of    the    trademark. 

The  ahove  mentioned  t<rnis  of  priority  shall  he  si\  months  for  patents, 
and  three  months  for  industrial  desi;,'ns  and  models  and  trademarks. 
A   month    longer    is   allowed    for   eojintries    heyond    sea. 

AUTICI.K    \'. 
(  Relates  only  to  j>atents.  i 

AinuLi:  VI. 

Kverv  trademark  <luly  refjistered  in  tlie  country  of  origin  shall  he  ad- 
mittt'd  for  re|.'istration,  and  protecti-d  in  tiie  form  ori;;inally  repistered 
in  all  the  other  countries  of  the  union.  (No  efTect  can  he  {,'iven  to  this  or 
any  other  article  of  the  convention  hy  tlie  Courts  of  (ireat  Britain,  except 
HO  far  as  it  is  emhodied  in  section  103  of  the  Patents  Act,  1HS3.  Re 
California  Fif:  Syrup  Co..  40  Ch.  1).  «i'20.  And  to  he  re<.'istered  in  CJreat 
Britain,  a  forei<rn  mark  must  contain  one  of  tin-  essential  particulars 
«letined  in  si-ctioii  til  of  sai<l  act.  lie  Carter  Medieiiu-  Co..  L.  U.  (ISifi), 
3    t  h.    1).    472.1 

That  country  shall  i>e  (le<ni<-d  tlie  country  of  ori;.'in  wliere  the  appli 
cant   has  his  chief  seat   of  husiness. 

If  this  chief  wat  of  husiness  is  not  situate<l  in  one  of  tlie  countries  of 
the  union,  tin-  country  to  which  the  applicant  helonvs  shall  he  deeun-d 
the  country  of  ori^'in. 

Kepistration  nniy  he  refused  if  the  ohject  for  which  it  is  solicited  ia 
c<»nsidered  contrary  to  morality  or  i)uldi<'  onhr. 

.\UTici.i;  \Ii. 

Tlie  nature  of  the  poods  on  which  the  traihniark  is  to  l)i-  used  can, 
in   no  case,   he  an  ohstacle  t<i   the  ripistrati-m   of   the  truilemark. 


INTKKNATIONAI,     \HUAN(;K.MI;NT.S.  IH  1 

AUTICI.K    \'III. 

A  tradriiaini'  sliall  Ik-  pnitt-cti'd  in  all  tin-  coiniirii-s  of  tli<-  union, 
without  iic<-fKsity  of  rf;,'istrati<>ii,  wIh'Okt  it  form  part  or  not  of  a  trudc- 
niark. 

Akthm.k    IX. 

All  ;,'(M)(ls  ilicpilly  licariii^'  a  tradiniark  or  tradi'iiamt-  may  he  wi/.od 
on  importation  into  tiioHc  statcH  of  tin-  union  vvlu-rc  thiM  murk  or  nam<; 
luiH  a   ri^lit  to  Icj^al   protection. 

Tlic  Kt'izurc  shall  Im-  circcti'd  at  the  rfcpicHt  of  rithcr  tin;  j)ropir  public 
d<'partnu'nt  or  of  the  intcn-^tt'd  party.  |)ursuunt  to  the  inttrnal  Ifgis- 
lation   of   i-acli   country. 

Article  X. 

The  provisions  of  the  proccdin";  article  shall  apply  to  all  poods  fals'dy 
licarinp  the  name  of  any  locality  aa  indication  of  the  place  of  origin, 
wiicn  such  indication  is  associated  with  a  tradename  r)f  a  fictitious 
character  or  assumed  with  a  fraudulent  intention. 

Any  manufacturer  of,  or  trader  in,  such  poods,  established  in  the 
locality  fals«dy  designated  as  the  place  of  origin,  shall  be  deemed  an 
interested   party. 

Article  XI. 

The  hiph  contracting  parties  agree  to  grant  temporary  protection  to 
patentaljle  inventions,  to  industrial  designs  or  models,  and  trademarks, 
for  articles  e.\hihit<'d  at  oflicial  or  officially  recognized  international 
exhibitions. 

Article  XII. 

Each  of  the  high  contracting  parties  agrees  to  establish  a  special 
government  department  for  industrial  property,  and  a  central  office  foi 
communication  to  the  public  of  patents,  industrial  designs  or  models,  and 
trademarks. 

Article  XIII. 

An  international  office  shall  be  organized  under  the  name  of  "Bureau 
International  de  I'Union  pour  la  Protection  de  la  Propri6t6  Industrielle" 
(International  Office  of  tlie  liiion  for  tlie  Protection  of  Industrial  Prop- 
erty ) . 

Tliis  odice,  tlie  expense  of  which  shall  be  defrayed  by  the  governments 
of  all  the  contracting  states,  shall  be  placed  under  the  high  authority 
of  the  Central  Administration  of  the  Swiss  Confederation,  and  shall  work 
under  its  supervision.  Its  functions  shall  be  determined  by  agreement 
between  the  states  of  the  union. 

Article  XIV. 
The  present  convention  shall  be  submitted  to  periodical  revisions,  with 
a    view    to    introducing    improvements    calculated    to    perfect    the    system 
of  the  union. 


OIJ  Al'I'KNIMX     K. 

To  thirt  i-ntl  oonfort-nccH  hliall  In-  hiu-osHivrly  licld  in  ono  of  tlio  oon- 
trattinj;  stuton  by  d«-!cj;iittH  of  the  wtid  HtatoH.  The  next  mt'cting  bIuiU 
t-aki-    placv    ill    IHS.'i   at    Konic. 

AUTU-l.K    W. 

It  iH  nnr»H'(l  tliHt  tin-  liifjli  cuiitraitiii),'  jiaiticH  ri'spoctivi-ly  n-wrvo  to 
tlu'nis«'lvf»  the  ri^lit  to  make  srparatfly,  as  iM-twi-cn  tlu-msi-lvi's,  npcoiul 
arranj:»'nn'iits  for  tlio  proU'rtion  of  iiuhistrial  property,  in  ho  far  an 
sm-li  arranjrrnu'nts  do  not  fontrav«'iu'  tlic  provisions  of  the  prraent  con- 
vention. 

Aktici.k  XVI. 

States  wliieh  liave  not  taken  part  in  the  present  convention  sliall  !)•' 
permitted   to   adhere   to    it   at  their   re(|uet>t. 

Such  adhesion  shall  he  notified  officially  through  tlie  diplomatic  ciian- 
nel  to  the  Government  of  tlie  Swiss  Confederation,  and  l>y  the  latter 
to  all  tlie  others.  It  tthall  imply  complete  acees.sion  t«  all  the  classes 
and  admission  to  all  the  advantages  stipulated  by  the  present  conven- 
tion. 

Aktici.e  XVII. 
The  executit)n  of  tlie  reciprocal  engagements  contained  in  the  jiresent 
convention  is  sultordiiiati'd,  in  so  far  as  necessary,  to  tlie  oliservance  of 
the  formalities  and  rules  estalilished  l>y  the  constitutional  laws  of  those 
of  the  high  contracting  jiarties  who  are  hound  to  juoeure  the  applica- 
tion of  the  same,  which  they  engage  to  do  with  as  little  delay  as  possible. 

Article  XVIII, 
The  pres<'nt  convention  shall  come  into  operation  oin^  month  after  the 
exchange  of  ratifications,  and  sliall  remain  in  force  for  an  unlimited 
time,  till  the  expiry  of  one  year  from  tiie  date  of  its  denunciation.  Tlii-» 
denunciation  shall  be  addressed  to  tlie  government  commissioned  to  re- 
ceive adhesions.  It  shall  only  affect  the  denouncing  state,  the  conven- 
tion remaining  in  operation  as  regards  the  other  contracting  parties. 

AUTICI-E    XIX. 
The     present    convention     shall    be     ratified,    and     the    ratifu  ntions    ex- 
changed in   Paris,  within  one  year  at  the  latest. 

In    witness    whereof    the    respective    plenipotentiaries    have    signed    the 
same,   and   have  affixed   thereto   their  seals. 
l>ated   at  Paris  the  20tli   March,    ISS:}. 

(Signed    by    the    Pleiiijioteiitiaries.) 


FINAL    IMtOTOCnL. 
f Ofjlrid  I   Tin  nsln  t  inn . ) 
On    proce<-ding    to    the    signature    of   the    eonventi<ui    c()nel\uled    this    day 
b<twe<-n    th.-    governnrxnts   of    ll4lgiuiii.    I5ra/.il,    Spain,    Fraiie.v    (Jiiateniala, 


INTERNATIONAL    AKI{ AN(,l,.\ll,Nr.s.  \)V.] 

Italy,  till-  NftlicrlaiiilH,  l'i>rtii;4al.  Salvador.  S.  r\  ia  and  Swit/.crlnini,  fur 
tho  protection  of  iiuluHtrial  |)ii>|)(rt\ ,  tli>  iiiiil<r-i;;iii(l  |ilirii|)oti-titiari<'» 
have  aj,'rc<'(l   an   folloWH: 

1.  Tlic  \\()i(U  "iiidiistiial  |ii  i>|M'rt  \ "  an-  to  Itc  iiiidci  .stood  in  tlicir 
hroadt'Ht  wiiH*';  tlu-.v  art-  not  to  apply  Hiinjily  t<i  induHtriai  productH 
^noptitv  so  called,  l)iit  also  to  af,'ricultiiral  products  (wiix'H.  <'orn,  fruitH. 
cattle,  etc.),  and  to  iniiienil  products  eiiijdoyed  in  <<>ninierce  (mineral 
waters,  etc. ) . 

2.  (Relates  only  to  patents.) 

li.  The  last  paraj;rapli  of  articl<  II  does  not  alTect  the  hj^islatioii  of 
••ach  of  the  contracting  states,  as  regards  the  procedure  to  be  followe.l 
before  the  triliunals,  and  the  competence  of  those   tribunals. 

4.  i'aragrajdi  1  of  artich-  \'l  is  to  lie  understood  as  meaning  that  no 
trademark  shall  be  excluded  from  jirotection  in  any  state  of  the  union, 
from  tile  fact  alone  that  it  does  not  satisfy,  in  regard  to  the  signs  com- 
posing it,  the  conditions  of  the  legislation  of  that  state;  provided  that 
on  this  j)oint  it  c(mi|)ly  with  the  legislation  of  the  country  of  origin, 
and  that  it  had  been  properly  registcre.l  in  said  country'  of  origin.  With 
this  exception,  whicli  relates  only  to  the  form  of  the  mark,  and  under 
reserve  of  the  provisions  of  the  other  articles  of  the  convention,  thi; 
internal   legislation  of  each   state   remains   in   force. 

To  avoid  misconstruction,  it  is  agreed  that  the  use  of  pui)lic  armorial 
bwvrings  and  dworations  may  be  considered  as  being  contrary  to  public 
order  in  the  sense  of  tlie  last  paragraph  of  article  VI. 

f).  The  organizaticm  of  the  sju'cial  department  for  industrial  prop- 
erty mentioned  in  article  XII  shall  comprise,  so  far  as  possible,  tlie  pub- 
lication in  each   state  of  a  j)eriodical  official  pajjer. 

6.  [After  providing  for  the  common  expenses  of  the  international 
ofTice,  continues:] 

The  Swiss  (iovernment  will  siiperintoiid  tlie  expenses  of  the  international 
•)flice,  advance  the  neccs.sary  funds,  iiiid  render  an  annual  account,  which 
will   be   communicated   to   all  the   other   administrations. 

The  international  odice  will  centralize  information  of  every  kind  relat- 
ing to  the  protection  of  industrial  property,  and  will  bring  it  together 
in  the  form  of  a  general  statistical  statement,  which  will  be  distributed 
to  all  tlie  administrations.  It  will  interest  itself  in  all  matters  of 
common  utility  to  the  uirKin,  and  will  edit,  with  the  help  of  the  docu- 
ments supplied  to  it  by  the  various  administrations,  a  periodical  paper 
in  the  P^rench  language  dealing  with  questions  regarding  the  object  of 
the   union. 

The  numbers  of  this  paper,  as  well  as  all  the  documents  published 
by  the  international  ofTice,  will  be  circulated  among  the  administrations 
of  the  states  of  the  union  in  the  proportion  of  the  number  of  contrib- 
uting units  as  mentioned  above.  Such  further  copies  as  may  be  desired 
either  by  the  said  administrations,  or  by  societies  or  private  persons, 
will  be  paid   for   separately. 

The  international  ofTice  shall  at  all  times  hold  itself  at  the  service  of 
members   of  the   union,    in   order   to   su])ply    them   with    any    special    infor- 


:il4  APPENDIX   K. 

Illation    tlioy    mny    no<«l    <>n    (lUoHtioiis    rcliitiiifj    to    tin-    Internal    pysttin    i>f 
in(iu>«triHl    |>n>|MTty. 

Tin-  iiclniiiiiHtnititiii  of  tlic  couiitn  in  wliiili  llir  next  idiifirincf  is 
til  U"  lu'Ul  will  inaki"  |iri-|iiirati(>ii  for  tin-  tranwiotionrt  of  tin'  «onf»r«iuc, 
with   tin-   HSHihtftntn-   «>f   tiic    int«Tnati»>inil   ollioi-. 

T\u'  dirtftor  of  tin-  intfrnational  ollici-  will  !«■  iin-wnt  nt  the  nn'itin|;rt 
of  tho  conffn-nrvs.  and  will  tiikf  |mit  in  tin-  disoiifision-..  hut  without 
tlie  privili»jj«'  of  voting. 

Hi'  will  furniHh  an  annual  n'|M>rt  upon  his  aduiinistrution  of  tin-  ollic-i-, 
whioh    shall    In-  i-onimuniratrd    to   all   the    nu-nilHTs   of   tlu-  union. 

Tho  ullirial    lanjiuap"  of   tin-    inti-rnational    (itlu'i-   will   hr   Fn-ni'li. 

7.  Till'  |ir«'H«'nt  final  protocol,  which  hIuiII  he  ratiflcil  t»)j,'«'tlnT  w  itli 
tho  convrntion  i-oni-ludcd  this  day,  nhall  hr  considered  as  formin;;  an 
intf):rnl  part  of.  and  shall  have  the  same  fore*-,  validity,  an<l  duration 
Hs,  the  8aid   convention. 

In  witness  whereof  tin-  un<lersij:ned  jdmipotentiaries  have  drawn  up 
the   j>re8ont  protocol. 

(Sij^ned    hy    the    I'lenipoteiitiarics.) 

ACCESSION    OF   GREAT    BRITAIN    AND    IKFJ.AND 
TO    THE    CONVENTION. 

The  iindersij,Mied,  amhassador  extraordinary  iui<l  jjliiiipotentiary  of  Her 
Majesty  the  t^ueen  of  tin-  I'nited  Kin{,'dom  of  CJreat  Britain  and  Ireland 
to  the  French  Repui>lic,  declares  that  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  havin;,' 
had  the  International  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Industrial  Prop- 
erty, concluded  at  Paris  on  the  20th  March,  188.3,  and  the  protocol 
relatin;;  thereto,  si;;ncd  on  the  same  date,  laid  hefore  her,  and  availiii}? 
herstdf  of  the  ri^'ht  reserved  hy  article  XVI  of  that  convention  to  states 
not  parties  to  the  ori-^inal  convention,  accedes,  on  l)ehalf  of  the  United 
Kin<;dom  of  Creat  Britain  and  Ireland,  to  the  said  international  c«)n- 
\ention  for  the  protection  of  industrial  jiroperty.  and  to  the  said  protocol, 
which  are  to  he  considered  as  inserti-d  word  for  word  in  the  present 
declaration,  and  formally  en<,'a}i;es,  as  far  as  re;,'ard3  the  President  of 
the  French  Repuhlic  and  the  other  hi;;li  contracting  parties,  to  co- 
operate on  her  jiart  in  the  execiition  of  the  stipulations  eoiitnined  in  the 
convention  and  protoccd  aforesaid. 

The  undersi;.'ne(l  makes  this  <leclaration  on  tlu-  i)art  of  Her  Britannic 
Maj<-sty.  with  the  express  understandinj;  that  power  is  reserved  to  Her 
Britannic  Majesty  to  accede  to  the  convention  on  he'alf  of  the  Isle  of 
Man  and  the  Channel  Islands,  and  any  of  H«r  Majesty's  pos-sessions,  on 
<lne  notice  to  that  efTect  iH-inn  given   through   H.t   .Majesty's  governnnnt. 

In  witness  whereof  the  undersigned,  duly  authorized,  has  signed  the 
prewnt  declaration  of  accession,  and  has  aflixcd  thereto  the  seal  of  liis 
arms. 

Done    at    Paris,    on    tlie    ITtii    ilay    of    March,    IHHJ. 

(Signed)      Lyons. 

[L.   S.] 


INTKUNATIONAI.    AKU  \  N(,K  AIKNTS.  Dl.j 

DKCLAKATIoN    <)|'    A(  (  i;i''IA.\(  K    (>K    ACCKSSION    OF 
CKKAT    nin'I'AIX. 

(OffUnnl   'I  rii iinIh t ion.) 

Hot  Majofltj'  tlir  Quoon  of  tlit-  liiitid  Kin;:(l<>m  of  (Jront  Hritnin  uiid 
Ireland,  liaviii;,'  arctdc^l  to  tin-  liitcniatioiial  Coiivcntion  rt-lativf  to  tin? 
protection  of  industrial  |>ro|)erty,  eoneludecl  at  I'arin,  Mareli  2(tth,  1S«:1, 
together  witli  a  protocol  dated  the  name  day,  l>y  tlio  declaration  of  acctH- 
Hit»n  delivered  l)y  lier  aniliassador  <  xtraordiiiary  and  plenipoti-ntiarv  to 
tlie  (Jovernment  of  the  l-'rencii  i;e|.iildic :  the  t.\t  of  which  declanitioti 
18  word   for  word   as   followK: 

[Here   is  inserted   the  text  <>f   tlie   declaration    of  acceKwion    in    Kn;.'liHli.] 

The  President  of  the  French  Jlepuhlie  has  authorized  the  undersigned, 
President  of  the  Council,  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  to  fornuilly  ac- 
cept the  said  accession,  together  with  the  reserves  which  are  contained 
in  it  concerning  the  Isle  of  Man,  the  Channid  Islands,  and  all  otiier 
j)ossessions  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  engaging  as  well  in  his  own  name 
as  in  that  of  the  other  high  contracting  parties  to  assist  in  the  accom. 
plishments  of  the  oliligations  stipulated  in  the  convention  and  the  pro- 
tocol thereto  annexed,  which  may  concern  tin;  United  Kingdom  of  Creat 
Britain  and  Ireland. 

In  witness  whereof  the  undersigned,  duly  authorized,  has  drawn  up 
the  present  declaration  of  acceptance  and  has  aflixed  thereto  his  seal. 

Done  at  Paris,  the  2d  April.  1S84. 

(Signed)      Jri.Es  Fekky. 

[L.  S.] 

This  convention  is  not  self-executing,  hut  requires  legislation  to  make 
it  efl'ective  in  the  United  States.  Ojjinion  of  Miller,  Attorney-General, 
47   Oil".   Uaz.   ;3!»7;   Kx  parte   Zwack  &   Co.,  7:i   Off.   Gaz.   1855. 


ORDKR    IN"    COUNCIL. 
(The  Patents  Act,  1883.) 

At  tlie  Court  at  Windsor,  tlie  2(itli  of  June.  1884.  Present,  the  Queen's 
Most   Excellent   Majesty    in  Council. 

WllEUtEA.s,  by  the  provisions  of  tiie  Patents,  Designs,  and  Trademarks 
Act,   1883,  it  is,  amongst  other  things,  provided: 

That  if  Her  Majesty  is  pleased  to  make  any  arrangement  with  the 
government  or  governments  of  any  foreign  state  or  states  for  mutual 
protection  of  inventions,  designs  and  trademarks,  or  any  of  them,  then 
any  person  who  has  applied  for  protection  for  any  invention,  design  or 
trademark  in  any  such  state  shall,  subject  to  the  conditions  further  pro- 
vided and  set  forth  in  tlie  said  act,  be  entitled  to  a  patent  for  hij 
invention,  or  to  registration  of  his  design  or  trademark  (as  the  case  may 
be)    under   the   said   act   in   i)riority   to   other   applicants,   and    such    patent 


1»1G  ArPEM>IX    K. 

or    r.';;ititrHtioii    hIihU    Iihvi'    tin-    m»ih<-   tlat<-    as    the    «l«t<'    of    tin-    prot.itioii 
olituiiifd    in   i«ucli   fon-i;;!!   htatr: 

And  W  hkii>:as  it  \\nx  plt-aw*!  II«t  Majt-Hlv  to  makf  an  arraii;.'i-infni 
of  the  nntiiro  wntmiplatrd  1»>  tlio  wii<l  act  !•>  and  in  virtUf  oi  a  d.ilura- 
tion  sit;n.Hl  and  waK-d  l>v  Hit  .Maji'j«ty"«  umhaBsudor  at  I'arin  on  tin-  17tU 
«.(  MHrch.  1SS4.  duly  convoyinji  thr  actH'twion  of  CJrt-at  Krilain  to  the 
Int.Tnational  Convention  and  I'rott>c(d  for  the  I'rottrtion  of  Industrial 
l'ro|Mrty.  »«ij:n«Hl  Ity  rfprrm-ntntivts  of  n-rtain  powern  on  tlir  2(>th  of 
Manh,  1SS:{.  and  duly  ratili.d  on  the  «th  of  dune.  1HS4,  power  lK-in<; 
re<UTVi>d  to  Her  Maji'»ty  to  hereafter  aeeede  to  the  provisions  of  Kaid 
itmvention  and  pr»»to(>ol  on  Ulialf  of  the  Isle  of  Man.  the  Channel 
Inlands,  and  any  of  Her  Majosty'B  possessions,  which  deelaration  of  acces- 
sion was  duly  accepted  l»y  the  French  povernment  on  hehalf  of  the  bijjna- 
lorj-  powers  by  an<l  in  virtue  of  a  dwdaration  duted  tlie  2nd  of  April,  1884: 

Ntrvv.  therefore.  Ih-r  Majesty,  hy  and  with  the  lulviee  and  consent  of 
her  Privy  Council,  and  hy  virtue  of  the  authority  committed  to  her  hy 
the  said  act.  doth  de<lare.  aixl  it  is  herehy  dwlared.  tliat  the  provision^ 
of  the  said  act  hen-inhefore  specified  shall  apply  to  the  following  coun- 
tries, viz:  Ik'ljiiuni.  Hrazil.  Frane«'.  (Juatiiiiala.  Italy.  Netherlands.  I'or 
tugal,  Salvador.  Servia,  Spain,  Switzerland,  Kcuador,  and  Tunis. 

And  it  is  hereliy  further  ordered  and  declared  that  this  order  shall  take 
effect  from  the  7th  of  July,  1884. 

C.  L.  Peei.. 

SUBSEQUENT  ORDERS  IN  COUNCIL   (a) 

ORDERS   IN   COfNCIl.   AD.MITTINC.    FOREIGN    COUNTRIES. 

Santo  Domingo. — Date  of  order,  January  27,  IftSS.  To  take  effect  from 
January  27,  18S."i.     London  dazrttr,  188.'),  p.  418. 

Sweden  and  Norway.— Date  of  order,  July  9,  188.">.  To  tak.-  effect  from 
July  1.  188.-).     London  Gazette,  188r»,  p.  :J173. 

Paraguay  and  Irugiiay.*— Date  of  order,  September  24,  1880.  To  take 
effect  from  Sept<-mlM-r  24,  1880.     London  flazcttr,  1880,  p.  472r). 

l"nited  States  of  America. — Date  of  order,  July  12,  1SS7.  To  take  elTe.t 
from  July   12,  1887.     London  (lazvttc,  1S87,  p.  :{S27. 

Netherlands  East  Indies. — Date  of  order.  November  17.  1888.  To  take 
effect  from  March   17,  188!>.     London  (iazitic,  1888.  j).  0412. 

Mexict).— Date  of  order.  May  28,  188!>.  To  take  elfeet  from  Se|.ten^l..r 
28.  1889.     London  (lazrttr,  1889,  p.  29.-»4. 

Curacao  and  Surinam. — Date  of  order,  May  17.  IH'.Kt.  To  take  effect  from 
S4ptemlMr   17,   1890.      London  dnzitte,   1890,   p.  2891. 

.Santo  Domingo.— Date  of  onhr.  Oetoln-r  21,  18'.»0.  To  take  effect  from 
February  21,   1891.     London  (hizvttr,  1890,  p.  r»001. 

Roumania.'- Date  of  <irder.  August  Ti,  1892.  To  take  effect  from  De- 
cember 5,  1892.     London  (lazrttr,   1892,  p.  4:).')4. 


•  Theijc  countri<ti|    v^ithout  acceding  to  the  Convention.  <iitere.l   into  eor 
responding  arrangccmcut  with  this  country. 


IN'l'KHN  VTION  \l,    AUK  WdKMKNTS.  f)17 

Ki-undor.*  — Dull'  of  ur.l.  r.  May  Itl,  is'i.;.  l,,  tuk.-  iir.it  from  Sr|)t.-ml,.r 
HI.  1H!»:<.     Loudon  (hizillv.   ISJI.I.  p.  '<iH)HI. 

Uri'i'ff.*  —  Datr  of  order,  OctoluT  ir>,  IKllt.  To  lakr  rlFiMt.  from  I'.l.niiirv 
1'),  IHl).').     Loiulon  (laziltv,  1S!)4,  p.  ;V.llH. 

Doiiinark. — ])at»'  of  order,  November  20,  ISIM.  I'o  taki-  .irect  from  Mureli 
20,  IS!);').     Lomlon  (Inzrtti,  1S!(4,  p.  liHTn. 

Japan. — Dato  of  order,  Oetober  7,  IKOl).  To  take  efTiit  from  nctulM-r  7, 
IS'.Mt.     I.uiulun  (lazitti,   ISiH.l.  ji.  (\>4\. 

Hoiiduran.* — Date  of  order,  Septeml>er  '2t»,  I'.Mil.  I  o  take  elleet  from 
Septend)er  2'),    litdl.      Liinilon   (Inzrttr,   1!(()1,  p.  ti.'JK;}, 

(lermany.— Date  of  ordi-r,  ()et»)lier  !»,  l!Mi.{.  I'o  take  eireet  from  May  1, 
1!K):{.     London   (liizrttv,  VMV.\,  j).  (i220. 

Cul)a. — Date  of  order,  .laiiuary  12,  !!)()').  To  take  efFeet  from  \oveml>er 
17,  in04.     London  (lazctlv,  lOOfi,  p.  :{21. 

Austria  and  IIunj,'ary. — Date  of  order,  .May  17,  I'.tOli.  lo  take  elTeet  from 
January  1,  IDU'J.     London  Gazette,  I'JU'J,  p.  -AHiVA. 


OIIDKK.S     IN     COlNfll.     AD.MITTl.Nt;     IJKITI.SH     I'OS.SESSIOXK. 

Queensland. — Date  of  order,  September  17,  188.").  To  take  eliict  from  Sej)- 
tember  17,  188.').     London  Gazette,  188'),  p.  442!t. 

New  Zealand. — Date  of  order,  Fel)ruary  8,  1890.  To  take  elTeet  from 
June  8,  18!)().     London  Gazette,  1800,  p.  727. 

Tasmania. — Date  of  order,  April  30,  1894.  To  take  effect  from  Au^oist 
30,   1804.     London  Gazette,   1804,  p.  2578. 

Western  Australia. — Date  of  order.  May  11,  180.').  'Id  take  elfeet  from 
September  11,  1805.     London  Gazette,  180.'),  p.  2848. 

Ceylon. — Dati'  of  order,  Auj;ust  7,  100.").  To  take  elleet  from  June  10, 
190').     London  Gazette,   1005,  p.  5450. 

Australia,  Commonwealth  of. — Date  of  order,  Marcii  2(),  1007.  To  take 
effect  from  Fel)ruary  1.  1007.     London  Gazette,  1007,  p.  2178. 

Trinidad  and  Toba^^o. — Date  of  order,  Auf,ni^t  12,  1007.  To  take  effect 
from  August  12,  1007.     London  Gazette,  1007,  p.  5G03. 


ORDERS   IX   COUNCIL   REVOKING   ORDERS   OF  ADMISSION'. 

Ecuador. — Date  of  order,  April  IG,  1886.  To  take  effect  from  December 
26.  1886.     London  Gazette,  1886,  p.  1894. 

Salvador. — Date  of  order,  September  24,  1886.  To  take  effect  from 
August  17,  1887.     London  Gazette,  1886,  p.  472(). 

Santo  Domingo. — Date  of  order.  May  28,  1880.  To  take  effect  from  May 
28,  1880.     London  Gazette.  1880.  p.  3035. 

fJuatemala. — Date  of  order.  February  2,  1805.  To  take  effect  from  No- 
vember 8,  1805.     London  Gazette,  1895,  p.  754. 


*  These  countries,  witliout  acceding  to  the  Convention,  entered   into  cor- 
reaponding  arrangement  with  this  country. 


«»1S  ai-ii;m»j\   k. 


l^hi.inKliina.— Dfttr  of  c.nl.r.  Miir.li  2(1.  lOOT.  To  inko  .iT.ot  from  F.l.- 
ruHry   1.  U»07.     /..i»m/oh  Uaz'ttr.  liKlT.  p   217S. 

WoHttTH  AuKtraliu  — l)Ht.-  of  ord<r.  Murdi  2<l,  liMiT.  I  <•  tnk.-  .ll.-rt  fn.in 
Ki-I.ni«ry   1.  H»«»7.     I.nmlnn  Uuztltt.  UtdT.  p.  "ilTS. 

TaomHiiia.— l)Ht.'  ."f  »<nltT.  AupiBl  12.  l!Ml7.  I'o  tak.-  .  tl,  .t  from  Aii-u>t 
12.  I'>(t7.     I.nmlim  OaztUt,  \'M\~ ,  \>.  MM. 


ADDITIONAI.    A(    I    M.  tDI  lA  I  \( ;    I  111.    INDIMKIAI.    I'Kmj'j.KIA 
( OW  liNTloN   ol'    MAIK  11    Jo.   ISH.J. 

.Sfci.NK.n     AT     IIIM   S^KI.S,     DKCKMIlKK     1  I.     I'.'IHI. 

( (tffiiiiil    I  raimhition.) 

Hit  Mnj.'sty.  tJo-  i)\u-,i\  of  tin-  I'liitod  Kiiipdom  of  Cnnt  Britain  .-iiul 
Inlnii.l.  Kmpr.-sH  of  IikIui;  His  MHJ.-Hly.  tlu-  Kinji  of  tiu-  H.-l;;ianH;  tlio 
I'r.-hi<l<nt  of  thr  Iiiit.-a  Stat«s  of  Hiazil;  IHh  Majesty,  tlu-  Kin;;  of  IVii- 
mark:  tlo-  Prt-sidnit  of  tlir  Duniiiiiciaii  Kr|HiliIif;  Her  Majesty,  tlie  Queen- 
Kep-nt  of  Spain,  in  tlie  name  of  His  Majesty,  the  Kin^'  of  Spain;  the 
Vreniih-nt  of  the  Inited  States  ..f  Anuriea;  tlie  President  of  tlie  Kreneh 
Kelinl.lic;  His  Maj.-sty.  tli.'  Kiii^  of  Italy;  His  Majesty,  the  Kmperor  <.f 
.lapan;  Her  Majesty,  tlie  t^ueen  of  the  Netherlands;  His  Majesty,  the 
Kin^'  <.f  I'ortu^-al  and  tlie  Al^'arves;  His  Majesty,  the  Kin^'  of  Servia;  His 
Majesty,  tlie  Kinp  of  Swed.-n  and  Norway;  the  Federal  Council  of  the 
Swiss  (.onftsU  ration:  aiul  the  Tiinisian  (iovernnient.  iinvin^'  diH-nunl  it 
expedi«nt  to  make  certain  modifirationa  in,  and  additions  to,  the  lnt«r 
nati»>nal  Convention  of  the  2(ltli  of  Mareh,  ISS.S.  and  also  as  repirds  the 
Final  I'rotwol  annexed  to  the  said  convention,  have  named  as  thoir  pleni- 
jKitentiaries.  tliat  is  to  say:  [Hrrr  folloin  the  appoint  mints  of  the  picnipo- 
ImtiarirH]  Who,  after  having'  eonimunicat«l  to  cnich  orther  thoir  respwtive 
full  jKiwers.  fonn.l  in  pn.d  and  due  form,  have  a^ireed  iipon  the  followinjr 
Articles: 

AlMKI.K    I. 
The  lnteriiati(.nal  Conviiilioii  of  the  JOth  Maieh.   ISSIl.  shall   he  modified 
•  H  follows: 

1.  Article  III  of  tin-  convention  sha'.i   run  as  follows: 

"Art.  III.  Tlie  snhji-i-ts  or  eiti/ens  of  states  wliifh  are  not  |>arties  l«i 
the  union  hImiII  he  aH^inlilated  to  the  h-ul>j«fts  or  citizens  of  the  contrant- 
in;,'  htatch,  jirovided  that  th<y  are  domicil«Hl  in,  or  have  industrial  or  com- 
mercial estahlishments.  real  an<l  elT.-ctive,  in  the  t4'rritory  of  4me  of  the 
Rtaten  of  tlw  union." 

2.  Article  IN'  hhali  run  as  follows: 

"Art.  IN'.  Any  |xTson  who  hIuiII  have  «hily  ajiplied  for  a  luitent,  indus- 
trial di-«if;n,  or  mo«lel  or  tra<lemark  in  one  «>f  the  eontriK-t in^'  sUtes,  shall 
€-nj'.y,  in  order  to  admit  of  sin-h   re<iuc«t  Wing  lo«lp-.l    in   tlu-  other  Htatt*. 


INTERNATIONAL    AKRANGEMKNTK.  919 

during'  tlir  inMinds  irf  limi'  iiicnt  ioiH'il  In-Iow,  a  rij/lif  i>f  prioritN .  tin-  rif(litt« 
«»f  tliiid  part  its  lwiii;j  iM-stTvc*!. 

"(V)n.H('(|u«'iitl\,  siil)st'<|iic'iit  rc^iHtratioii  in  one  of  tlic  oHut  Ktati-n  of  tln» 
union,  iH-for*-  the  i-xpira-tion  of  siicli  [M-rijxIs  of  tiini-,  hIiuII  not  Ik"  invali- 
dated by  any  acts  aA'coniplinrlictl  in  tlie  inlcTval — either,  for  intitunee,  l»y 
unotlier  rejfiiitration,  liy  the  publication  of  the  invention,  or  by  tlie  work- 
ing of  it.  by  tlie  sale  of  patt<Tiis  of  the  d('si;,'n  or  model,  or  by  the  um-  of 
tl>e  tradennirk. 

"Tile  above-mentioned  periods  of  tinu^  diirin^j  whieh  priority  is  jruar- 
antet'd  sliall  Im-  twelve  months  for  patents  witii  resiJi-et  to  inventions,  and 
four  months  for  patents  for  industrial  desigiiB  or  models,  as  well  as  for 
trade  ()r  merchandise  marks  " 

'A.  'I  here  shall  be  in-<'rt4'(l  in  the  conx  rut  inn  an  Artitdc  I  \'  bis  in  the 
following,'  t(iin> : 

"Art.  I\"  /(IS."      (  lulatts  only  to  patents.) 

4.     The  two  following'  parajrraplis  shall  be  added  to  Article  IX: 

"In  states  the  laws  of  \vhi<h  do  iKjt  admit  of  seizure  upon  importatiim, 
prohibition  of  importation  may  take  the  j)laee  of  such  seizure. 

"The  authorities  shall  not  be  coniptdled  to  effect  the  seizure  in  the  case 
of  poo<l8  in  transit." 

.■>.     Article  X  shall  run  as  follows: 

"Art..  X.  The  stipulations  of  the  preceding  article  shall  be  applicable 
to  every  i)roduiction  w-hieh  may  falsely  bear  as  indication  of  origin  the 
name  of  a  specified  locality,  when  such  indication  shall  be  joined  to  ,t 
tradename  of  a  fictitious  cliaracter  or  used  with    intent  to  defraud. 

"Any  producer,  manufacturer,  or  trader  engaged  in  the  production,  manu- 
facture, or  tra<le  of  such  gomls.  and  I'stablished  either  in  the  locality  fals<dy 
designated  as  the  j)lace  of  origin,  or  in  the  district  where  the  locality  is 
situated,  is  to  be  deemed  a  party  concerned." 

6.  There  shall  be  inserted  in  the  convention  an  Article  X  bifi  in  tho 
terms  following: 

"Art.  X  his.  Persons  resorting  to  the  countries  referred  to  in  the  con- 
vention (Articles  II  and  III)  shall  enjoy  in  all  the  states  of  the  union 
the  protection  accorde<I   to  nationals  against   dishonest  competition."' 

7.  Article  XI  shall  run  as  follows: 

"Art.  XI.  Tlie  high  contracting  parties  shall,  in  conformity  with  the 
legislation  of  each  county,  accord  temjwrary  protection  to  inventions 
susceptible  of  being  patented,  and  to  industrial  designs  or  models,  as  well 
OS  to  trademarks  or  merchandise  marks,  in  respect  of  prmhicts  whieh  shall 
be  exhibited  at  official  or  officially  recognized  international  exhibitions 
held  in  the  territory  of  one  of  them." 

8.  Article  XIV  shall  run  as  follows: 

"Art.  XIV.  The  present  convention  shall  be  submitted  to  iH»rio<lical 
revisions  with  a  view  to  the  introduction  of  amendments  calculatexl  to 
improve  the  system  of  the  union. 

"For  this  purjwse,  conferences  shall  be  held  successively,  in  one  of  the 
contracting  states,  between  the  delegates  of  the  said  states." 


920  APPENDIX    K. 

0.     Article  XVI  xliall  run  as  follow h: 

"Art.  XVI.  StatoH  whirh  nro  not  parlios  to  the  pri'S^-nt  convontion  sliall 
be  Mllowcd  t«  ncoHlc  to  it  upon  tlifir  r»iiuc8t. 

"Thf  acx-»'*nion  hJimII  U<  iniMlitUsI  t)irou);li  tli«'  diplomatic  i-liannci  to  tlie 
(Jovernmcnt  of  tin-  S\\i!«s  C'onfctlciation.  and  bv  tin*  latter  to  all  the  other 

otAtOH. 

■■It  hhall  fiitnil.  a^  a  niatlfi  of  ri^'lit.  a»c«'ft*ion  ti>  all  tli<-  rlausi-s.  as  wi'll 
as  admission  to  all  the  advantap-H  Hti|»ulatrd  in  the  present  convention, 
ajid  shall  take  elT«x"t  one  month  after  tlu-  dispatch  of  the  notification  by 
the  Swiss  (Government  to  the  other  statvM  of  the  union,  unless  a  suhwquent 
date  have  bct-n  indicatisl  hv  the  accedinjj  state." 

Ainici.K   II. 

Tlie  final  protcMol  annexed  to  the  International  Convention  of  the  2rtth 
March,  I8S;i.  shall  Ik'  completed  by  the  addition  of  No.  :J  bis  in  the  following 
t^rma: 

"3  6m."     (Relates  only  U>  patents.) 

Article  III. 

'Hie  present  additional  act  shall  have  the  same  value  and  duration  as 
the  convention  of  the  2nth  of  March.  1883. 

It  shall  be  ratifed.  and  the  ratification  shall  be  deposit<'d  at  the  Min- 
inatry  for  Foreign  Affairs,  Bru.ssels.  as  soon  as  possible,  and  nt  the  latest 
within  a  period  of  eighteen  months  from  the  dat«?  of  signature. 

It  shall  coine  into  force  three  months  after  the  protocol  of  deposit  shall 
have  been  closed. 

In  witness  whereof  the  respective  plenijiotentiaries  havi-  signed  the 
pr«'S4'nt  additional  act. 

Done  at  Brussels,  in  single  ct)py,  tlie  14th  Deeember,  lUliO. 

[Higniil  by  the  l'lcnii}otcntiariea.] 

PHOCE8.S — VeRUAI.. 

The  contracting  parties  having  unanimously  agre«'d  that  the  exchange  of 
the  ratifications  of  the  additional  act  to  the  Convention  of  the  20th 
March,  1883,  sign«-d  at  Hrussels  on  the  I4th  Deeemln'r.  1!K)0,  shall  Iw 
effected  liy  means  of  the  deposit  of  the  respective  instruments  in  the 
archivcH  of  the  Belgian  .Ministry  for  Foreign  AtTairs,  the  present  protocol 
recording  the  de|KJHit  has  Ix-en,  for  this  |)ur|K)si',  drawn  up  at  the  Ministry 
for  F<»reign  .Mfairs  this  3rd  day  of  May,  l!K)l. 

(Ratified  under  data's  an  follows)  : 

Unit«'<l  .States  of  .America,  May  3,    l!>01.  , 

Switzerlanil,   Augiist  .I,   IHOI. 
Denmark,  (Mtober   10,   1001. 
rortugal.  November  r,,  IKOl. 


INTERNATIONA  I-    AKHANGEMKNTa.  921 


I'nitcd  Kin^'iloin,  Dcci'iiiImt  Ji.  llKJl. 
Hclnium,  l)«'<-oinlMT  10,  UIOl. 
Italy,   DcccriiJxT    12,   11K)1. 
.Ia|NiM,  April  21,   I!t02. 
France,  May  2.i,   1!M)2. 
'ruiiis.  May  2;i.   \W)2. 
S\vfil»«i),  .June  -),  1!)()2. 
Norway,  .Juno  .'>,  1!I02. 
N»'tlifrlaii(ls,  June   HI,   HK)2. 


In    conformity    witli    Article    111    of    tlie    additional    act    of    tlie    ]4tli    l)o- 
cemll)er,  ]!)()(),  the  present  protocol  has  been  closed  on  thin  date. 

The  lidfjian  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs, 

(Signed)      P.  De  FAVEatEAUi 
Brussels,  June  1),  I'JOd. 


APPENDIX  L 

J^cotion  1  of  tho  Act  of  .Innuary  .'..  UW,  (33  Stat.  L.  000), 
iiu'orporatiti^'  tho  Anit'ricaii  National  K«'<1  Cross,  is  as  follows: 
•  ••«•••• 

Skction  4.  That  from  aiul  after  the  passage  of  this  act  it 
shall  he  unlawful  for  any  person  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Tnitoil  States  to  falsely  and  fraudulently  hold  himself  out  as,  or 
represent  or  pretend  himself  to  he.  a  momher  of,  or  Bn  apent 
for.  tho  American  National  Hc<l  Cross,  for  the  purpose  of  solicit- 
in^:.  eollectinfr  or  reeeivinp  money  or  material ;  or  for  any  per- 
son to  wear  or  «lisp]ay  the  sicrn  of  the  Red  Cross,  or  any  insicrnia* 
colored  in  imitation  thereof  for  the  fraudulent  purpose  of  indue- 
inp  the  helief  that  he  is  a  memhcr  of.  or  an  a^'ent  for,  the  Amer- 
ican National  Hed  Cross.  Nor  shall  it  he  lawful  for  any  person 
or  corporation,  other  than  the  Red  Cross  of  America,  not  now 
lawfully  entitled  to  use  the  si^Mi  of  the  Red  Cross,  hereafter  to 
use  such  si<rn  or  any  insi<.Miia  eolored  in  imitation  thereof  for  the 
l)urposes  of  trade  or  a.s  an  a<lvertisement  to  induce  the  sale  of 
any  article  whatsoever.  If  any  person  violates  the  provisions  of 
this  section,  he  .shall  he  puilty  of  a  nisdemeanor  and  .shall  he 
liahle  to  a  fine  of  not  less  than  otie  nor  more  than  five  hundred 
dollars,  or  imprisonment  for  a  term  not  exceeding  one  year,  or 
hoth,  for  each  and  every  otTense.     The  Hue  so  collected  shall  he 

|)aid  to  the  American  National  Red  Cross. 

•  •••••• 

Ai)i)roved.  January  f),  1  {)()(!. 

Under  this  section  registration  has  been  refused  to  "the  rep- 
resentation of  a  cross  inclosed  in  a  circle  which  cuts  the  arms  of 
the  cross."  printed  in  red.  Kr  ixirtr  !<fr('(itor  Metal  Co.,  130 
Off.  (Ja/..  14^3;  similarly  a  mark  including  tlu'  words  ''^^ 
Cross"  was  refused  registration  in  Ex  parli  Strauss,  C.  D.  li'OT, 
133,  128  OlT.  Ca/..  HHj. 


022 


APPENDIX  M 

THE  FEDERAL  TRADE  COMMISSION  ACT. 

("Act  Sr|it.inlMr   .it;,    r.lll,  :!H  Stut.   L.   717.) 

AN  ACT  to  ticatc  a    Frdcial   'Irndo  Cninniisftinn.   t<>  <Icfhio   its  iiowcrs  and 
iliitics,  and  for  otlicr  inirposcs. 

Skctk^n  1.  He  it  enacted  hrj  the  Senate  and  Tloufte  of  Rep- 
resentatives of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  as- 
sembled:  That  a  Coinniission  is  hereby  created  and  established 
to  be  known  as  the  Fetleral  Trade.  Commission  (hereinafter  re- 
ferred to  as  the  Commission),  which  shall  be  composed  of  five 
eonnnissionci-s.  who  sliall  be  appointed  by  the  President,  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.  Not  more  than  three 
of  the  coMnnis-sioners  sliall  be  members  of  the  same  political  party. 
Tile  first  commissioners  appointed  sliall  continue  in  office  for 
terms  of  three,  four.  five,  six,  and  seven  years,  respectively,  from 
the  date  of  the  takinj;  effect  of  thi.s  act,  the  term  of  each  to  be 
designated  by  the  President,  but  their  successors  shall  be  ap- 
pointed for  terms  of  seven  years,  except  that  any  person  chosen 
to  fill  a  vacancy  .shall  be  appointed  only  for  the  unexiiired  term 
of  the  commissioner  whom  he  shall  succeed.  The  Commi.ssion 
shall  choose  a  chairman  from  its  own  membership.  No  com- 
missioner shall  enf?ag:e  in  any  other  business,  vocation,  or  employ- 
ment. Any  commissioner  may  be  removed  by  the  President  for 
inefficiency,  necrlect  of  duty,  or  malfea.sance  in  office.  A  vacancy 
in  the  Commission  shall  not  impair  the  right  of  the  remaining 
commisvsioners  to  exercise  all  the  powders  of  the  Commission. 

Th(>  Commission  shall  have  an  official  seal,  which  shall  be 
judicially  noticed. 

Sp:ction  2.  [Salaries—  emplojiees — classified-  civil  service — 
e.rpendit}(res—rent  of  offices.]  That  each  commissioner 
shall  receive  a  salary  of  .^10.000  a  year,  payable  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  salaries  of  the  .judges  of  the  courts  of  the  Unitetl 
States.     The  commission  shall  appoint  a  secretarv,  who  shall  re- 

923 


!)J4  Al'l'KNDIX     M. 

coivo  a  .tnlnry  of  .'«;.'),0("K1  a  y»iir.  payal)lo  in  like  mannrr,  and  it 
shall  have  authority  to  t'inploy  and  fix  the  i-ompciisatioii  of  such 
attorneys,  special  experts,  examiners,  cltrUs.  juid  other  tiiiployces 
as  it  may  from  time  to  time  find  ntH'r.ssjiry  for  the  proper  j)er- 
formanee  of  its  duties  and  as  may  lie  from  time  to  time  appropri- 
ated for  by  C^onpn\ss. 

With  tlie  exception  of  the  seiTctary,  a  clerk  to  eacli  conunis- 
sioner.  the  attorneys,  ami  such  special  experts  anil  examinei-s  as 
the  eommission  nujy  from  time  to  time  find  necessary  for  Ihe 
conduct  of  its  work,  all  employees  of  the  commission  shall  l>e  a 
part  of  the  elassitied  civil  ser^•ice.  and  shall  enter  the  service 
nmler  such  rules  and  refjulations  as  may  he  prescribed  by  the 
commission  and  by  the  Civil  Service  Conunission. 

All  of  the  ex])enses  of  the  commission,  indudinf?  all  necessary 
expenses  for  transportation  incurred  by  the  commissioners  or  by 
their  employees  under  their  orders,  in  making  any  investigation, 
or  upon  official  business  in  any  other  places  than  in  the  city  of 
Washington,  shall  be  allowed  and  jiaid  on  the  presentation  of 
itemized  vouchers  therefor  approved  by  the  conunission. 

I'ntil  otherwise  provided  by  law,  the  conunission  nuiy  rent 
suitable  offices  for  its  use. 

The  Auditor  for  the  State  and  Other  Departments  .shall  receive 
and  examine  all  accounts  of  expenditures  of  the  eommi.ssion. 

Skction  3.  [liurenii  of  corporations  nhoUshcd — transfer  of 
o/»yVo//rr.v,  etc. — pnmipal  otVuc — ii)(jK{ries  elsewhere.]  That 
upon  the  organization  of  the  (conunission  and  election  of  its 
chuirnum,  the  Bureau  of  Corporations  and  the  offices  of  Com- 
nii.ssioncr  and  Dei)Uty  Conunissioner  of  Corporations  shall  cease 
to  exist;  and  all  pending  investigations  and  proceedings  of  the 
Bureau  of  Corporations  shall  Im-  continued  by  the  conunission. 

All  clerks  and  employees  of  the  said  bureau  shall  be  trans- 
ferred to  aiul  become  clerks  and  employees  of  the  conunission 
at  their  y)res«Mit  grades  and  salaries.  All  records,  papers,  and 
j)ro[>erty  of  the  siiid  bureau  shall  become  records,  papers,  and 
(»n»ix'rty  of  the  conunission,  and  all  unexpended  funds  and  ap- 
j>roi)rintions  for  the  use  and  maintenance  of  the  said  bureau. 
including  any  allotment  already  made  to  it  !>>•  the  S<'eretary  of 
Conniierc«»  from  the  contingejit  appropriation  \'nr  the  Depart- 
ment of  Conuncrce  for  tlie  fiscal  vear  nineteen  hiindi'ed  and  fif- 


Tin:    I'HDKHAf-    TIfAOK    COMMISSION    ACT,  f "-'.'» 

tccii.  or  rroiii  ihc  (icipartmcntal  print in^r  rimd  for  llic  fiscal  year 
iiiiictfcii  huiidn'd  iuid  liftct'ii,  sliiill  In-come  IuikIs  and  api)ro- 
priatioiis  available  to  be  expended  by  tin*  eoin mission  in  the  exer- 
cise of  the  powers,  aiit liorit >•,  ainl  duties  eonlerred  on  it  by  this 

Act. 

The  })rinci|)al  otlice  of  the  conimission  shall  be  in  the  eity  of 
Washin^'ton,  but  it  may  meet  and  exercise  all  its  powers  at  any 
other  phicc.  'i'hc  commission  may,  by  one  or  more  of  its  nicm- 
l)ers,  or  l)y  such  ex'aniiners  as  it  may  desi^-nate,  prosecute  any 
iiKpiiiy  necessiiry  to  its  duties  in  any  part  of  the  United  States. 

Section  4.  [Definitions.]  That  the  words  (h'fined  in  this  sec- 
tion shall  have  the  followin|_'  meaning'  when  found  in  this  Act, 
to  wit: 

''Commerce"  ineans  commerce  amoiifr  the  several  States  or 
with  forei^Mi  nations,  or  m  any  territory  of  the  Fnited  States 
or  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  or  between  any  such  Territory 
and  another,  or  "between  any  such  Territory  and  any  State  or 
foreign  nation,  or  between  the  District  of  Columbia  and  any 
State  or  Territory  or  foreign  nation. 

"Corporation"  means  any  company  or  association  incorporated 
or  unincorporated,  which  is  organized  to  carry  on  business  for 
profit  and  has  shares  of  capital  or  capital  stock,  and  any  company 
or  association,  incorporated  or  unincorporated,  witbout  shares 
of  capital  or  capital  stock,  except  partnerships,  which  is  organ- 
ized to  carry  on  business  for  its  own  profit  or  that  of  its  members. 

'"Documentary  evidence"  means  all  documents,  papers,  and 
correspondence  in  existence  at  and  after  the  pa-ssage  of  this  Act. 

"Acts  to  regridate  commerce"  means  the  Act  entitled  "An  Act 
to  regulate  commerce,"  approved  Februarv^  fourteenth,  eighteen 
hundred  and  eighty-seven,  and  all  Acts  amendatory  thereof  and 
supplementary  thereto. 

"Antitrust  acts"  means  the  Act  entitled  "An  Act  to  protect 
trade  and  commerce  against  unlawful  restraints  and  monopo- 
lies," approved  July  second,  eighteen  hundred  and  ninety;  also 
the  sections  seventy-three  to  seventy -seven,  inclusive,  of  an  Act 
entitled  "An  Act  to  reduce  taxation,  to  provide  revenue  for  the 
Government,  and  for  other  purposes."  approved  A ugu.st  twenty- 
seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and  ninety-four;  and  also  the  Act 
entitled  "An  Act  to  amend  sections  seventy-three  and  seventy- 


0*JG  Al'l'tlNDlX     -M. 

six  of  the  A.l  i.l  Au^'ust  twciity-sfVi-iitli.  fiKWitnn  IniiulnHl  ami 
niiu'ty-four.  i-ntillrd  'An  Ai-t  to  n'tlm-i'  tnxation.  in  proviile  ri'V- 
emu'  for  llu-  (lovfrunu'iit.  ami  for  otlur  purposes, '  "  approved 
February  twelfth.  iiiii('t»''ii  lmn«irt'<l  aii«l  thirteen. 

Skctidn  .'>.  Tliat  unfair  m.-tluMls  of  cnniixtitioji  in  com- 
inerce  art'  luTt'l)y  (liM-ian-d   unlawful. 

The  commission  is  iicrcliy  riiiiiowcrcil  Mini  dirt-cti-d  to  prevent 
persons,  partm'rsin|)s.  or  corporations,  c.xcj'pt  Itanks,  and  com- 
mon carriiTs  suliji'ct  to  the  Acts  to  rcfjulatc  commcrcf,  from 
u-sinn  unfair  methods  of  conipct  ition   in  coinnicrcc. 

Wlu-ncvor  th«'  connnission  .sliall  Iravo  reason  to  hclii'vc  that  any 
8uch  person,  partnership,  or  corporation  has  been  or  is  usinj;  any 
unfair  nu'tiio<l  df  competition  in  eonuiierce.  and  if  it  shall  appear 
to  the  <onnnission  that  a  proeecdinf^  by  it  in  respect  thereof 
would  he  to  the  interest  of  tlie  puhlie,  it  shall  issue  and  serve 
upon  such  person.  |>artiiershiit.  or  corporation  a  complaint  stat- 
ing its  charges  in  that  re.si)ect,  and  containing  a  notice  of  a  hear- 
ing upon  a  day  and  at  a  place  therein  Hxcd  at  least  thirty  days 
after  the  ser^'ice  of  said  complaint.  The  pers<m.  ])artnershii).  or 
corporation  so  complained  of  shall  have  the  right  to  appear  at 
the  place  and  time  so  fixed  and  show  cause  why  an  order  should 
not  he  entered  hy  the  connnission  requiring  such  person,  part- 
nership, or  corporation  to  cease  and  desist  from  the  violation  of 
the  law  so  charged  in  said  complaint.  Any  person,  partnei^ship, 
or  corporation  m«y  make  application,  and  upon  good  cause 
shown  may  he  allowed  hy  the  commission,  to  intervene  and  ap- 
pear in  said  proceeding  ))y  counsel  or  in  person.  The  testimony 
in  any  such  (troceeding  shall  he  nniuccd  to  writing  and  filed  in 
the  office  of  the  connnission.  If  upon  such  hearing  the  commis- 
sion shall  he  of  the  opinion  that  the  method  of  competition  in 
quesiion  is  prohihittHl  hy  this  Act.  it  shall  make  a  report  in  -writ- 
ing in  which  it  shall  state  its  findings  sus  to  tlve  facts,  and  shall 
issue  and  cause  to  Ix*  served  on  such  person,  partnership,  or  cor- 
poration an  order  rc(piiring  such  person.  ])artnci*ship.  or  corpo- 
ration to  cease  and  desist  from  using  such  nirlhod  of  competi- 
tion. T'nfil  a  transcript  of  the  re<'ord  in  sm-h  hearing  shall  have 
been  fih'(l  in  a  circuit  court  of  ajipcsds  of  the  rnitcd  States,  as 
hereinafter  |iritvidcd,  tlir  cdtiiinission  may  at  a'ly  time,  upon 
such  notice  and  in  such  iiiauncr  as  it  shall  deem  i)roper,  iijodify 


TiiK  n:i)i:KAL  ti{\1)i:  com  .mission   act.  IlllT 

or  set  aside,  in  whole  ov  in  part,  any  niMut  oj-  any  oni«r  made  or 
issued  l)y  it  under  this  section. 

ir  sucli  person,  partnership,  or  cxjpporation  fjiils  or  ncK'leets  to 
obey  sdieii  onh-r  of  tin-  eonnnission  whih-  the  siiiiie  is  in  efTe<'t,  the 
eoniniission  may  apply  to  th(;  eireuit  court  of  appeals  of  the 
United  States,  •within  any  circuit  where  the  method  of  c(>mi)eti- 
tion  in  {|uestion  wa.s  used  or  where  sucli  person,  partnership,  or 
corporation  resides  or  carries  on  business,  for  the  enforcement  of 
its  Older,  and  shall  certify  and  file  with  its  application  a  tran- 
script of  the  eiitii'c  record  in  the  proceediiif?,  including  all  the 
testimony  taken  and  the  report  and  order  of  the  commission. 
Upon  such  lilin<7  of  the  ap[)lication  and  transcript  the  court  shall 
cause  notice  thereof  to  he  served  u])<)ii  such  person,  partnership, 
or  corporation  and  thereupon  shall  have  jurisdiction  of 
the  proceeding  and  of  the  (piestion  (h'termined  therein,  and 
shall  have  power  to  make  and  enter  upon  the  pleadings, 
testimony,  and  j)r<>ceedin,t;.s  set  forth  in  such  transcrij)t  a 
decree  atiHi'minjr,  modit'yinjr,  or  settin<r  aside  the  order  of  the 
commi-ssion.  Tin-  findinjrs  of  the  commission  as  to  the  facts, 
if  supported  by  testimony,  shall  be  conclusive.  If  either  party 
shall  apply  to  the  court  for  leave  to  julduce  additional  evidence, 
and  sliall  sliow  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  <'ourt  that  such  addi- 
tional evidence  is  material  and  that  there  were  reasonable 
grounds  for  the  failure  to  adduce  such  evidence  in  the  proc^eed- 
ings  before  the  commission,  the  court  may  order  such  additional 
evidence  to  be  taken  before  tlie  commission  and  to  be  adduced 
upon  the  hearing  in  such  manner  and  upon  such  term§  and  con- 
ditions as  to  the  court  may  seem  proper.  The  commission  may 
modify  its  findings  as  to  the  facts,  or  make  new  findings,  by 
reason  of  the  additional  evidence  so  taken,  and  it  shall  file  .such 
modified  or  new  findings,  which,  if  supported  by  testimony,  shall 
be  conclusive,  and  its  recommendations,  if  any,  for  the  modifi- 
cation or  setting  aside  of  its  original  order,  with  the  return  of 
such  additional  evidence.  The  judgment  and  decree  of  the  court 
shall  be  final,  except  that  the  same  .shall  be  subjeot  to  re\iew  by 
the  Supreme  Court  upon  certiorari  as  provided  in  section  two 
hundred  and  forty  of  the  Judicial  Code. 

Any  party  required  by  such  order  of  the  eonnnission  to  cease 
and  desist  from  using  such  method  of  competition  may  obtain  a 


928  APPENDIX    M. 

rt'Viow  of  such  onlcr  in  saiil  circuit  court  of  appeals  liy  filiiiij;  in 
the  court  a  written  petition  praying  that  the  order  of  the  coin- 
nli^«ion  beset  aside.  A  copy  of  such  petition  sliall  be  forthwitli 
s<Tvrd  upon  Uie  conunission,  and  thereupon  tlie  coininissioii 
tortlnvith  shall  certify  juid  lile  in  the  court  a  transcript  of  the 
record  as  hereinbefore  proxided.  Upon  the  iW'iu^  of  the  tran- 
script the  court  shall  have  the  same  jurisdiction  to  aflinn,  set 
aside,  or  mo<lify  the  order  of  the  conunisKion  as  in  the  case  of  an 
application  by  the  connnission  for  the  enforcement  of  its  ord»r, 
and  the  findings  of  the  conunission  as  to  the  facts,  if  supported 
by  testimony,  shall  in  like  manner  1)e  conclusive. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  circuit  /.'ourt  of  apjieals  of  the  United 
States  to  enforce  set  aside,  or  modify  orders  of  the  commission 
.-sliall  be  exeliLsive. 

Such  proceedings  in  the  circuit  court  of  ai)peals  shall  be  given 
prtH'edence  over  other  eases  pending  therein,  and  shall  be  in 
i'ver>'  way  expedited.  No  order  of  the  commission  or  judgment 
of  the  court  to  enforce  the  same  shall  in  any  wise  relieve  or 
absolve  any  person,  partnership,  or  corporation  from  any  liabil- 
itv  under  the  antitrust  Acts. 

Complaints,  orders,  and  other  processes  of  the  comniisKion 
under  thus  .section  may  be  served  by  anyone  duly  authorized  l)y 
the  commLssion,  either  (a)  by  delivering  a  copy  thereof  to  the 
person  to  be  served,  or  to  a  member  of  the  partnership  to  be 
served,  or  to  the  president,  secretarj',  or  other  executive  officer 
or  a  director  of  the  corporation  to  be  served;  or  (b)  by  leaving 
a  copy  thereof  at  the  principal  office  or  place  of  business  of  such 
person,  partnership,  or  corporation  ;  or  (c)  by  registering  and 
nuiiling  a  copy  thereof  addressed  to  such  person,  partnership, 
or  corporation  at  his  or  its  principal  office  or  place  of  business. 
The  verified  return  by  the  person  so  serving  said  complaint. 
order,  or  other  proccv?  setting  forth  the  manner  of  said  serWce 
shall  be  proof  of  the  same,  and  the  retuni  po.st  office  receipt  for 
said  comphwnt.  order,  or  other  pro('es.s  registered  and  mailed 
jLs  aforesaid  shall  be  proof  o^'  the  sen'ice  of  the  same. 

Sfx'TION*  6.  [Additiotinl  jwwrrs.]  That  the  conuni.ssion  sliall 
also  have  power — 

(a)  To  gatlier  and  compile  information  cont'erning.  and  to 
investigate  from  time  to  time  the  orgjini/.ation,  bu.siness,  conduct, 


TFIK    KKDKKAli    TKADi:    <  ( ).\1  M ISSION    ACT.  O'JfJ 

practices,  and  management  of  any  corporation  cnRagcd  in  com- 
merce, exeejitinj;  Imnks  and  eomiiion  carriers  Kulijeet  to  the  Act 
to  ref^iilate  eommeree,  ami  its  relation  to  other  corporations 
and  to  individuals,  a.ssociation.s,  and  partnerships. 

(I))  To  reciuire,  by  general  or  special  orders,  corporations  en- 
gaged in  commerce,  excepting  banks,  and  common  wirriers  sub- 
ject to  the  Act  to  regulate  commerce,  or  any  class  of  them,  or 
any  of  them,  respectively,  to  file  with  the  commission  in  such 
form  as  the  commission  may  prescril)e  annual  or  s{)ecial,  or  Imth 
iiiniual  and  special,  icports  or  answers  in  wi-iting  to  specific 
(piestions,  rurnisliin;^  to  the  commission  such  information  as  it 
may  re<iuire  as  to  the  orfranization.  business,  conduct,  practices, 
management,  and  r"lation  to  other  corporations,  partnerships, 
and  imlividuals  of  the  respective  corporations  filing  such  re- 
ports or  answers  in  writing.  Such  reports  and  answers  shall  be 
made  under  oath,  or  otherwise,  as  the  commission  may  pre- 
scribe, and  shall  be  filed  with  the  commission  witliin  sucli  reason- 
able period  as  the  commission  may  prescribe,  unless  additional 
time  be  granted  in  any  cas»>  by  the  commission. 

(c)  Whenever  a  final  decree  bas  l)een  entered  against  any 
defendant  corporation  in  any  suit  brought  by  the  United  States 
to  prevent  and  restrain  any  violation  of  the  antitrust  Acts,  to 
make  investigation,  upon  its  own  initiative,  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  decree  lias  been  or  is  being  carried  out.  and  upon  the 
application  of  the  Attorney  General  it  shall  be  its  duty  to  make 
such  investigation.  It  shaP  transmit  to  the  Attorney  General  a 
report  embodying  its  findings  and  recommendations  as  a  result 
of  any  su'ch  investigation,  and  the  report  shall  be  made  public 
in  the  discretion  of  the  commission. 

(d)  Upon  the  direction  of  the  President  or  eitiier  House  of 
Congress  to  investigate  and  i-cport  the  facts  relating  to  any 
alleged  violations  of  the  antitrust  Acts  by  any  corporation. 

(e)  Upon  the  application  of  the  Attorney  General  to  investi- 
gate and  make  recommendations  for  the  readjustment  of  the 
business  of  any  corporation  alleged  to  be  violating  the  antitrust 
Acts  in  order  that  the  corporation  may  thereafter  maintain  its 
organization,  management,  and  coudu<;t  of  business  iu  accord- 
ance with  law. 


930  AIM'ENDIX     .M. 

(f)  To  niako  public  from  time  to  time  siu-h  portions  of  the 
infonnation  obtained  l>y  it  licnuiultr,  .xcept  tnule  secrets  ami 
jnunes  of  enstomers.  as  it  shall  deem  expedient  in  the  public 
intereM  ;  and  to  make  annual  and  speeial  ii'port.s  to  the  Con^rress 
and  to  sui)mit  then-with  reeonunendations  for  additional  Ici^ns- 
lation;  and  to  provide  for  tlie  puldication  of  it.s  rei)orts  and 
dei'isioiLs  in  sueh  form  and  manner  as  may  l>e  l>cst  adapted  for 
public  infonnation  ami  use. 

(g)  From  time  to  time  to  elassify  eorporations  and  to  make 
rules  and  regulations  for  tin-  purpose  of  larryint,'  out  the  pro- 
visions of  this  Act. 

(h)  To  inve.stipate,  from  time  to  time,  trade  conditions  in  and 
with  foreign  countries  where  a.ssociations,  eoml)iiuitions,  or  prac- 
tices of  manufacturers,  merchants,  or  traders,  or  other  con- 
ditions, may  afTeet  the  foreign  trade  of  the  United  States,  and  to 
report  to  Congress  thereon,  with  such  reeonunendations  as  it 
deems  ad\'isable. 

Section  7.  \M(iy  act  as  mnstor  in  chinc&ry  when.]  That 
in  any  suit  in  equity  brought  by  or  under  the  direction  of  the 
Attorney  fJenend  as  provided  in  the  antitrust  Acts,  the  eourt 
may,  upon  the  conclusion  of  the  testimony  therein,  if  it  shall  l)e 
then  of  opinion  that  the  iTjmplainant  is  entitled  to  relief,  refer 
said  suit  to  the  commission,  as  a  master  in  chancery,  to  ascertain 
and  report  an  appropriate  form  of  decree  therein.  The  com- 
mission shall  prm-eed  upon  such  notice  to  the  parties  and  under 
such  rules  of  procedure  as  the  court  imiy  prescribe,  and  upon 
tlie  coming  in  of  such  report  such  ewcptions  may  be  filed  and 
such  i)roceedings  had  in  relation  thereto  as  upon  the  report  of 
a  master  in  other  equity  c-aus<'s.  but  the  court  may  adopt  or 
reject  such  report,  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  enter  such  decree  as 
the  nature  of  the  case  may  in  its  judgment  require. 

Si-XTioN  8.  [liecords,  etc.,  of  governmental  departments 
furnished  cotnmis.'<ion.\  That  tl>e  s<'veral  departments  and 
bureaus  of  the  CJovernment  when  directed  by  the  President  shall 
furnish  tlie  commission,  upon  its  itMpiest.  all  reconls.  papers. 
and  information  in  their  possession  relating  to  any  eoiporation 
subject  to  any  of  the  pronsions  of  this  Act,  and  sjiall  detail  from 


THE   FEDERAL   TRADE   COMMISSION    ACT.  031 

tiliie  In  tiiiir  Mii'li  olTiciaLs  aini  rinployccH  to  tlu;  coinmisftioii  as 
he  may  dirt'Ct. 

isECTiox  1).  [Documental !i  critlence — attendance  of  wn<- 
■nesses — depositions — incriniitiatin;/    cridmce.]  'I'luit    for  the 

purposes  of  this  Act  the  coiimiis.sidii,  or  its  duly  authorized 
a«,'(Mit  or  a^i'iits,  sliall  at  all  reasonable  times  liave  ac<'ess  to,  for 
the  puri)()se  of  exaiiiiiiatioii,  and  tin;  ri^^ht  to  eopy  any  docu- 
mentary evidence  of  any  corporal  ion  hcin-;  investigated  or  pro- 
ceeded a«rainst;  and  the  coniniission  sliall  liave  po%ver  to  require 
by  suhixena  the  attendance  and  testimony  of  witnesses  and  the 
production  of  all  such  (locuiiient-ary  evidence  relating:  tt)  any  mat- 
ter un(h'r  investiiration.  Any  memher  of  the  <'onimission  may  sif^i 
subpd'iuis,  and  members  and  examiners  of  the  commission  may 
administer  oaths  and  affirmations,  examine  witnesses,  and  receive 
evidence. 

Such  attendance  of  witne.s.ses,  and  the  production  of  such 
documentary  evidence,  may  l)e  required  from  any  place  in  tlie 
United  States,  at  any  desiprnated  place  of  hcarinpr.  And  in  case 
of  disobedience  to  a  subptena  the  commission  may  invoke  the 
aid  of  any  court  of  the  United  States  in  requiring  the  attendance 
and  testimony  of  Aptnesses  and  the  production  of  documentary 
evidence. 

Any  of  the  district  courts  of  the  United  States  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  which  such  inquiry  is  carried  on  may,  in  case  of 
contumacy  or  refusal  to  obey  a  subpoena  issued  to  any  cor- 
poration or  other  person,  issue  an  order  requiring  such  cor- 
poration or  other  person  to  appear  before  the  commission,  or 
to  produce  documentary  evidence  if  so  ordered,  or  to  give  evi- 
dence touching  the  matter  in  question ;  and  any  failure  to  obey 
siich  order  of  the  court  may  be  punished  l)y  such  court  as  a 
contempt  thereof. 

Upon  the  application  of  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United 
States,  at  the  request  of  the  commission,  the  district  courts  of 
the  United  States  shall  have  jurisdiction  to  issue  writs  of  man- 
damus commanding  any  person  or  corporation  to  comply  with 
the  provisions  of  this  Act  or  any  order  of  the  commission  made 
in  pursuance  thereof. 

The  commission  may  order  testimony  to  be  taken  by  depo- 
sition in  any  proceeding  or  investigation  pending  under  this 


932  APPKN'DIX     M. 

Act  at  any  stage  of  such  procot'tliiii,'  or  iiiv«'stipation.  Siioli  dopo- 
sitions  may  l>e  taken  hcfore  any  person  designuti.l  by  the  eom- 
niission  and  having  power  to  ailniinisti-r  oaths.  Sueh  testimony 
sliall  be  redneeil  to  writing  l>y  the  person  taking  th.-  tleposition. 
or  under  his  dirwtion,  and  sliall  then  he  suhs(rihe<l  l»y  tlie 
deponent.  Any  person  may  he  eompelled  to  appear  and  depose 
and  to  produce  documentary  evidence  in  the  same  manner  as 
witnesses  may  be  compelled  to  a|)|>ear  and  testify  and  produce 
documentary  evidence  before  the  commission  as  hereinbefore 
]irovided. 

Witnesses  summoned  l)efore  the  commission  shall  l)e  pai<l  the 
Rame  fees  and  mileage  that  are  paid  witness's  in  the  courts 
of  the  United  States,  and  witnesses  whose  depositions 
are  taken  and  the  persons  taking  the  same  shall  severally  be 
entitled  to  the  same  fees  as  are  paid  for  like  services  in  the 
courts  of  the  I'nited  States. 

No  person  shall  l)e  excused  from  attending  and  testifying  or 
from  producing  documentnr>'  evidence  hefore  the  commission 
or  in  obedience  to  the  subpcena  of  the  commission  on  the  ground 
or  for  the  reason  that  the  testimony  or  evidence,  documentary  or 
otherwise,  required  of  him  may  tend  to  criminate  him  or  sub- 
ject him  to  a  penalty  or  forfeiture.  But  no  natural  person 
shall  be  prasecuted  or  subjwted  to  any  penalty  or  forfeiture 
for  or  on  account  of  any  transaction,  matter,  or  thing  concern- 
ing which  he  may  testify,  or  produce  evidence,  documentary' 
or  otherwise,  before  the  commission  in  obedience  to  a  subpcena 
issued  l»y  it :  Proridpff.  That  no  natural  person  so  testifying 
shall  be  exempt  from  i)rosecution  and  i)unishment  for  perjury 
committed  in  so  testifying. 

Section  10.  \I'c)i(iltics.]  That  any  person  who  shall  neglect 
or  refuse  to  attend  and  testify,  or  to  answer  any  lawful  impiiry, 
or  to  produce  docutiientary  evidence,  if  in  his  power  to  do  so. 
in  obedience  to  the  sjibprena  or  lawful  requirement  of  the  com- 
mission, shall  be  guilty  of  an  offense  and  upon  conviction 
thereof  by  a  court  of  competent  juris<liction  shall  be  punished 
by  a  fine  of  not  les.s  than  il^l.OOO  or  more  than  .tr).Of>0,  or  by  im- 
prisomnent  for  not  more  tlian  one  year,  or  by  both  such  fine  and 
impri-sonment. 


TIIK    FEDKRAL   TRADE   COMMISSION    ACT.  'Jliii 

Any  person  who  sluill  willfully  iii;il<(',  or  cjiuxtc  to  Ik*  made, 
any  false  entry  or  statement  of  fact  in  any  report  rcfpiired  to 
be  made  under  this  Act.  or  who  sludl  willfully  make,  or  cause 
to  be  made,  any  false  entry  in  any  account,  record,  or  memo- 
randum kei)t  by  any  corporation  subject  to  this  Act,  or  who  sliall 
willfully  nejj;lect  or  fail  to  make,  or  cause  to  be  iiuule,  full,  tnie, 
and  correct  entries  in  sueh  accounts,  records,  or  memoranda,  of 
all  facts  and  transactions  appertaining^  to  the  busiiu'ss  of  such 
corporation,  or  who  shall  willfully  remove  out  of  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  United  States,  or  willfully  mutilate,  alter,  or  by  any  other 
means  falsify  any  documentary  evidence  of  such  eor[)oration, 
or  who  shall  willfully  refuse  to  submit  to  the  commission  or 
to  any  of  its  authorized  agents,  for  the  purpose  of  inspection 
and  taking  copies,  any  documentary  evidence  of  such  corpora- 
tion in  his  possession  or  within  his  control,,  shall  be  deemed 
guilty  of  an  offense  against  the  United  States,  and  shall  be  sub- 
ject, upon  conviction  in  any  court  of  the  United  States  of 
competent  juris'li'ction,  to  a  fine  of  not  less  than  $1,000  or  more 
than  $;"),000,  or  to  imprisonment  for  a  term  of  not  more  than 
tliree  years,  or  to  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment. 

If  any  corporation  required  by  this  Act  to  file  an  annual 
or  special  report  shall  fail  so  to  do  within  the  time  fixed  by  the 
commission  for  filing  the  same,  and  sueh  failure  shall  continue 
for  thirty  days  after  notice  of  such  default,  the  corporation 
shall  forfeit  to  the  United  States  the  sum  of  $100  for  each  and 
every  day  of  the  continuance  of  such  failure,  which  forfeiture 
shall  be  payable  into  the  Treasure'-  of  the  United  States,  and  .sliall 
be  recoverable  in  a  civil  suit  in  the  name  of  the  United  States 
brought  in  the  district  where  the  corporation  has  its  principal 
office,  or  in  any  district  in  which  it  shall  do  business.  It  shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  various  district  attorneys,  under  the  direction 
of  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States,  to  prosecute  for 
the  recovery  of  forfeitures.  The  i'osts  and  expenses  of  such 
prosecution  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  appropriation  for  the  ex- 
penses of  the  courts  of  the  TTnited  States. 

Any  officer  or  employe  of  the  commission  who  sliall  make 
public  any  information  obtained  by  the  commission  without  its 
authority,  unless  directed  by  a  court,  s'hall  be  deemed  guilty  of 
a  misdemeanor,  and,  upon  conviction  thereof,  shall  be  punished 


934  APPENDIX     M. 

by  a  lino  not  oxooodinp:  ii;r),000,  or  by  imprisonment  not  oxeoeding 
one  year,  or  I>y  line  and  imprisonment,  in  tlie  discretion  of  the 
eonrt. 

Section  11.  [Aiititi-ust  Acts  and  Acts  to  regulate  com- 
merce not  repealed.]  Nothing  contained  in  this  Act  shall  be 
construed  to  prevent  or  interfere  with  the  enforcement  of  the 
provisions  of  the  antitrust  Acts  or  the  Acts  to  regrulate  com- 
merce, nor  sliall  anything  contained  in  the  Act  be  construed  to 
alter,  modify,  or  repeal  the  said  antitrust  Acts  or  the  Acts  to 
regulate  coimnerce  or  any  part  or  part.s  thereof. 

PROVISIONS  OF    THE    CLAYTON    ANTITRUST    ACT,   DEFINING    OFFENSES 

AND  CONFERRING  JURISDICTION  TTPON   THE  FEDERAL 

TRADE   COMMISSION. 

(Act  October  15,  1!)14,  38  Stat.  L.  730.) 

Section  2.  That  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person  engaged 
in  commerce,  in  the  course  of  such  commerce,  either  directly 
or  indirectly  to  discriminate  in  price  between  different  pur- 
chasers of  commodities,  which  commodities  are  sold  for  use, 
consumption  or  resale  within  the  United  States  or  any  territory 
thereof  or  the  District  of  ('olumbia  or  any  insular  possession 
or  other  place  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  where 
the  effect  of  such  discrimination  may  be  to  substantially  lessen 
competition  or  tend  to  create  a  monopoly  in  any  line  of  com- 
merce: Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  prevent 
discrimination  in  price  between  purchasers  of  commodities  on 
account  of  differences  in  the  grade,  quality,  or  quantity  of  the 
commodity  sold,  or  that  makes  only  due  allowance  for  difference 
in  the  cost  of  selling  or  transportation,  or  discrimination  in 
price  in  the  same  or  different  communities  made  in  good  faith 
to  meet  competition  :  And  provided,  further.  That  nothing  herein 
contained  shall  i)revent  persons  engaged  in  selling  goods,  wares, 
or  merchandise  in  commerce  from  selecting  their  own  customers 
in  bona  fide  transactions  and  not  in  restraint  of  trade. 

Section  3.  That  it  shall  Ix'  unlawful  for  any  person  engaged 
in  commerce,  in  the  course  of  such  commerce,  to  lease  or  make 
a  sale  or  contract  for  .sale  of  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  machin- 
ery,  supplies   or   other   commodities,   whether  patented   or   un- 


THE    FEDERAL   TKADE    COMMISSION'    ACT. 


935 


patonted,  for  use,  consumption  or  rosalo  witliiu  tlio  United 
States  or  any  Territory  thereof  or  the  District  of  Cohimbia  or 
any  insular  possession  or  other  place  undci-  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  United  States,  or  fix  a  price  charged  therefor,  or  discount 
from,  or  rebate  upon,  such  price,  on  the  condition.  af,'reeinent 
or  understanding  that  the  lessee  or  purchaser  thereof  shall  not 
use  or  deal  in  the  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  macliincry,  supplies 
or  other  commodities  of  a  competitor  or  competitors  of  the  lessor 
or  seller,  where  the  effect  of  such  lease,  sale,  or  contract  for  sale 
or  such  condition,  agreement  or  understanding  may  he  to  sub- 
stantially lessen  competition  or  tend  to  create  a  monopoly  in 
any' line  of  commerce. 

Section  H.  [Enforcement  of  provisions  hy  interstate  com- 
merce commission-,  etc.— procedure.]  That  authority  to  enforce 
compliance  with  sections  two,  three,  seven  and  eight  of  this 
Act  by  the  persons  respectively  subject  thereto  is  hereby  vested : 
in  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  where  applicable 
to  common  carriers,  in  the  Federal  Reserve  Board  where  ap- 
plicahle  to  banks,  banking  associations  and)  trust  companies, 
and  in  the  Federal  Trade  Commission  where  applicable  to  all 
other  character  of  commerce,  to  be  exercised  as  follows : 

Whenever  the  commission  or  board  vested  with  jurisdiction 
thereof  shall  have  reason  to  believe  that  any  person  is  violating 
or  has  violated  any  of  the  provisions  of  sections  two.  three, 
seven  and  eight  of  this  Act,  it  shall  issue  and  serve  upon  such 
person  a  complaint  stating  its  charges  in  that  respect,  and  con- 
taining a  notice  of  a  hearing  upon  a  day  and  at  a  place  therein 
fixed  at  least  thirty  days  after  the  service  of  said  complaint. 
The -person  so  complained  of  shall  have  the  right  to  appear  at  the 
place  and  time  so  fixed  and  show  cause  why  an  order  should  not 
be  entered  hy  the  commission  or  board  requiring  such  person 
to  cease  and  desist  from  the  violation  of  the  law  so  charged  in 
said  complaint.  Any  person  may  make  application,  and  upon 
good  cause  shown  may  be  allowed  by  the  commission  or  board, 
to  intervene  and  appear  in  said  proceeding  by  counsel  or  in 
person.  The  testimony  in  any  such  proceeding  shall  be  reduced 
to  writing  and  filed  in  the  office  of  the  commission  or  board. 
If  upon  such  hearing  the  commission  or  board,  as  the  case  may 
be,  shall  be  of  the  opinion  that  any  of  the  provisions  of  said 


l)3G  AIM'KNDIX     M. 

st'ctions  luivo  hivii  or  an'  ln'in^'  violatctl,  it  sliall  make  a  roport 
in  writing  in  which  it  shall  statf  its  fiiuliiifrs  as  to  tlir  faits. 
aiiil  sliall  issue  antl  canst*  to  he  served  on  such  j)rrs()ii  an  order 
retjuirin^  such  peiNon  to  cease  and  desist  from  such  violations. 
and  ilivest  itself  of  the  stock  held  or  rid  it.self  t)l'  the  directors 
chasen  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  Heetions  seven  and  eight 
of  this  Ai't.  if  any  there  he,  in  the  manner  and  ■within  the  time 
fixed  hy  siiid  order.  Tntd  a  transcript  of  the  record  in  such 
hwirinp  shall  have  heen  filed  in  a  circuit  court  of  appeals  of 
tlie  United  States,  as  liereinafter  provided,  the  commission  or 
hoard^  may  at  any  time,  upon  such  notice  and  in  such  manner 
as  it  shall  deem  proper,  modify  or  set  aside,  in  whole  or  in 
j>art.  any  report  or  any  ordei-  nuule  or  is«sued  l)y  it  under  this 
section. 

[f  such  person  fails  or  nep:lects  to  ohey  suth  onh'r  of  the 
commi.ssion  or  hoard  while  the  same  is  in  effect,  the  commis- 
sion or  ])oard  may  apply  to  the  circuit  court  of  appeals  of 
the  I'liited  States,  within  any  circuit  where  the  violation  com- 
plained of  was  or  is  l)eing  committed  or  where  such  pei-son 
resides  or  carries  on  husiness.  for  the  enforcement  of  its  order, 
and  shall  cei-tify  and  file  with  its  application  a  transcript  of  the 
entire  record  in  the  proceedinor,  including  all  the  testimony 
taken  and  the  report  and  order  of  the  commission  or  lx)ard. 
U[)on  such  filinj;  of  the  api)licvition  and  transcript  the  court 
shall  cau.se  notice  thereof  to  l>o  seninl  upon  sucii  person  and 
thereupon  shall  have  jurisdiction  of  the  proceedinfr  and  of  the 
«|Uestion  detci'mined  therein,  and  shall  liave  ])ower  to  make  and 
enter  upon  the  pleadinpfs,  testimony,  iind  pniceedings  set  forth 
in  sucli  transcript  a  decree  afl[iniiin<r.  iiiodifyiti<r.  or  setting; 
aside  the  order  of  the  conunission  or  hoard.  The  findings  of 
the  commission  or  hoard  as  to  the  facts,  if  .supported  by  testi- 
mony, shall  he  conclusive.  If  <'ither  party  shnll  apply  to  the 
court  for  leave  to  adduce  achlitional  evidence,  and  sliall  show 
to  the  .satisfaction  of  the  court  that  such  additional  evidence  is 
material  and  that  there  were  reasonahle  grounds  for  the  failure 
to  a<Muce  such  evidence  in  the  i»rocecding  hefone  the  commi.ssion 
or  board,  the  court  may  order  such  additional  evidence  to  he 
t-aken  before  the  commission  or  Imard  and  to  he  a<lduced  upon 
the  hearing  iu  such  luauucr  aud  upou  such   terms  and   con- 


TlIK    y\:i)l:H\U    Tl;\|)J-.    (JUM. MISSION     ACT.  'Xil 

ditions  as  to^  tlic  ('(riii-t  may  scciii  pidjx'i'.  'I'lio  oomiiiisKioii  or 
hoard  may  modil'y  its  fiiidini^s  as  to  the  facts,  or  inakf  m?\v 
Hndiiig><,  l)y  reason  of  the  aildifioiial  evidt'ncc  so  taken,  and  it 
shall  file  such  moditied  or  new  tindin}^,  whieh,  if  snjtported  by 
testimony,  shall  he  eoneinsive,  and  its  recommendation,  if  any, 
for  llie  mo<iificalioii  or  settiiif^  aside  of  its  orij^inal  onJer,  with 
the  retnr-n  of  such  additional  evidence.  The  jud^nent  and 
decree  of  the  court  shall  l>e  final,  except  that  the  same  shall 
he  subject  to  review  by  the  Supreme  Court  upon  <jertiorari  a.s 
provided  in  section  two  hundred  and  forty  of  the  Judicial  Code. 

Any  party  required  l)y  such  order  of  the  commission  or  l)oard 
to  cease  and  desist  from  «.  violation  charged  may  obtain  a  review 
of  such  order  in  said  circuit  court  of  appeals  hy  filing  in  the 
court  a  written  petition  praying  that  the  order  of  the  com- 
nii.ssion  or  board  l)e  set  aside.  A  copy  of  such  petition  sliall  Ixi 
forthwith  served  upon  the  commission  or  l)oard,  and  thereupon 
the  commission  or  board  forthwith  shall  certify  and  file  in  the 
court  a  transcript  of  the  record  a-s  hereinbefore  provided.  Upon 
the  filing  of  the  transcript  the  court  shall  have  the  same  juris- 
diction to  aflfirm,  set  aside,  or  modify  the  order  of  the  -commis- 
sion or  board  as  in  the  case  of  an  application  by  the  commission 
or  board  for  the  enforcement  of  its  order,  and  the  findings  of 
the  commission  or  board  as  to  the  facts,  if  supported  hy  testi- 
mony, shall  in  like  manner  be  conclusive. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  circuit  I'ourt  of  appeals  of  the  United 
States  to  enforce,  set  aside,  or  modify  orders  of  the  commis- 
sion or  board  shall  be  exclusive. 

Such  proceedings  in  the  circuit  court  of  appeals  shall  be 
given  precedence  over  other  cases  pending  therein,  and  shall 
be  in  every  way  expedited.  No  order  of  the  <?ommission  or 
board  or  the  judgment  of  the  court  to  enforce  the  same  s^iall  in 
any  wise  relieve  or  absolve  any  person  from  any  liahility  under 
the  antitrust  Acts. 

Complaints,  orders,  and  other  processes  of  the  commission 
or  board  under  this  section  may  be  served  by  anyone  duly 
authorized  by  the  commission  or  board,  either  (a)  by  delivering 
a  copy  thereof  to  the  person  to  be  served,  or  to  a  member  of 
the  partnership  to  be  served,  or  to  the  president,  secretarj',  or 
other  executive  officer  or  a  director  of  the  corporation  to  be 


1)38  M'l-KNKIX     M. 

servotl:  or  0^)  'O'  IfavinK'  a  copy  thcroof  at  tho  principal  office 
or  plai'i'  of  Imsiiu'ss  of  sin  h  person;  or  (c)  hy  n-nistcriii^;  ami 
mailing  a  i-opy  thereof  addn'sscil  to  such  person  at  his  principal 
oflicc  or  place  of  husiness.  The  vcrilicd  return  by  the  person  so 
.serving'  saiil  complaint,  order,  or  otlier  i)rocess  set  tint; 'forth 
the  manner  of  said  service  shall  he  i)roof  of  the  same,  and  the 
return  post-oflice  receipt  for  said  complaint,  order,  or  other 
process  registered  and  mailed  as  ufores^aid  shall  he  proof  of 
the  service  of  the  .same. 

Inhrrrctations  of  the  Clayton  Act.  "The  .statute  does  not 
in  terms  except  from  its  operation  any  agreements  or  contracts, 
past,  present  or  future,  and  in  the  absence  of  such  exception, 
it  is  to  l)e  presumed  that  Congress  intended  to  prohibit  not  only 
the  nwdxing  of  future  contracts  but  also  the  furtlu-r  perform- 
ance of  past  contracts  of  the  kind  specified.  *  *  *  It  is  now 
too  well  settled  to  admit  of  controversy  that  a  contract  to  do  a 
thing,  lawful  when  made,  may  be  avoided  by  sub.se(pient  legis- 
lation making  it  uidawwful  and  that  an  Act  of  Congress  may  law- 
fully affect  rigiits  wliicli  had  their  inception  before  its  passage." 
Sessions,  J.,  in  Elliott  Machine  Co.  v.  Center,  227  Fed.  Rep. 
124.  "This  statute  [Clayton  Act,  sec.  3]  forbids  the  converse 
of  the  acts  complained  of  in  the  i)resent  action,  and  we  have 
nothing  to  do  with  wliat  might  l^appen  if  the  Green  tniding 
stamp  people  were  seeking  to  forbid  the  usi-  l)y  its  subscribers 
of  any  other  kind  of  trading  stamps.  This  might  or  might  not 
he  a  restriction  upon  competition  or  tend  to  effect  a  mono|>oly." 
Chatfield,  J.,  in  Spcrrij  t(-  Hutchinson  Co.  v.  Fcnstcr,  210  Fed. 
Rep.  755. 

As  to  an  alleged  violation  of  §  3  of  the  Cla>'ton  Act  as 
a  defense  to  a  suit  for  trademark  infringement,  see  Coca-Cola 
Co.  V.  Butler,  229  Fed.  Rep.  224,  233,  and  ante  p.  156. 

Kl'LKS  OF  PHACTICF  HEFOKF  TIIF  CO.MMISSION. 
fAdoptjHl  .Tuni-  17.  ll'l."..) 

I.  Se.«;rioxs.  The  principal  office  of  the  Commission  at  Wash- 
ington. 1).  C,  is  open  each  business  day  from  9  A.  M.  to  4:30 
P.  M.  The  Corinni.ssion  nuiy  meet  and  exercise  all  its  powers  at 
any  other  place,  and  may,  by  one  or  more  of  its  members,  or  by 


TIIK    ri;i)K|{M,    TUADK    COMMISSION    ACT.  939 

such  cxaiiiiiuTs  ;i.s  it  luay  designate,  prosecute  any  iiHUiii'y  neces- 
sary to  its  duties  in  any  part  of  the  rnitcd  States. 

Sessions  of  the  Commission  for  hcarinfi;  contested  prociiedin^^s 
will  lie  held  as  ordered  hy  the  Coiiniiission. 

Sessions  of  the  Commission  for  the  puipose  of  making  orders 
and  for  tlic  transaction  of  other  business,  unless  otherwise 
ordered,  will  he  held  at  the  oflice  of  the  Cotinnission  at  Wash- 
ington, 1).  (J.,  on  each  business  day  at  10 :30  A.  M.  Three  mem- 
bers of  the  (.'onnnission  shall  constitute  a  quorum  for  the  transac- 
tion of  business. 

All  orders  of  th(!  Comniission  shall  be  signed  by  the  secretary. 

II.  Complaints.  Any  person,  partnership,  corporation  or 
association  may  apply  to  the  Coinmission  to  institute  a  proceed- 
ing in  respect  to  any  violation  of  law  over  which  the  Commission 
has  jurisdiction. 

Such  application  shall  be  in  writing,  signed  by  or  m  behalf  of 
the  applicant,  and  .shall  contain  a  short  and  simple  statement  of 
the  facts  con.stituting  the  alleged  violation  of  law  and  the  name 
and  address  of  the  applicant  and  of  the  party  complained  of. 

The  Commission  shall  investigate  the  matters  complained  of  in 
such  application,  and  if.  upon  investigation,  it  shall  appear  to 
the  Commission  that  there  is  a  violation  of  law  over  which  the 
Commis.sion  has  jurisdiction,  the  Commission  shall  issue  and 
serve  upon  the  party  complained  of  a  complaint  .stating  its 
charges  and  containing  a  notice  of  a  hearing  upon  a  day  and 
at  a  place  therein  fixed  at  lea.st  forty  days  after  the  service  of 
said  complaint. 

III.  Answers.  Within  thirty  days  from  the  service  of  the 
complaint,  unless  such  time  be  extended  by  order  of  the  Com- 
mission, the  defendant  shall  file  with  the  Commission  an  answer 
to  the  C9mplaint.  Snch  answer  shall  contain  a  short  and  simple 
statement  of  the  facts  which  constitute  the  ground  of  defense. 
It  shall  specifically  admit  or  deny  or  explain  each  of  the  facts 
alleged  in  the  complaint,  unless  the  defendant  is  without  knowl- 
edge, in  which  ease  he  shall  so  state,  such  statement  operating 
as  a  denial. 

Answers  in  typewriting  must  be  on  one  side  of  the  paper  only. 
on  paper  not  more  than  S^A  inches  wide  and  not  more  than  11 


mo  ai'1'i:ni>ix    m. 

inehos  lonp,  and  \voigliin«;  not  less  than  Ifi  pounds  to  the  roam, 
folio  hase.  17  hy  •22  inelu's,  with  left-hand  niarj^in  not  less  than 
li/j  inches  wide,  or  they  may  he  i)rinted  in  10  or  I'i-point  type 
on  pood,  uncrlazed  paper  8  inches  wide  hy  IOV2  inches  long,  with 
inside  margins  not  less  than  1  inch  wide. 

IV.  Servick.  Coiiiplaiiif.s,  ordci-s  and  other  processes  of  the 
Commission  may  be  served  by  any  one  duly  authorized  by  the 
Connnission,  either  (a)  by  delivering  a  copy  thereof  to  the  person 
to  be  served,  or  to  a  mend)er  of  the  partnership  to  be  served, 
or  to  the  presiilent.  secretary,  or  other  executive  officer,  or  a 
director,  of  the  corporation  or  association  to  l)e  served:  or  (b) 
by  leaving  a  copy  thereof  at  the  principal  office  or  place  of  busi- 
ness of  such  person,  partnership,  corporation,  or  association;  or 
(q)  by  registering  and  mailing  a  copy  thereof  addressed  to  such 
person,  partnership,  corporation,  or  association  at  his  or  its 
principal  office  or  place  of  business.  The  vertified  return  by  the 
person  so  serving  said  complaint,  order  or  other  pi-ocess,  setting 
forth  the  manner  of  said  service,  shall  be  proof  of  the  same, 
and  the  return  post-office  receipt  for  said  complaint,  order,  or 
other  process,  registered  and  mailed  as  aforesaid,  shall  be  proof 
of  the  service  of  the  same. 

V.  Interventiox.  Any  person,  partnership,  corporation, 
or  association  desiring  to  intervene  in  a  contested  proceeding 
shall  make  application  in  writing,  setting  out  the  grounds  on 
which  he  or  it  claims  to  be  interested.  The  Commission  may,  by 
order,  permit  intervention  by  counsel  or  in  person  to  such  extent 
and  upon  sneh  terms  as  it  shall  deem  just. 

Application  to  intervene  must  be  on  one  side  of  the  paper  only, 
on  paper  not  more  than  8V0  inches  wide  and  not  more  than  11 
inches  long,  and  weighing  not  less  than  16  pounds  to  the  ream, 
folio  base.  17  by  22  inches,  with  left-hand  margin  not  less  than 
IVii  inches  wide,  or  they  may  be  jinnted  in  10  or  r2-point  type 
on  good,  unglazed  paper,  8  inclies  wide  by  lOi/j  inches  long, 
with  inside  margins  not  less  tlian  1  iiu-li  wid(» 

VI.  C()NTiKr.\N('i>;  AND  r.XTKNsioxs  OF  TIME.  Contiiiuances 
and  extensions  of  time  will  be  granted  at  the  discretion  of  the 
Commission. 


THE    FEDKHAI-    'IKADi;    COMMISSION    ACT.  041 

VIT.  Witnesses  and  subpoenas.  Witncssos  shall  be  oxam- 
iiu'd  orally,  except  that  for  jrood  and  exceptional  cause  for  <ie- 
partinf?  from  the  j^cneral  rule,  the  Couiniission  may  permit  their 
testimony  to  be  taken  by  deposition. 

Subpoenas  requiring  the  attendance  of  witnesses  from  any  place 
in  the  United  States  at  any  designated  place  of  hearing  may  be 
issued  by  any  member  of  the  Commission. 

Subp(pnas  for  the  production  of  documentary  evidence  (unless 
directed  to  issue  by  a  commissioner  upon  his  own  motion)  will 
issue  oidy  upon  application  in  writing,  which  must  he  verified 
and  must  specify,  as  near  as  may  be,  the  documents  desired  and 
the  facts  to  be  proved  by  them. 

"Witnesses  summoned  before  the  Commission  shall  be  paid  the 
same  fees  and  mileage  that  are  paid  Avitnesses  in  the  courts  of 
the  United  States,  and  witnesses  whose  depositions  are  taken, 
and  the  persons  taking  the  same,  shall  severall}^  be  entitled  to  the 
same  fees  as  are  paid  for  like  services  in  the  courts  of  the 
United  States. 

VIII.  Depositions  in  contested  proceedings.  The  Commis- 
sion may  order  testimony  to  be  taken  by  deposition  in  contested 
proceeding. 

Depositions  may  be  taken  before  any  person  designated  by 
the  Commission  and  having  power  to  administer  oaths. 

Any  party  desiring  to  take  the  deposition  of  a  witness  shall 
make  application  in  writing,  setting  out  the  reasons  why  such 
depasition  should  be  taken,  and  stating  the  time  when,  the 
place  Avhere.  and  the  name  and  past-office  address  of  the  person 
before  whom  it  is  desired  the  deposition  be  taken,  the  name  and 
post-office  address  of  the  witness,  and  the  subject-matter  or 
matters  concerning  which  the  witness  is  expected  to  testify.  If 
good  cause  be  shown,  the  Commission  wall  make  and  serve  upon 
the  parties,  or  their  attorneys,  an  order  wherein  the  Commission 
shall  name  the  witness  whose  deposition  is  to  be  taken  and 
specify  the  time  when,  the  place  where,  and  the  person  before 
whom  the  witness  is  to  testify,  with  such  time  and  place,  and  the 
person  before  whom  the  deposition  is  to  be  taken,  so  specified  in 
the  Commission's  order,  may  or  may  not  be  the  same  as  those 
named  in  said  application  to  the  Commission. 


042  AIM'KNKIX     M. 

The  tostimony  of  tlio  wiliiess  shall  )»<>  rchici^l  Ui  writiiifj  by 
tJu-  oflictr  JK'fore  whom  tlu*  ih-positioii  is  taken,  or  uiitliM*  his  iliivc- 
tion,  after  \vhi«'h  the  tlcposition  shall  hv  subscrilH'tl  In  tiic  wit- 
lu'ss  and  oertiiiod  in  usual  form  hy  thV  ofTu'iT.  After  tlu'  depo- 
sititm  has  been  so  certified,  it  shall,  toj^ether  with  a  copy  thereof, 
nuide  by  such  oftieer  or  undir  his  direction,  Ix;  forwarded  by 
such  officer  under  seal  in  an  envelope  addressed  to  tlie  Commis- 
sion at  its  office  in  Wasliinf»ton.  D.  C.  T^pon  r(»ceipt  of  the  depo- 
sition and  co|iv.  the  Commission  sliall  file  in  the  record  in  said 
proeeedinps  such  deposition  and  forward  the  copy  to  the  defend- 
ant or  the  defendant's  attorney. 

Such  depositions  shall  ho  typewritten  on  om^  side  oidy  of  the 
paper,  wliich  sliall  be  not  more  than  S^-j  indies  wide  and  not 
more  than  11  inches  lon<i  and  \veiirhin<x  not  less  than  10  pounds 
to  the  ream,  folio  base,  17  by  22  inches,  with  left-hand  niary-in 
not  less  than  ll/o  inches  wide. 

No  deposition  shall  be  taken  except  after  at  least  six  days' 
notice  to  the  parties,  and  where  the  deposition  is  taken  in  a 
foreifjn  country,  such  notice  shall  be  at  least  fifteen  clan's. 

Xo  deposition  shall  be  taken,  either  before  the  proceeding'  is 
at  issue,  or.  uidess  under  special  circumstances  and  for  jrood  cause 
shown,  within  ten  days  prior  to  the  date  of  the  bearing  thereof 
assi^'uecl  by  the  Commission,  and  where  the  deposition  is  taken 
in  a  foreiirn  country,  it  shall  not  be  taken  after  thirty  days  prior 
to  such  date  of  hearing. 

IX.  l)(i(TMKXT.\RY  EviDKNCE.  Where  relevant  and  material 
matter  ofTcrcl  in  evidence  is  embraced  in  a  document  containing 
other  matter  not  material  or  relevant  and  not  intended  to  b* 
I)ut  in  evider.ce,  such  document  will  not  be  filed,  but  a  copy  only 
of  such  relevant  and  material  matter  shall  be  filed. 

X.  Rhiefs.  Unless  otherwise  ordered,  briefs  may  l>o  filed  at 
the  close  of  the  teiitimony  in  each  contested  proceeding.  The 
presiding  Commissioner  or  examiner  shiJl  fix  the  time  within 
whir-h  liriefs  shall  be  filed  and  service  thereof  shall  be  made  upon 
the  adverse  parties. 

All  briefs  must  be  filed  with  tiie  secretary  and  be  accompanied 
Ijy  f)rof)f  of  service  upon  the  adverse  j)arties.     Fifteen  copies  of 


Tiir:  Ki;i>i;ic  \i.   ihvdk  <  mm. mission   act.  I)4;5 

each  l)i'i('r  shall  he  I'lii-iiislipd  for  llir-  use  of  thn  rommission, 
unless  otlirrwisc  ordered. 

Applieatioii  for  extension  of  lime  in  wli'eli  lo  (lie  any  brief 
sliall  he  hy  petition  in  writiiij;,  stating;  the  facts  upon  which  thn 
application  rests,  wliich  nnist  he  fihMl  with  the  ( 'oininission  at 
least  five  days  hefore  I  lie  time  foi-  lilinj,'  the  hrief. 

Kv«'ry  hrief  shall  rontain,  in  tlir  ofdrr  hei-e  stated: 

(1)  A  concise  abstract,  or  statornont  of  the  ease. 

(2)  A  hrief  of  the  arjjrnment.  exliihitint;  a  clear  statement 
of  the  i)!)ints  of  fact  or  law  to  he  discussed,  with  tlie  reference  to 
the  paires  (if  tli<'  i-ccord  ami  Mic  au1  lioi'it  ies  relied  upon  in  sup- 
port of  each  point. 

Every  hrief  of  moi-e  than  ten  pa^'es  shall  i-ontain  on  its  top  fly 
leaves  a  subject  index  with  page  references,  the  subject  indexed 
to  be  supi)lementeil  by  a  list  of  all  ca-ses  referred  to,  alphabeti- 
cally arran<red.  toi^ether  witli  reference  to  i)af;es  were  the  cases 
are  cited. 

liriefs  must  be  printed  in  10  or  12  point  type  on  prood  unKla/ed 
paper,  8  inches  by  lO'/.  inches,  with  inside  marpins  not  less  than 
1  inch  widt  ,  and  with  double-leaded  text  and  single-leaded  cita- 
tions. 

Oral  ar<,Miments  will  be  had  oidy  as  order*'*!  l)y  the  Commission. 

XI.  Address  of  the  commission.  All  conmumications  to  the 
Commission  must  be  addressed  to  Federal  Trade  Commission, 
Washington,  D.  C,  unless  otherwise  specifically  directed. 


APPHNDIX  N 

FALSE  STAMPING. 

(Aot  >'f  .liiiM-  \:\.  liMlO.  CU.  ;{-2S!t.  .U  Stat.  L.  260.) 

AN  ACT  forbiddinf;  tin-  im|u>rtat  ion.  rxjiortntion,  or  onrriajif  in  intorstatc 
I'Ofiinu'n'o  of  falsfly  or  hpiiriouhly  stiiniju'd  artifU's  of  iiiori-liandisc 
niiulo  of  ^old  or  sjlvrr  or  tlu-ir  alloys,  and   for  otlu-r  imriH)»es. 

Section  1.    Goin    and    .siiakr    articlk.s — interstate,    etc., 

TRANS.MI.S.<ION   OK   FAI-SEI  Y  STAillED,   FORHIDDEN.      Tliat   it   shall  be 

unlawful  for  any  piTson.  lirm,  oorporatioti  or  {Uvsociation,  hoiiifj 
a  manufacturer  of  or  wholesale  or  retail  dealer  in  ^oKl  or  silver 
jewelry  or  goldwaro,  .silver  goods  or  silverware,  or  for  any  offieer, 
manager,  tiireetor,  or  agent  of  such  firm,  eorporation  or  associa- 
ti<»n  to  import  or  export  or  cause  to  be  imported  into  or  exported 
from  the  Tnited  States  for  the  purpose  of  selling  or  disposing 
of  the  .same,  or  to  deposit  or  cause  to  be  deposited  in  the  United 
States  mails  for  transmission  thereby,  or  to  deliver  or  cause  to 
be  delivered  to  any  common  carrier  for  transportation  from  one 
state,  territory  or  passession  of  the  United  States,  or  the  Di.strict 
of  Columl)ia,  to  any  other  stati',  territory  or  passi'.ssion  of  the 
United  States,  or  to  said  District,  in  interstate  commerce,  or  to 
transport  or  cause  to  Ix'  transported  from  one  state,  territory  or 
])o.ssession  of  the  United  States,  or  from  the  District  of  Columbia, 
to  any  other  .state,  territory  or  possession  of  the  United  States, 
or  to  said  District,  in  interstate  connnerce,  any  article  of  mer- 
chandi.se  manufactured  after  the  date  when  this  act  takes  effect 
and  made  in  whole  or  in  part  of  gold  or  silver,  or  any  alloy  of 
either  of  said  metals,  and  having  stamped,  branded,  engraved  or 
I»rinted  thereon,  or  upon  any  tag.  card  or  label  attached  thereto, 
or  upon  any  box.  package,  cover  or  wrap[)er  in  which  said  article 
is  inca-sed  or  inclosed,  any  mnrk  or  word  indicating  or  designed 
or  intended  to  indicate  that  the  gold  or  .silver  alloy  of  either  of 
said  metals  in  such  article  is  of  a  greater  detrree  of  fineness  than 
the  actual  fineness  or  f|uality  of  such  gold,  silver  or  alloy,  accord- 
ing to  the  standards  and  subject  to  the  rpialifit  ations  set  forth 
in  sections  two  and  three  of  this  act. 
944 


FALSE   STAMPING.  945 

Section  2.     rioi.D   akticf.is— dkviation    kkom    .makkkd   kink- 

NESS  AI.U)\VKD TESTS — ACTUAL  KINP:NI'>iS  RWiniKKD.      That  ill   tho 

viisc  of  articles  of  rncrchaiidisc  iiunlc  in  whole  or  in  i)art  of  j;ol(l 
or  of  any  of  its  alloys  so  iriiportcd  into  or  ('X()ortc(l  from  the 
United  States,  or  so  deposited  in  th.-  I'nitt-d  States  mails  for 
transMiission,  or  s<»  delivered  for  f  r';in-;i»nrt}it  ion  to  any  coininon 
ean-ier.  or  so  transported  or  eaused  to  he  trans()orted  as  specified 
in  the  (ii'st  section  of  this  act.  the  acfnal  fineness  f)f  such  ^'ol<i 
or  alloy  shall  not  he  less  hy  more  than  one-half  of  one  carat  than 
the  fineness  indieateil  )»y  the  mark  stamped,  handed,  i-n^'raved 
or  printed  upon  an\-  pai-t  of  sindi  article,  or  upon  any  tajr.  <'ard 
oi-  lal»el  attaclied  thereto,  or  unon  anv  hox.  paekaf?e,  v'over  or 
wi-apper  in  which  such  article  is  ijieased  or  iiidosed  ;  exeept  that 
in  the  case  of  wateh  eases  and  flat  ware,  so  made  of  pfold  or  of 
any  of  its  alloys,  the  actual  fineness  of  such  jrold  or  alloy  shall 
not  he  Ies.s  hy  more  than  three  one-thousandth  parts  than  the 
fineness  indieated  hy  the  mark  stamped,  hranded,  enqrraved  or 
printed  upon  sueh  artiele.  or  unon  any  tasr.  eard  or  lahel  attac'' 
thereto,  or  upon  any  hox.  naekage.  eover  or  wrapper  in  whi<' 
such  artiele  is  ineased  or  inelosed  :  Provided.  That  in  any  test  for 
the  aseertainmnt  of  the  fineness  of  any  artiele  mentioned  in  this 
seetion,  aceordin?  to  the  foreeoinp:  standards,  the  part  of  the 
artiele  taken  for  the  test,  analysis  or  assay  shall  he  such  part  or 
portion  as  does  not  eontain  or  have  attached  thereto  any  solder 
or  allov  of  inferior  fineness  used  for  hrazin^  or  nnitin»  the  parts 
of  said  article  :  Prnn'rhfl.  further.  That  in  the  ca.se  of  any  article 
mentioned  in  this  section,  in  addition  to  the  fore^oin^  tests  and 
standards,  the  actual  fineness  of  the  entire  rpiantity  of  gold  or 
of  its  allovs  contained  in  such  article,  includinfr  all  solder  and 
alloy  of  inferior  fineness  used  for  hrazinc:  or  uniting  the  parts 
of  such  arti':'le  fall  such  ffold.  allovs  and  solder  heing  assayed 
as  one  piece),  shall  not  he  less  hy  more  than  one  carat  than  the 
fineness  indicated  hv  the  mark  .stamped,  hranded,  engraved  or 
imprinted  unon  such  article,  or  upon  any  tag,  card  or  lahel  at- 
tached thereto,  or  upon  any  hox,  package,  cover  or  wrapper  in 
which  such  article  is  incased  or  inclosed,  it  heing  intended  that 
the  standards  of  fineness  and  the  tests  or  methods  for  ascertain- 
ing the  same  provided  *in  this  section  for  articles  mentioned 
therein  shall  be  concurrent  and  not  alternative. 


"'ti",  MTKNUIX    N. 

SkCTIOK    n.       SiLVKR    ARTICLF-^ — DKVIATIOK    FROM    M ARKFD    FINE- 

Nf:ss  AU^)WKr) — "stkrlino"  uoods — "coin"  couns-^DiviauJKNtM-: 
rKKMinEi>-^TF:sis — acti'al  fineness  REyriitKn.  Tluit  in  tlir  cas** 
of  articles  of  incrchMixlisr  made  in  whole  or  in  part  of  silver  or 
any  of  its  nlloys  so  imported  into  or  exported  from  the  United 
States,  or  so  deposited  in  the  Tnited  States  mails  for  transmis- 
sion, or  so  delivered  for  transportation  to  any  eommon  carrier,  or 
so  transportinl  or  eansed  to  transported  as  speeifieil  in  the  first 
section  of  this  act.  the  actual  fineness  of  the  silver  or  alloy  thereof 
of  which  such  article  is  wholly  or  partly  composed  shall  not  be 
less  by  more  than  four  one-thousandth  parts  than  the  actual  fine- 
ness indicated  by  any  mark  (other  than  the  word  "sterling"  or 
the  word  "coin")  stamped,  branded,  enprraved  or  printed  ujion 
any  part  of  such  article,  or  upon  any  tap.  card  or  label  attached 
thereto,  or  upon  any  box,  package,  cover  or  wrapper  in  which 
such  article  is  inca.sed  or  inclased  ;  and  that  no  such  article  or 
tap,  card  or  label  attached  thereto,  or  box,  packape.  cover  or 
wrapper  in  which  such  article  is  incased  or  inclosed  shall  be 
marked,  stamped,  branded,  enpraved  or  printed  with  the  word 
"sterlinp"  or  "sterlinp  silver"  or  any  colorable  imitation  there- 
of, unless  such  article  or  parts  thereof  purportinp  to  be  silver 
contains  nine  hundred  and  twenty-five  one-thousandth  parts  pure 
silver;  and  that  no  such  article,  tap,  card,  label,  box,  packape, 
cover  or  wrapper  shall  be  marked,  stamped,  branded,  enpraved 
or  printed  with  the  words  "coin"  or  "coin  silver"  or  colorable 
imitation  thereof  unless  such  article  or  part.s  thereof  purportinp 
to  be  silver  contains  nine  bunilred  one-thousandth  parts  pure 
silver:  Providrd.  That  in  the  case  of  all  such  articl(\s  whose 
fineness  is  indicatc'l  by  the  word  "sterlinp"  or  the  word  "coin" 
there  shall  be  allowed  a  diverpence  in  the  fineness  of  four  one- 
thousandth  parts  from  the  forepoinp  standards:  Prmndcd.  That 
in  any  test  for  the  ascertainment  of  the  fineness  of  any  such 
article  mentioned  in  this  section  accordinp  to  the  forepoinp 
standards  the  part  of  the  arti'l(>  taken  for  the  test.  anal>'sis,  or 
assay  shall  be  such  part  or  portion  as  does  not  contain  or  have 
attached  thereto  any  solder  or  alloy  of  inferior  fineness  used 
for  hrazinp  or  unitinp  the  [)arts  of  sncli  artirlr:  Provided,  fur- 
ther. That  in  the  c;ise  of  any  article  mcntiont'd  in  this  section,  in 
addition  to  the  forepoinp  tests  and  standards,  the  actual  fine- 


FALSK    STAMIMNO.  KIT 

ncss  of  tlic  oiilirc  (]uaiitity  of  silver  or  of  its  alloys  contained  in 
such  article,  including  all  soldir  ami  alloy  of  inferior  fineness 
used  for  hrazin<z  or  iiiiitiiit;  the  parts  of  .such  articles  (all  sik-Ii 
silver,  alloys  and  solder  ht'in^  assayed  as  one  piece),  shall  not  he 
less  hy  more  than  ten  one-thonsiindth  j»ar1s  than  th(;  fineness 
indicatd  hy  the  marked  (mark  ?),  stamped,  hranded,  entrraved 
or  imprinted  uj^on  such  arlieje,  or  upon  any  tafj,  card  or  lahel 
attached  thereto,  or  upon  any  hox,  packafje,  cover  or  wrapper  in 
which  such  article  is  incased  or  in(;losed,  it  heinp:  intended  that 
tlie  standards  of  fineness  and  the  tests  or  methods  for  ascertain- 
ing? the  same  provided  in  this  section  for  articles  mentioned 
therein  shall  he  concurrent  and  not  alternative. 

Section  4.  Plated  goods — description  required — use  of 
"sterling"  of  "coin"  ForvRiDDEV.  That  in  the  case  of  articles 
of  merchandise  made  in  whole  or  in  part  of  an  inferior  metal, 
having  deposited  or  plated  thereon  or  hrazed  or  otherwise  affixed 
thereto  a  platinir,  coverinj?  or  sheet  composed  of  pold  or  silver, 
or  of  an  alloy  of  either  of  said  metals,  and  known  in  the  market 
as  rolled  jGrold  plate,  sold  plate,  pold  filled.  silv(M'  plate,  or  <rold 
or  silver  electi'oplate.  or  by  any  similar  desifrnation,  so  imported 
into  or  exported  from  the  Ignited  States,  or  so  deposited  in  the 
United  States  mails  for  transmission,  or  so  delivered  to  any  com- 
mon carrier,  or  so  transported  or  caused  to  he  transported  as 
specified  in  the  first  section  of  this  act.  no  such  article,  nor  any 
tag,  card  or  label  attached  thereto,  nor  any  box,  package,  cover 
or  wrai)per  in  which  such  article  is  incased  or  inclosed,  shall  be 
stamped,  branded,  engraved  or  imprinted  with  any  word  or 
mark  usually  employed  to  indicate  the  fineness  of  gold,  unless 
such  word  or  mark  be  accompanied  by  other  words  plainly  indi- 
cating that  such  article  or  part  thereof  is  made  of  rolled  gold 
plate,  gold  plate,  or  gold  electroplate,  or  i.s  gold  filled,  as  the  case 
may  be,  and  no  snch  article,  nor  any  tag,  card  or  label  attached 
thereto,  nor  any  box,  package,  cover  or  wrapper  in  which  such 
article  is  incased  or  inclosed,  shall  be  .stamped,  branded,  engraved 
or  imprinted  with  the  word  "sterling"  or  the  word  "coin," 
either  alone  or  in  con.iunction  with  other  words  or  marks. 

Section  5.  Punishment  for  xholattons — .lURisnirTiox. 
That  each  and  everj^  person,  firm,  corporation  or  association, 


94S  AI'I'KNPIX    s*. 

ho'iTif:  n  mnnnfnotnror  of  or  n  whnlosalo  or  rrtnil  doalor  in  prold 
or  silver  jcwrlry.  f^oMwnri',  .silver  jjoods.  or  silvorwure.  wlio  or 
which  shall  l<no\vinjrly  violate  any  of  tli«'  luovisions  of  this  act, 
ami  every  oflieer.  manager,  direetor,  or  nianajjinjj  a^ent  of  any 
sneh  corporation  or  assoeiation  havinp  knowlcclpe  of  such  viola- 
tion anil  tlireetly  |)artieipatinf.'  in  sueh  violation  or  consentinjr 
thereto,  shall  he  deemed  puilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  upon  con- 
viction thereof  in  any  court  of  the  Ignited  States  havin?  juris- 
diction of  crimes  v»ithin  the  district  in  which  such  violation 
was  committed  or  tlirouph  wliich  has  heen  conducted  the  trans- 
I>ortation  of  the  article  in  respect  to  which  such  violation  has 
been  committed,  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than 
five  hundred  dollars  or  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  three 
months,  or  both,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court.  Whenever  the 
offense  is  bepun  in  one  jurisdiction  and  complettMl  in  another 
it  may  lie  dealt  with,  inipiired  of.  tried,  determined  and  puni.shed 
in  either  jurisdiction  in  thi^  same  maimer  as  if  the  offense  had 
been  actually  and  wholly  committed  therein. 

Skction  C).  "Artfclk  of  MERCiiANni'^E"  DEFINF.D.  That  the 
expression  "article  of  merehandi.se"  as  used  in  this  act  shall 
siiniify  any  poods,  wares,  works  of  art.  commodity,  or  other  thing 
which  may  be  lawfully  kept  or  offered  for  .sale. 

Section  7.  ORTf:iN.\i-  pack ahes  not  exempt  from  state,  etc., 
LAWS.  That  all  articles  of  merchandise  to  which  this  act  applies 
which  shall  have  been  transported  into  any  state,  territory,  di.s- 
trict  or  possession  of  the  United  States,  and  shall  remain  therein 
for  use,  .sale  or  storape.  shall,  upon  arrival  in  such  state,  territory, 
district  or  possession,  be  .subject  to  the  operation  of  all  the  laws 
of  such  state,  territory,  di.strict  or  possession  of  the  United  States 
to  the  .same  extent  and  in  the  same  manner  as  thouph  such 
articles  of  merchandise  had  been  produced  in  such  state,  terri- 
tory, di.strict  or  p.)ssession,  nnd  shall  not  be  exempt  therefrom 
by  reason  of  beintr  introduced  therein  in  oripinal  packages  or 
otherwise. 

Section  ft.  Efftct.  That  this  act  shall  take  effect  one  year 
after  the  date  of  its  pa.ssape. 


INDEX. 

References  an:  to  paget, 

A 


'Abaoni,"  324. 


Abandonment — 

a   (pi.-Htion  of    intent,  211,  21f.,   217,    r)73. 

hvirdt-n  of  proof  in  t'Htal)Ii8hinj,'.  213. 

by  adoption  of  ni'W   brand  or  laln-l,  214. 

by  advertisement  of  sales  a^'ent,  216. 

by  dismissing  bill  for  injunction,  212,  217. 

by   limited  registration,  217. 

by  owner,  will  not  confer  title  on  another  fraudulently  using  mark,  211. 

by   permitting   infringements,   37. 

by  removal  from  premises,  212. 

by  retiring  partner,  32. 

constructive,  217. 

defense  of,  not  favored  by   courts,  211. 

ofTect  of,  22,  71. 

involuntary,  214. 

leaves  mark  open  for  adoption  by  another,  70,  71,  217. 

of  features  of  mark  not  registered,  217. 

of   mark    owned    jointly    by    independent  dealers,  by    termination    of 

joint  business,  32. 
proof  of  intention  of,  213,  573. 
terminates  trademark  right,  21,  22. 

Aboriginal    Words— 

as  trademarks,  14."). 

"Abricotine"    (liqueur),   114. 
"A.   C.  A."     (cloth),  98. 

Acceasorles— 

need  not  be  registered,  552. 

Accidental  Adoption,   17. 

Account — 

pending    the    suit,    may    be    ordered    where    preliminary     injunctirn 


refused,  4r)2. 


949 


950  INDEX. 

Til  fcrrnrcs  arr   Id  pagca. 
AcronntlnK — 

ns  III)  iiui<i«'iit  {o   injinirtioii,  M^>\. 

cntlitH  u|n>ii,   4«ll,   .'iS'J. 

dt-nicd  wIhti'  (Icfciuhuit   i^'iiorant  of  i>lnintilT'H  mnrk,  310. 

plHintitT  entitled   tn    refereiiee  for.  as   matter   of  ri;;lit,  wlu'ii    iiifriiige- 

nieiit  confeKw*!  or  proven.  4.">3. 
fefuwd    lH>c>aU(U>    of   ac«|uifwence,  210. 
refuwd  U'cauw  of  larhen,  210. 

rule  tJie  same  in  trademark  and  other  unfair  comiK  tition  eaBec,  4.''>»l. 
tratlemtTet  aeeoiintin;,'^,  207. 

•Acid    PlioBphato."    I'S,    l.iT. 

Acqnicicencc — 

a  l>ar  to  relief  apainst  unfair  competition,  .'">2. 

ahvay.-*  question  of  fact.  208. 

ran  not  l»e  inferred,  20i>. 

distinguished    from    larhes,  208.  • 

is  revocalde,  200. 

may  har  ripht  to  aecountinj;,  210. 

no  bar  to  injunction,  210. 

none  without  knowledge  of  facts,  200. 

tantamount  to  agreement,  208. 

Acqaiiition — 

liy  alien,  (i8,  00. 

Iiy  assi<:nment,  01,  67. 

of  trademark,  generally,  01,  O.'i. 

Action   (see   Action   at  Law,    Suits  in   Equity)'— 

forms  of,  412. 

for  trademark  and  copyright  infringement,  may  he  joined,  40.'),  400. 

for  trademark  and  j)atent  infringement,  may  l>e  joined,  405. 

failure  to  prosecution  may  cfTect  ahandonment  of  trademark,  211,  217. 

for  infringement  survives  owner's  death,  400. 

for  invasion  of  goodwill,  243. 

to  compel  registration,  574. 

Action   at  Laxr— 

r<inti)iuii)iil<i  must  he  pleaded  in,  416. 
dei'laration    in,  413. 
form  of  declaration,  8.'i2. 
generally,  .'i2.  412. 
tre-piiHs  on  the  case,  412. 

Act    of     1870— 

in   full,  .')01. 

Act    of    1874,   .'il3. 


INDEX.  951 

{{(■fvrcuriH  arc   in  jukjck. 

Act    of     1870.  WIS. 

Ill)  ('(iiivictioii    mwlrr,    in   uIihciut   of   recital    of   i-xcluHivc   owrii-rHliiji    in 

nTtilicutc,   r)31. 
not  ri-viv«-(l  l)y  Act  of  1881,  WM. 
void  ln'cauHc  Act  of   1870  invalid,  T).')!. 

Act    of    1881— 

(lid  not  make  Act  of    1S7»>  opirativc,  W.W. 
in  full.  r,:{2. 

rc(|nircnicntH  of  rcpistration  under,  5;J2,  n.  '.i. 
validity  of.  n.'J'i.  ».  1. 

Act   of   February    20,    1905,    549. 

Actual    Deception — 

need  not  l>c  prove!),  .'» 1 . 

Added    Matter — 

in   use  of   false  mark,  no  defense,  333. 
may  tend  to  miti<,'ate  damages,  333. 

Adjectives — 

as  trademarks,  !•?. 

"Adjectives   of   the   Language," 

may  he  instruments  of  frauds,  44,  n.  34. 

Administration— 

of  fjoodwill,  33. 

trademarks  of  deceased  person  should  be  conveyed  by,  34. 

trademarks  may  pass  without,  34. 

upon  trademark,  34. 

Administrator — 

as  plaintifT  in   suit   for   infringement,   400. 

Adoption — 

actual  adoption  of   trademark  indispensable,  GO,  70. 

advertising  mark  is  not,  65. 

date  of.  stated  in  application,  not  conclusive,  38!). 

priority  of,  not  conclusive,  72. 

of  mark  abandoned  by  another,  70,  71. 

validity  determined  by  date  of,   li)5. 

Advertisement — 

dishoni'st,  deprives  user  of  equitable  relief,  75. 
misleading,  when  restrained,  54,  319,  347. 
not  a  trademark,  281. 
of  fact  of  assignment,  81. 


i»52  INDKX. 

;,',  <,  ......  <    .1.-.     t,.    i>nffi-H. 

Ad  vrrt  IbIui;  — 

Hit  flfUlt'lit  of  (.'(MNlwill,  .nil. 

i.linti.  ami. 

ni.T.-  uw  I'f  murk   in.  >\"<'^  u>>{   .-niitc  trutl.-nmrk   ri;;lit,  il.">,  ;').'>!. 

AdTertlsinR    Solicitor— 

<njoini'«i    from  iihiii;;    matrriiil   for    rival    |)(il>Hcation,   2.'>9. 

AdvUe    of   Connsel    as    a   Defense— 

to  rliar>:i'  of    iIlfriIl^•l•m^■Ilt,  4.'>0. 
to  rhar^'c  of  iui(-l«-an  IihikIh,  44tt. 

••Artna    Iron    Works"    Cn«o,    1  >!t< 

Affldnvit*— 

.  .r    jiiirti.    inHiifTuMfnt    as    Imsis    of    pnlimiiLiry    injunction    rxccpt    in 

ilfur  caw,  47l». 
in    fliii'f,    in    a|i|)lication     for    jiriliminary     injunction,    must    cHtabliah 

all  necessary  facts,  47«1. 
must  Im>  entitled  in  the  cause,  470. 
proceedinfj  liy,  on  application  for  preliminary   injunction,  47(». 

AfRxinK— 

modi-  of.  immaterial.  !•,  (').">,  ft.")!. 

•A.   G.."  .142. 

A|;ent — 

act  (lone  at  sufrp'stion   of  plaintifT's  not  an    infrinfjement,  4.30. 
pKxlwill  of,  222,  22.1. 

liability    uf.    for   handlin;:   infrin;,'in}r  ;,'ood8,   402,  4().{. 
upon    determimition    of    his    iinployment    enjoined    from    using    word 
af^eney"   upon   his   siyns,   U4(i. 

Anency— 

<  1T<  <  t  of  fals«-  representation  of,  .34»). 

Ain*eexnent«    Upon    Dlasolntion — 

how   interpreted,  2.'U,  n.  07. 

••Alniworth"  (thread    .    114.    ItiS. 

"Alr-Ccll."    l.l,    n.  24. 

Alabama    Trademark    Statutes,  020. 

Alaska    Tradrniark    Statutrs,  020. 

"Alba,"  .124. 

"Albany    Beef,"  ..41 

"Allrork'B     Poron*    Plasters."  l»8. 


jNDi-x.  953 

li'rfrrrnrrft  nrr   tn  pnyvs. 
"Aldcrney"    (nl.ninargurin*-) ,    114. 

Alien— 

uhandoiiiii;;    nmrk    in    I'liitrd   Stat«'H,  iiecniin-s   no   right   by  Bul)Wqu<-nt 

legiHlution  in  Iuh  own  country,  22. 
acqiiiHition  of  trudomurk  l»y,  (JH. 
fan    not    liavc    trademark    right    an    againwt    a    cidriii    making    prior 

adoption   in  good  faith,  (»S. 
might  rcginttT  undiT  Act  of   IKHl,   "):{(;,  n.   11. 
need  not  aver  tliat  mark  is  used  in  foreign  commerce,  to  come  within 

fcih-ral   jurisdiction,  r)47,  n.  39. 
trademark  riglitH  of,  tiS. 

Alternatives — 

registration  of,  '.VMt. 

wliat  may  be  registered  as,  336,  540. 

"Aluminum"    (washboards),  98. 

Ambiguity— 

as  a  defense, '335. 

Amendment — 

in  Patent  Office,  right  of,  584. 

"American"    (sardines),  08. 
"American  Cold  Japan"    (Paint),  114. 
"American   Express"   (scaling  wax) ,  114. 
"American   Girl"  (shoes),  114,  324. 
"American    Volunteer"    (slioes),  114. 
"Ammoniated  Bone  Superphosphate  of  Lime,"  08. 

Amount  in  Controversy— 

in    suit    to    restrain    vendor    of    goodwill    from    re-engaging    in    busi- 
ness, 252. 
is  value  of  trademark,  .")4(i,  n.  35. 

Amusement  Enterprises — 

])roteetion  of  names  of,  173,  180. 

Analogy — 

value  of.  in  determining  character  of  infringement,  337. 

"Anatolia"     (licorice),   114. 
"Anchor  Brand"   (wire^,  114. 
"Anglo-Portugo"   (oysters),  98. 


954  INDKX. 

RrfcrcnccH  an    tn  pntfca. 

"AnKOBturn"    ( liitt< tm  .  !»S,   11.'. 

"A.    N.    Hoxlr'a   Mineral"  (wmp'.    11' 

"AnnlhllRtor"  (  nu-ilirinr  I .   ll.">. 

"Anaikti"     (UitUTH),   147. 

Aii^wr  r — 

f.Tin  of,  8U3,  Sm. 

AntlrlpAtlon — 

wliMt    I  nn!»titut<'s,  72.   T).')!). 

•'Antl<inariun'*    (IxMik   store),  D8.  • 

Antl-Trniit    Lawi— 

(li'tiiit-d.   '.I2r>. 

irn  (li'dnw  to  infriii;:rnitiit,  A'yO. 

"Anti- Washboard"    (HoajM,  11. 'i. 

"Anvil."  :<-24. 

••ApollinarU."  11...  .{24. 

Appeal,    4f.4.  .'•84. 

Appearance — 

i.f  J.' 1>.   iiii  t ratlcniiirk   in.  n.'iO. 

Appendant.   Trademark   RlRht   Must   Be,    2tJ. 
"Apple    and    Honey"  (  midicint' I ,  !t8. 

Application — 

what  in  KuHic-itiit.  "f  mark,  !•. 

Application  for  ReeUtration  (^ee  ReRUtratlon). 

Appropriation — 

|.ricint\    <.f.   t',!i. 

Arizona    Stjitutf*.    '■'i' 

Arkansii*.    TrHdfiiinrk    Stiitutea,    tI2I. 

Article    of    Maiiufnrf  ur«-.    D«-Hni'd,  .''ilU. 
not  a  traih mark.  l.'l'.). 

Artlatlc   Prodnctiona — 

unfair    riini|>' t  it  i<in    in,    .'l.'itl. 

"Aabeatoa"    (uall    |ilnHl<Tl,   {•!>. 


INDKX.  955 

It'lfirctiiiH   an    In   /hkji-h. 
"ABictn    ftiid    Goodwill" — 

Hlllr    <)l,    rnlivcys    t  niiliiMH  ik--,    .'lit,    )i .    "iS. 

Asalfcnniciit — 

iis^i;:iiiiliilit  y    nf    t  liuliiiiai  k^,  ;;i'iirrally,   .'!(»,    '(8,   ri47,    '>!'>. 

UHHifiin'f  luiiiiiics  triKlciimrk  hulijctt  to  iMccHHity  of  coiitiiiinil  iiwr,  36. 

U8Hi;;iut'  must  puliliHli   filet  of  iiswi;:iiiin'nt,  wlicii.  2!>,  HI. 

aasigiH'c  ran  apply  (ladtiiiaiU  only  lu  nmur  rlanH  of  j^oods  as  nHHi^jnor, 

asHignor  may   \>r  cnioiMiMl   fiom  use  <>f  mark,  .'It!,   17!>. 

general,  in  insolvmiy,  tonvt-ys  tiadcmarks  witliout  HjK-ciul  mention,  30. 

general,  of  liUHinesH,  eonveyH  trademarkw  without  Hpecial   mention,  30. 

limited   to  specified   territory.  2!t. 

of  distillery   brands,   3S. 

of  mark  applied  to  the  produet  of  a  secret  procosB,  38. 

of  nuirk  containing  name  and  j)ortrait  of  former  owner,  2!l,  n.  75. 

of  patent,  elfect  as  to  patentee's  name,   181. 

of  right  to  use  one's  own  name,  74. 

of  right  to  use  proper  name  can  not  be  reassigned,  244,  »i.  33. 

of  secret  process,  38. 

of  trademark  hy   imj)lieation,  212. 

recording,  ^u'). 

right  of  assignee  of  trademark  to  use  name  of  assignor,  81,  553. 

with  reversionary  riglit,  30. 

Assignor- 
enjoined  from  using  his  assigned  name,  36. 

Associations,   Unincorporated — 

names  of,   10(1. 

"Astral"    (oil  I,  !•<». 

Attachment — 

action   for  damages   for  injury   to   goodwill  through'  wrongful,  250. 

Attorney — 

goodwill    of,   227. 

"Atwood's  Gennine  Physical  Jaundice  Bitters,"  80. 

Antograyhic  Signature — 

misleading  use  of,  enjoined,  349. 

"A-V-H"    (gin),  115. 


956  >^'^'^-^- 

ItrfrniiKS  arr   to  pagca. 

B 

•Babbitt'*  Bp«t"  (m>i»|)),  IJ. 
••Bacco-Cnro"  (  nincily  i ,  H''- 
"Baffle"    (sjift'Hi,   11. 'i. 

Bailee— 

..f  infrin^'iiij;  ^.hmI.-.  auty  of  to  mak.-  dirtcov.ry,  40r). 
<if  iiifrinjjiiiK  K»km1h.  lial>lf  to  injiimtioii,  405. 

Baker— 

-ooduill    of,    '111. 

'•Balm    of    Tbou«nnd    Flowers"    ( cosni.tii' 1 .  7S,  (tO,  11."). 

Banker — 

j;oo(lwill  of,  222. 

Bankruptcy — 

tradiniarks  in.  .'U). 

"Barbers  Model"    (  razors  i ,  99. 

"Baxaar"  ( iiatti-rns) ,  99. 

"B.  B.  B.."  11.'). 

"B.  B.  H."   (iron),  11.'). 

•Beatty's  Headline"  (copy-book),  116. 

••Bell  of  Moscow"  (wint),  116. 

"Bell's  Life"   Case,   198. 

"Benedictine"   (li<|U<'ur),  116. 

DeneAt   Societies— 
iiamc'B  of,  190. 

Bequest^ 

of  ;,'oodwill,  2^2.'). 
of  trademark,  'M. 

"Bethesda"    (\vat«ri,  110. 

"Better    Than    Mother's"   (  mini-f  moat) ,  09. 

"Bhr   Hathi."  'Ml. 

Bill   in    Equity.    liO. 

averment  an  to  ownership,  430,  n.  22. 

averm«-nt8  of  ritizent«liii>  of  partieB,  420. 

defect  on  face  of,  mwht  he  m.t  l>y  d-mwrnr  and  not  l.y  pi. -a,  441. 


INDKX.  957 

Rejercnr( H  mr  to  jxtf/rs. 

Bill   in   Equity-  ruiitiiund. 
form  of,  H.").'),  Hlil. 
form  of  interrof;at«)rii'8,  8(10. 

form  of,  truil«'miirk  infrin^'cm«Mit,  H.')'..  S72,  870,  884,  8!M). 
form  of,  unfair  comixtitioii,  8(>7. 
lu't'd  not  lie  vrrifird,  wlu-n,  4.{(l. 

not  (Ifmurral.li-  iHcausc  prayin;,'  for  lioth   iMufits  and  dumages,  429. 
hliould    hIiow   ii|i|di(iilii)ii   of    mark    in    fonij,'n    or    intcrstuto  commerce, 

42il. 
to  restrain  doalinjr  in  fraudulent  labels,  430. 
to   restrain  diselosure  of  secret  process,  253. 
to   restrain   unfair  competition,  430. 
vrrifieation,  430. 

Bill    of    Sale— 

what  words  in,  convey  trademarks,  etc.,  30. 

"Bismarck"    (collars),   lltl,    170. 
"Black    Diamond,"  324. 
"Black    Package"    (tea),  99. 
"Blackstone"    (cif^ars) ,  116. 

Blind  Advertising— 

appropriatinj,',  3(lti. 

"Blood   Searcher"    (medicine),  116. 

"Blue   liick   AVater,"  110. 

"Bohemian"    (beer),  99. 

"Boker's    Stomach    Bitters,"   116. 

"Bokol"  (beer),  144.  ^ 

Bond- 
on  preliminary  injunction,  453. 

Book- 
device  of,  not  trademark,  99. 
title  of,  as  trademark,  93,  196. 

Books  and   Papers — 

discovery  and  inspection  of,  471,  472. 

"Booth's    Theatre"    Case,  179. 
"Borax"    (soap),  99. 


958  INDEX. 

Iltfmurrs  iirv  to  pagct. 

Bottle*— 

(Jihtiiictivi',  prottt'tfjl,  2H7. 
nfilliiij;  tnjiiiiu'tl,  ;U3. 

••BoTilcnr,"   ll(>.   :i'JJ. 

"Bovrll"   (n>««t  rxtriuli,    117. 

Bozea — 

injunrtiiin  a^rninst  rtinipt-titor  htiyinn,  300. 

"Braided    Fixed    Star*"  {c\}iar   li;,'lits),   !)9. 

Broach   of  Contract — 

iiiiit in;:.  US  unfair  cnmiK'tition,  303. 

Brewer — 

pKulNvill    <.f.    222. 

"Bromidia"   (medicine),  117. 

"Bromo-Calfeine,  •    117,  i:JH. 

"Bronio  Celery,"  l.<7. 

"Bronio-Qninine,"    1:57,   138. 

"B.    T.   Babbitt's    Trademark    Best    Soap,"   335. 

"Buffalo    Pitts."    r.42. 

Bnlk    Goods— 

purchaser  of,  can  not  ubc  manufacturor's  tradi-mark  used  only  on  liis 
own   paokanfH,  310. 

Bnrden    of    Proof- 
in   cutalilisliin^'   aliandonmcnt,  214. 
in   «'Htal.lislii!i-   priority    aj^ainst   existing   registration,   in   application 

to  rc;.'istfr,  .")4.">,  >i.  33. 
on  applicant  in  intcrfcrcnccH,  ri44,  ji.  20. 
Htron^'ly  upon  complainant  in  rdilling  ca»c8,  315. 

"BurResa,"  324. 

**BnsineBs   Connections    and    PatronaRc" — 

in.  hi. I. •   - Iwill.  22K. 

"Bniiness  and  Assets" — 

conveys  trademarkH,  30,  n.  7S. 

"BnstfT  Brown"   Case,  20.'>,  3.'»6. 


INDKX.  959 

Reftrcmi H  im    to  pngrt. 

c 


"C.    A.,"   400. 

"Cachemlre  Milano"    (cloth),  10(). 
California    Trademark    Statute*,    10,  028. 
California   Trademark    Forms,   (;:{". 
"California   Syrup    of  Fig«"    (laxativi),  100. 
"Camel    Hair    BeltiuK*'   (caw),  l.'J,  4t>,   151,  100. 

Canada — 

traiitniark  rij,'hta  of  alien  in,  GO. 

Canadiau    Act,    Rules    and    Forms,   S.Tl,  842,  8.'50, 

"Canadian   Club   Whiskey,"    107,  324. 

Cancellation   of   Registration,   .'{00,  .'i7G,  577. 
form  of  petition,  (518. 
request  by  owner  for,  r)78. 

"C.  A.  P.'*   (cream  acid  j>liosphate) ,  100. 

Care— 

de^ni'  <if,  expected  of  consumers,  304 

Carpet  Cleaner- 
marks  of,  r>32,  n.  3. 

Carriers — 

liahle  for  infringement,  404. 

"Carrom"  (game-board),   117. 

Cartons — 

falsely  indicating  maker,  15'.),  300. 

"Cascarets"    (cathartic  medicine),  324. 
"Cashmere   Bouquet"    (toilet  soap),  117,  32.5. 
"Castoria"    (medicine),  100. 

Catalogue — 

improper  use  of,  restrained,  260. 

Catch-'Words— 

l)y  which  ".'oods  known  to  trade,  how  proven,  469. 
suggested  by  a  trademark,  jirotected,  l.")l,  344. 

Causes   of   Action— 

ifinder  of,  405. 


060  INDEX. 

Urfncnrrs  arc  to  page*. 

Cnntlon    Notlrr* — 

aw  r\  uliiu-f  i>t  luijiMificmc,  "JlO. 

"CclcbrRtcd     Stomitoh     Bitters,"   100. 

Crlcbrlty— 

iinnn'  of,  88  trRili'mnrk,  170. 

n-fiiKtration  of  nam.-  of.  as  trad.  mark.  274. 

••Celery   Compound"   (nifdiiin*' 1 ,    117. 

'•Cellular    ClothinR"   (taw),  13,   lUO,   l.")3. 

"Celluloid."    .T2.".. 

"Centennial"   (ilothiii^',  t-tc),  100. 

"Cere«ota"    (flour).  117.  .T2'>. 

Certificate    of   RcKl«tration— 

how  assipnt'd,  07. 
value  of,  54.'),  .">81. 

Certiorari — 

prm-rally,  40.').  ')81. 

to  review  contempt  procoedinpfl,  476. 

to  review  filinj;  of  articles  of  incorporation,  189. 

to  review  taxation  of  trademark,  GO. 

under  Act  of   lOO.').  581. 

"Champion"    (flour),  117. 

Change    of   Ownenhip — 

iKiticc  to  pnlilic,  'J". 

"Charley'*    Aunt"   ( farce  title) ,  117. 
•'Charter    Oak"    (hIovch).  118. 
"Chartreuie"    (cordial),  38,  118. 
"Chatterbox"    (  p.riodical  i ,  2('..  118,  32.'>. 
"Cherry  Pectoral"    (  nudicinc  i ,  100. 

Chee»cmonKer— 

pK.dwill  of.  222. 

hicaRo    Wai»t«"    (cortM-tn),  118. 
"Chicken    Cock"    (  whinkey  > .  1 18.  328. 
"Chili    Colorow"    (condiment'.  1 17,  r>41. 
"Chill    Stop"    (mi'dicine),  100. 


INDEX.  961 

RefcrcnrcH  an-  to  pnf/ea. 
"Chlneie   Liniment,"  IIH. 

"Chlorodyno"    ( imdii-iiial  lomiioiiiul ) ,  IDO,   148. 
"Chri«ty'«    Min«trel»"    (ciim-),    IT.'J,    IHO. 

Cig;ar-Banda — 

Hiiniilation  of,  enjoined,  282. 

Circulars — 

false  reprerteiilatioiirt  in.  deprive  from  relief,  87. 

injunction  against,  when  eontainiiif,'  false  representationa,  319. 

Citizenship — 

averment  of,  concernin;^  corporation,  not  proper,  414 

defined,  o.SCi. 

diverse,  must  l)e  i)leaded   in  federal   i)ractice,  52. 

of  applicant  for  ropistration,  immaterial,  5.30. 

what  averments  necessary  in  federal  equity  pleading,  414. 

"Clark's    O.    N.   T.,"  323. 

Classiflcation^- 

of  trademarks,  sauggi'sted  by  patent  ollice,  907. 

Class    of   Goods — 

must   i>e  stated   in  re^Mstering,  r)37. 
infrinjxement   must  be   upon   same,  307,  310. 
in  eases  of  unfair  competition,  309. 

Clayton   Act- 
as  a  defense,  I.'jG. 
interpretations,  938. 
.sections  enforceable  by  Federal  Trade  Commission,  934. 

"Clean    Hands"— 

(Mjuitalile  rule  as  to,  78. 

"Climax"    (stoves),  118. 

"Cloverdale,"  .141. 

"Clnb"    (cocktails),  118. 

"Club   House"    (^'in),   101. 

"Club    Soda,"    118. 

"Coal  Oil   Johnny's   Petrolenm"    (soap),   118. 

Coat-of-Arms — 

etVeet  of  addinji.  to  trademark,  444. 

not  registrable.  o'lO. 

of  state  or  United  States  not  registrable,  541. 


9G2  INDKX. 

Fefcrrmcca  arr  to  p<igc$. 

••Coc«-Coii%."  :n3. 

"Cocoikinc"    (hair  oili.   IIS.  \M.  :J2.'» 
"Coco»tin»,"    ilift. 

••Co««'«    SnprrphoBphntr    ot    Llrac."    11)^. 
*'Cohr»lTc"     1  tilr  I  .    lis. 

Coined    Word»— 

Hh  tra<l<'inarks,    \\'2. 

Collatpral    MiBrcpreienlatlon — 

will   iii't  «irl>ar  murk   fmm  pnitritinii,  HI,  106. 

Collocation — 

ill   issiii"  «if  fraii(lul<iit  uw  of  mlor,  285. 

••Colonial."  :i:i3,  l\M. 

Color— 

fraudulent   imitation  of,  H7.  '2S4. 

infrinfU'mcnt  of,  ri'strainrd,  '2S4. 

no  trademark    in,  282. 

not  re^'iKtralilc  aa  trademark,  287,  note. 

r<-;.'i!-tratioii    in.  2S7. 

Colorable    Imitation— 

of   tradi-niarkH,   300. 

Colorado— 

etatut.-  an<l   forms,  (5:18,  042. 

Combinations — 

in  reHtraint  of  trade,  4.'>0. 
of  non-rej:iHtraMi'  words,  .')0.3, 
of  old   word-i'lements,  500. 

"Comfort"     (publication),  118. 

Commerce- 
trad. mark  must   lie  used   ill,   19. 

Commerce    Clniise — 

»H  baitia  «»f  fc<l<ral   trademark   lejjislation,   in,  .371>. 

"Comnirrrinl    Adverti«er"    (caw),  2(11. 

ConiniiBsioner   of    Pfttent*   («co   Stntntra:    Art    of    190r>.    mid   Trade- 
murk   Rule,    of   Piiteiit    OfHc«), 

uction  of,   not    eontrollcd    \>\    niaiidanius,   ■'>4.'l,   n.  28. 

diitieH  «if,  judirial,  54.T. 

Nhall  keej(  a   record  of  aHHi^nmentH,  575. 


INDKX.  9C)'.] 

I'ifi  rt  iirrs    ilir    In    IHUJVH. 

Common    Laxr — 

ri^;lit   <if   tradriiiiirk    not    al>ii(l|,'«(l   or   <|iiiiliti('il    l.v    ri-f^intrution  m-t,    li», 
r>47,  ".  .'IH. 

Common  to   the    Trade,  <>!),   1.14. 
(I.'tiind.    i:t4. 

••xtfiiHivf  HalcH  (1(1  not  iimkc  trademark,   litl. 
packa^'f  may  l>c,  '2!H>,  .'54.'). 
picture  may  be,  l.'{4,  n.  r)2,  141. 

reaomhlunco  in  such  particulars  no  infringement,  282. 
words,  not  subject  to  exclusive  appropriation,  (i!t,  1.34. 

"Compactnm"    (umbrellas),  118. 

Comparison — 

by  tlie  court,  linal  test  of  resemblance,  467. 

no  opportunity  of,  given  consumer,  as  atrecting  test  of  infringement, 

:u)2. 

"CompntinB"    (seales),   101,   11!>. 

"Concurrence    Deloyale,"  French  oijuivalent  for  unfair  competition,  .'»0. 

Confiscation — 

al)road,   does  not  deprive   owner   of   his   trademark   rights   within    the 
I'nited  States,  tiS). 

Confusion^— 

of  liusiness  as  evidence  of  right  to  relief,  48,  .572. 

"Congress  Water,"   110. 

Congressional  Legislation- 
basis   of,    lit. 

Connecticut — 

statutes   and   forms,  64.3,  640. 

Conspiracy — 

to   suppress   competition,    ")(),  n.   47. 

Construction — 

of  contracts  affecting  trade  secrets,  261. 

Containers,  .34.'). 

Contempts — 

action  upon,  not   reviewed  on  appeal,  476. 

by  circulating  matter  prejvulicial  to  defense,  474. 

by  ofTering  infringing  goods  for  sale,  though  no  sale  effected,  474. 

by  publishing  perverted  construction  of   injunction,  474. 

by  violation  of  decree,  474. 


964  INDKX. 

Ilcfrrcnccii  arr   tn  pagcit. 

Contempt* — (^ontinuod. 

ctiwtH  of  uii»uitfm*ful  motion  to  coimnit.  VM. 

cctitti*  u|Min  Hp|N'nl,  -tUi. 

«-nliirf;in^  tlit-nf  on   li«-nrin^,  474. 

rrron«>»nii»  action  u|Hin,  n-arlu-fl  l>y  n  rtiururi,  47tJ. 

in  dii«o)N>yin);  i«ul>|><N-nR,  204. 

int«-nt  of  rontt-mnor,  immatfriul,  474. 

"Continrntal"    (fin-  inHuranw  corporation  i .    ll»l,   ISiti. 

Continaandf) — 

nuiKt  !><•   |il«ail(<l    in  arti<>n   iit   law,  4iri. 

Contlnnity — 

of  nH<-,  trHdcnuirk   ri^'lit   di  pcndint  on,  20. 

ContrACta — 

for  Hair  of  |;tH)d\vill,  2:{.">. 
how  conHtrut>d,  201. 
in  n-ft'rt'nco  to  trade  WHrets,  2ft3. 
in    n-Htraint  of  trado,  2.'{.'i. 

not   to  disclotH'   trade   worrt,   imprnil  aH   lM-tw»-cn   master   and   servant, 
2r.8. 
Contracta    Affecting    U>e    of    Trademark    (see    Statntea:    Acta    of 
1881   and    1905)— 
not   iinioiintiii;:   to   trannfer  or  assi;j;nment,  rnu   not  he   registered,  547, 
»i.  4(1. 

ControlliuK    Feature — 

riiiift  Ih-  rej;istral>l»',  ')(■»!. 

ConTeyance— i 

of    'all  ItuxinesH  and  assets"  convey«  trademark,  :5(),  n.  78. 

"Copenhagen"    (tinutT),   lOl. 

Copyrights — 

action   for   infrinj^in;;,  joinder  of,  406. 
diHtin(;uiHhed   from   tradi-markH.  2. 
I'fTtH't  o*  expiration,  on  title,  HI,  M'S. 
e(T«'<"t  «m  re^jiHtration,   '>'>',]. 

"Corona,"  :»2:>. 

Corporate    Namea — 

aa  trademarkH,  IK.'t. 

fraudulent,  enjoined,   178. 

j;»>v«-rned  l>y  winie  prineiplea  an  namen  of  partnerwhiiis  and  individu-ils, 

1K7. 
individualH  iiHin;.',   \H',> 
rcffiatralile,  wlo-n,  .'».'>7. 


INDKX.  9G5 

Uifrrt  iirrs  air   to  pnijcH. 
Corporation — 

tail  iiol  anjuirc  ri^^lit  to  ii»^i'  iir<i|Hr  iiarnc  in  unfair  competition,  188. 

c'un  not  be  a  citizt-n,  414. 

creation  of,  no  defense  to  infrinj,'eni(nt  Ity  irieorporatorH,  44.'J. 

jjoodwill  of,  220. 

Iiavin;;  coninion   intereMt,  may   join   an  |ilainti(r,  4(10. 

injunction    nuiy    irtmic  aj;ainHt  ail    personH   connected    witli    infrin^^ing, 

240. 
juriwdiction  of  federal  courts   in  wuitu  a;,'ainHt,  414. 
may   oppose   ref;iHtration,   r)(i(i. 
may  hold  trademarks,  (il. 
restraint  of,   from   improper   use   of   proper   name    in  corporaU^'   name, 

74,  188. 
stock  issued  for  goodwill,  22(i. 
transfer  of  <;ood\vill   of,  227. 

Coats— 

as  a};ainst  innocent   warehouseman,  403. 

as  ajrainst  retailer,  437. 

avoiding  by  submission,  403,  404,  40.'),  438. 

awarded  bailee   who  has  made  discovery,  403. 

caused  by  unfounded  charge   in  bill,  40.1. 

generally,  400. 

in   unsuccessful  motion  to  commit  for  contempt,  494. 

may  be  adjudged  on  interlocutory  decree,  404. 

may  be  allowed  where  damages  refu8«'d,  400. 

on  appeal,  when  decree  reversed  in  part,  495. 

on  interlocutory  decree.  404. 

pleading  to  avoid,  437. 

refused  as  against  retail  dealer,  437. 

refused  as  against  label  manufacturer  acting   ignorantly,  437. 

refused  because  of  delay.  403. 

refused   successful   defendant,  when,  404. 

subject  to  prior  lien  of  wharfinger's  charges,  493. 

upon  appeal  from  committal  for  contempt,  494. 

usually  follow  the  event,  400. 

want  of  notice,  no  defense  to  recovery  of,  400. 

where  sales  too  small  to  justify  accounting,  493. 
"Cottolene,"  119,  32.1. 
"CoHRh   Cherries"    (confectionery),  119. 
"Cough  Remedy,"  101. 

Counsel    Fees — 

as  element  of  damage,  457. 
Counterfeiting — 

infringement  by,   300. 
trademarks,  300. 


i'6C  iN[>i:x. 

ItrfrrrnrtH  arr  to  pngra. 

Conrt    of    AppritU    D.    C— 

<l<vit«ioiiH   (if.    tint    ii|)|Hululil<-   to   hiipDnic   «i>iirt,   r»74. 

Conrta — 

juriMlirtion   of.    in    niwH  of    unfair   <<>ni|M  t itioii,    .'>3. 

CoTrnMiita — 

hot    t.i    r.-  .nt'Hp-.    2:1.1. 

"CrRck    Proof    (nil.l..r).    lOl. 
"Cramp   Cnrr,"    101. 

"CrrRm"    (l.akiii;.'   jM.wd.r.  itr. ) ,    101.   110. 
Credit*    on    Accouiitini>;.  -J*'!- 
"CrnyHc"    ( i>iiitni<iif  1  ,    lol. 

Criminal    Proaecntion — 

for  triKimiiirk    iiifriii^'micnt,   HO 

"Criatalline"    .41. 
"Cromarty."  .')41. 

Croaa-Bill— 

in  uppoHitiun  prococdinp,  r>f)8. 

not  nrccHHnry  when-  anirmiitivc  relief  sought  by  u  defendant,  434. 

"Cronp    Tincture,"    lol. 

"Crow"    (wliiMk4V).    ll!>,    12ri. 

"Crown    Seixo"     (chhi-I,    ."121. 

"Cryatalliiod    Err."    lOl. 

"Cnpola,"   .'ij."!. 

Cuatomrra'    Brnnda,    2ir>,  n.    Hd. 

"Cntlcura."   I  i'.t,   .l.l.l. 

"Cyclop*    Miirhine    Worka,"   .■12r». 

"Cylinder"     (;.'Ja"Ki.    lOl. 

Cypher     Code — 

imi.rojMr  iiw    ..f.   Mli.ri    r.HtrHin.-d,  200. 


INDKX.  9G7 

Hiftri-iurn  nrr   tn  pntjcH. 

D 

jiiinMiiit    of.   iloiK    not    lix   jnriwlictioti    of   ftihral    courts    in    trii<l<mark 

ras«'M,  .'HKJ. 
and  protitH  botli  asscsstd   in  »(|uity,  \7u\. 
nwurdt'd  in  (•(|uity  wlicn"  no  Iohh  of  profit  nliown,  4.'>7. 
counm'l  f«'«'H  HH  an  cU-mcnt,  A^u . 

fliTtiun  iH'twffii,  and   profits,  in   Kn<,'liHli   practice,  ATm. 
for  invasitm  of  j;ood\viil.  '1-1\),  '2A\\. 
in  actions  at  law,  41!l. 

in  c-awH  of  imfair  competition  only  wlurc   iiit<-iiti<>nal    fraud,  4')."). 
incn-asinj,',  under  Act  of  IDO"),  HSi. 

jury  may  make  inferencew  as  to,  from  all  tlie  evidence,  421. 
loss  of  sales  as  an  element  of.  421,  422,  42:5. 
lost  by  failure  to  imprint,  HSti. 

may  be  miti<;ated  by   showing  matter  added  to  mark   in  use,  '.V.V.i. 
nominal,  in  actions  at  law,  421. 

plaintiff  must  elect  between,  and  profits,  under  Kiifrlisli  practice,  45.'). 
punitive,  can  not  be  assessed  in  equity,  460. 
])unitive.  may  be  recovered  at  law,  410. 
punitive,  only  where  fraudvilent  intent  shown,  41'.>. 
punitive  or   exenii)lary,  where  may  be   allowed  where  no   actual   dam- 

ajr*'  proven,  at  law,  421,  n.  43. 

Date   of  Adoption — 

determines  validity  of  trademark,  10.'). 

Davids    Case,  r)(>.3,  :>M,  8(11. 
"Day    &    Martin,"    47. 

Dead    Langnage" — 

trademarks  consisting,'  of  words  from,  14.3. 

words  from,  may  l)e  used  as  trademark,  wlien,  14.3. 

Dealer — 

-oodwill  of,  222,  223. 
in  fraudulent  labels,  208. 

j)urcliasinji    infringin-,'   goods    from    manufacturer,    injunction    against, 
449. 

Deceit — 

action  of,  liy  defrauded  purchaser,  40."). 

Deception,    43. 

doubt  as  to,  resolved  in  favor  of  complainant,  307. 
need  not  be  shown,  when,  51. 
probability  of,  as  test  of  infringement,  290. 
proof  of,  when  necessary,  200. 


'.HKS  INDEX. 

Rrffrrucrs   art-    to  pa(fc». 

Deceptive    Marks — 

iu>t  n'pirttraMi'.  MI. 

Declaration    (see    Fomn) — 

ill  iii-tioii  of  lr«'S|iiiss,   11 M 

DccoratiTc   U«e— 

tlix's  not   aiitic*ipHt<',  72. 

Decree— 

(liriTtinfr  *lif<'ii(iiiiit  liow  to  U(*r  a  proper  nnmo.  402. 
(lir«Ttory,  j.'fiu'rally,  4«>2. 

Defendant    (ice    Partici    Defendant) — 

nii>*iuo<'ssfully  attai'hiii;:   |>laiiitiir's  titlt-   is  wanton  tn-spaHM-r,  440. 

Defenses — 

iiliandniinuiit,   21(1. 

action  at  law  iK-ttcr  susocptililc  of  dcfcnsr  than  suit  in  .Mniity.  418. 

acqiiit'sccncf,    20K. 

added  matter  used  with  infrin<:in<j  mark,   ineirective,  33.J,  4r)0. 

adverse'  adjudication  in  a  foreign  country,  449. 

attacking;  plaintilT's  right  to  sue.  417. 

denyinp,  infrin;;ement,  418. 

equality  of  (juality   no  defense,  '.i'M. 

CBtojjpel,  417. 

explanatory  matter,  440. 

fraudulent  representationw  by   plaintifT,  as,  4.30. 

in  action  at  law,  417. 

ineffective,  that  refillin;,'  wa«  done  at  request  of  customer,  313. 

in   equity.  417. 

insanity,  44'.l. 

laches,  as  defense  to  acco»intin<,',  200. 

laches  or  delay,  200. 

license  from  owner,  r)0,  418. 

misrepreB<'ntations  liy  owner.   80. 

no  defense  that  |Minliaser  was  notifii«d  of  r.al  nature  of  infringing 
goods,  430. 

none  to  show  defendant  ii(l<l<<l  "Improved"  to  infringing  mark,  442. 

n»>ne  to  show  defendant  jiliie. d  liis  name,  initials  or  address  on  in- 
fringing goods,  337. 

rion-infring<nient,  41H. 

of  :^l)an<lonment,  not   favored.   211. 

of  e<juality  of  quality  of  goo<ls,  442. 

«>f  infancy,  441. 

of  plaintifT  adding  coat-of-arms  t«)  trademark,  444. 

of  prior  use,  inelTective,  where  user  accompanied  l.y  false  represen- 
tations, 443. 


INDKX.  9fi9 

Iitfi  irtira  arc   to  pngcH. 

Defonses — ( 'initiinnil. 

of   It  j,'iHtrati(iii   nf  (Icfiiidiuit  h   murk,    HI. 

of  \isiii;,'  iiaiiic  and  addrcHH  in  coiijiinctioii  willi   tnidrniark,  4  I  "J. 

|daiiitill's   failure  to   advcrtim-  aMHigiiinrnt,  Si. 

prior  UHf  niUHt  lie  on  satin-  claHH,  4-12. 

Hhowiiif^  that    infrin;;finfnt   Iuih  c«'artcd,    im-irictivc,    IIK. 

tliat  comijlainant    in   a    J'arly   to  a  coniliination    in    n-Ktraint  of   tradr, 

4 .')(). 
that  defendant   a(l(i< d    \\<ird     improved,  '   UJ. 
that  defendant  did   not   intend   to   Hell,   ineireetive,   442. 
that  defendant   did   not   wdl,   inefrective,  44H. 

that  defendant  did   not  make  infrin^jin;,'  article,   ineireetive,  448. 
that  defendant  has  iieeii  lieensed,  ineireetivo  where  licenm;  revoked,  448. 
that  defendant  has  ceased  infrin<,'in<r,  42:?. 
that  defendants  have   incorporated,   inefTective,  44:1. 
that  defendant  is  acting  as  agent,  ineffective,  448. 
that   infrin;ring  goods  were  made  by  plaintifT,  inell'ective,  442. 
that  infringement  has  ceased,  no  defense  in  action   at  law.  423. 
that   infringement  is  only  partial,  ineffective,   444. 
that   infringement  of   jiroper   name    is    d(»ne   under    fraudulent   license, 

inefTective,  444. 
that  infringement  committed  hy  agents  or  8ervunts,  443. 
that  licensee  has  not  joined  in  action,  448. 
that  mark  has  become  puhlici  juris,  418. 
that  mark  is  common  to  the  trade,  417. 
that  others  are   infringing,  ineffective,  443. 
that  plaintifl's  mark   infringes  another's,  437. 
that  plaintifT   is  guilty  of  misrepresentation   to  public,   444. 
that  registrant  has   failed  to   imprint,   '^Si^. 
that  territorial  licensee  is  not  joined  in  suit,  ineffective,  448. 
use  by  others  on  goods  of  another  class,  443. 
want  of  notice,  inefTective,  443. 
wrongful  use  of  words  "patent"  or  "patented,"  81. 

Definitions — 

acquiescence,  208.  . 

acts  to  regulate  commerce,  025. 

affixed,  r).'>0,  .'iSd. 

amount  in  controversy,  .■)4r>,  n.  35. 

anti-trust  acts,  !)25. 

applicant,  58(i. 

article  of  manufacture,  510. 

article  of  merchandise  ( False  Stamping  Act ) ,  048. 

citizenship,  536. 

coin  goods,  946. 

commerce,  025. 

"common  to  the  trade,"   134. 


970  INDKX. 

Ilrfrrnicrs  arc   to  pagrg. 
Definitions     ('i>i)tiiiii<-<l. 
ftirponition,  '.•2.'». 
c<)uiit«rfrit   nmrk,   'M)0. 
«lintinotivr,  '.•.   «.    1. 

diwtinotivi'   nannH,  »imlrr    Fooil  anil   Druf^H  Act,  154. 
documentary   «'vid<'nc<',  O'ir). 
dninicili-.  'i'A(i,  n.  !•. 

**HH4-ntial  fi'aturi'H  of  tradmmrk,  'ui~ ,  n.   13. 
cxchiHivf  uw,  r)(54. 
fac  similr,   .'».S8,   n.    14. 
function  of  tradctnarkH,  17,  18,  551. 
fH-nt-ric  t«'rm,  fl.'J,  1.'12. 
jiowlwill,  218. 
imitation  mark,  300. 
infrinmnicnt,  270. 
lal><l,  i'li.i. 
lai-hi-s.  2()r>. 
location.  ii'M'K  n.  10. 
mislirandinj,',  oGO. 
owner,  .')80. 
pendin;:,  r)84. 
person.  .'»8(5. 
print,  .')ir>. 
<iuack  medicine,  254. 
*<irality,"   132. 
re;:i8trant,  i^tSV). 
renewal,  570. 
rij^ht  of  privacy,  267. 
wcondary  meaning,   190. 
fitates,  r>8(». 
Kterlinj;  ;ro«Kls,  !>4(i. 
8ul)Ktitution,  317. 
trademark,  4,  586. 
tradename,   10. 
trade  si-crct,  253. 
treaty,   535,  n.  6. 
United   States.    .580. 

Degree    of   Care — 

exp<'cte<l  of  ccmHumers,  304. 

Decree    of   Resemblance,    187. 

Delaware    Statntea,    010. 

Delay- 
to   tu-eun-   evidence,  20C 

•'Dcliarte"    (Mho<-Hj,  119. 


iNDKx.  :>7l 

RcfcrcnrrM  nrc   to  jxiyrtt. 
Demnrrcr— 

coiifrsscs  iill(';,'iit idii  of  fraud,  anil  injiirictioii  Ikhiich  if  ilcmiirD-r  ii\<t- 
riih'tl,  4'>:L 

iiit<T|K)S('(l  (III  upiilication  for  jirdimiiiary    iiijiiiKlKni,  iy.i. 

jiroptT  Htttu-k  (III  defects  uiKiii   face  of  liill,  441. 

siiHtnined  where  exliiliited  confliclinf,'  markn  kIhiw  no  infrin^'enunt,  440. 

t(i  title  hIiowh  in  liill,  441. 

will  not  lie  to  liill  in  e<|uity  on  ground  of  iinitiiif.'  prayerb  for  dam- 
ages and  jirofitH,  4."{0. 

"Dent.    London,"    .'U.   48. 

Depoaitions— 

liefore    Federal  Trade   Commission,  941. 

generally,  481. 

in  actions  at  law,  477. 

"Derby,"  284. 

"Derringer"   (lire-arma),  119. 

Description 

nquisites  of,  in  registration,  553,  554. 

Descriptive    Picture — 

not  a   trademark,  80,  541. 

Descriptive    AVords — 

as  tradenames,   14,    191. 

invalid  liecaust*  genc^ric,  94. 

not  registrable,   540,  »i.   24. 

of  secondary  meaning,  192. 

valid   trademarks  if   remotely    descriptive,  9fi. 

wiiv   objectionable  as  trademarks,    191. 

• 

Design — 

patented  by  another,  not  registrable  as  trademark,  542,  n.  26. 

"Dessicated"    (codfish),  101. 

Details- 
similarity  of,  343. 

Device — 

as  trademark,  4,  n.  3. 

"Dewey's    Chewies,"  274,  n.  89. 
"Diamond   Steel"    (case),  322. 

Directors^ 

of  corporation  as  defendants  in  action  for  infringement  by  corpora- 
tion. 403. 


«l7J  INDEX. 

RrfrrmrcK  nrr  to  pagci. 

Directory — 

inline  iiH  trtid)  iiiiirk,  201. 

DlicoTcry — 

to  moid  fXHtt*.  40.'). 
\\  lull  i('ni|>illi(i.  17  1. 

DismlaBal — 

of  *  aiu'fllution  jjriKMvditiR,  578. 

"Dliqnc,"   4.">1. 

Dlaalmllar    'Word    or    Mark— 

miiy   iiifrinj,'«'.  '.\'.i'l,  ."nV.l. 

DisBolntion — 

of   iiitrrferfnco,  57 1. 

uw  of  tradrmarka  hy  purtnt-rs  on,  31. 

uw  of  tradf  strrt-t.H  liy  purtiuTS  on,  262. 

Distillery     Brand* — 

assifjnahility  of,  .'JS. 

"Di«tiller«"— 

.fr.it  of.  78. 

Diitinctivc— 

difin.'d.  !•,  n.  4. 

Inid.nmrk  must  Jh-,  0,  20,  40,  7."J. 

"Di«tinctive    Names"—  v 

undiT   P\)od  and   l)ru;;s  Act,  ir)4. 

Distineuisliing;    Featnre — 

iiiiirit  In-  rf;;istral)h',  5(51. 

District  of   Columbia— 

tourtM  of  app.als,  jiirisdiition  uiid.r  Act  of   1905,  581, 

Disuse — 

ahandoiimt-iit  of  trademark  l>y,  212. 

Diverse    Citi«cn«hip — 

iiniHt   \<i'   pl.adi-.l,   ill   fid.ral  jiracticc,  52. 

Division- 
order  of,  appealald*',  554,  574. 
order  of,  elTect  of,   574. 

"Dor's    Head    Beer"    (caw),   322. 

Domicile — 

defined,   5:10,   n.  0. 


INDKX.  973 

Refcrcncca  arc  to  pagci. 


"Doric,"  ;i2rt. 

Double    Meaning— i 

words   (.f,    1!»4. 

Doubt- 
resolved  in  favor  of  rofiiHtrant,  563. 

Dresa — 

of  goods,  r>;{. 

"Dr.   Johnson's    Yello^r    Ointment,"  40. 

**Dr.    Lobenthal's    Essentia  Antlpbthlslca,"  120. 

"DruKRlsta'    Sundries"    (cigars),    101. 

"Druggists'    Sundries" — 

too  liroad  for  class  in  registration,  .'537. 

"Dry    Monopole"    (champaigne) ,   102. 
"Dublin"    (soap),   120,  541. 
"Duplex,"    32(). 

Duplication — 

of  tradename  not  enjoined,  when,   48,   note. 

Duration — 

of  life  of  trademarks,  21,  23. 
of  term  of  registration,  21. 

"Durham"   (tobacco),  102,  120,  IGO,  326. 

"Dyspepticnre,"   120,  33f). 

E 

"Economy,"   326. 
"Edelweiss"    (perfume),    120. 
"Egg"   (macaroni),  102. 
"Egyptian   Deities,"  326. 
"Elastic"    (hook-cases),   120. 
"Elastic  Seam"   (drawers),    102. 
"El   Cabio"  (tobacco),  144. 
"El    Destino"   (cigars),  144. 

Election — 

between  profits  and  damages,  420,  455. 
of  remedies,  413. 


974  INDEX. 

Rvfvrvnccs  arc  to  paget. 
-Electro-Silicon,"   1'20,    I.IS,  .120. 
"ElKin"    (watchoH).   102.   1(54. 
"Elk"    (cij,MirsK    120. 

Eminent   Domain — 

-oo.lwill    sul.jcft    to,  220. 

"Emollla"  (toilet  cn-nm),    120. 
"Emolliornm"   (Iciitlur    dresKing),    102. 
"Empire"   (8tovo»),   120. 

Employee — 

i'lijuiiu'd   from   disrlosinj,'  trade  secrets,  255. 
liable  for  iiifriii<,'cni(nt,  40;J. 

Empty  Packages — 

eomjutitur   iiijoim-d    from   buyinj^,  209. 

"Encyclopedia   Britannica,"  102. 

England — 

trademark  lejrislation  in,  — . 
trademark  riyhta  of  alien  in,  (iS. 

Engraver — 

of  fraudulent  marks,   298. 

Ensemble — 

imitation    of,   293. 

Entirety- 
trademarks  as,  .')7. 

"Epicure"    (eanned   salmon),  120. 

Eqnality    of   Quality— 

no   defense,   .3.'{7. 

Equity  (see  Account,  Accounting.  Decree.  Forms.  Injunction, 
Interlocutory  Decree,  Laches,  Master,  Preliminary  In- 
junction,   References,    etc.). 

acquiescenee,    52. 
delay,  20(5,  208. 

fraud   confers  jtirisdiction,   54. 
jurisdiction  <tver  fraud,  5.'». 
jurisdiction  ov4r  Jinfair  eom|ietition,  55. 
Inches,  .')2. 

not  lK)und  l»y  arbitrary  rules,  51. 
relief   in,   54,  451. 
'unclean  hands,"  78,  440. 


INDEX.  975 

References  are  to  paget, 

"Estate  and  Effect«"— 

^'oodwili.  not  iiuludt-d   in,  227. 

Estoppel — 

jiH  a  dcft'nHf,  417. 
muHt   he  pleaded,   417. 
of  licenHO  to  deny  validity,  60. 

of   withdrawinf,'    partner   as    against   subsequent   creditor,    where    old 
iirni  iianif  used,  24r>. 

"Ethiopian"    (stockings),  120,   147,  n.  24, 

"Eton"    (cigarettes),  215. 

"Eureka"   (fertilizer,  etc.),   120,   121,  143. 

"Eureka"    (shirts),   120,   143. 

"Evaporated"    (food),    102. 

"Ever  Ready"    (cofTee   mills),    102. 

"Everyday    Soap,"    326,  333. 

Evidence — 

burden  of  proof  in  refilling  cases,  468. 

burden  of  proving  abandonment,  214. 

burden  of  proving  prior  right,  213,  n.  48. 

delay  in  order  to  secure,  not  laches,  206. 

expert,  on  (juestion  of  infringement,  460. 

matters  of  wliich  courts  take  judicial  notice,  467. 

of  abandonment,   210. 

of  deception,  when   necessary,  461). 

of  defendant's  sales,  469. 

of  experts,  as  to  habits  of  customers,  468. 

of  fraud,  310. 

of  fraud,   particular   instances,   310. 

of  fraudulent   intent — 

in  criminal   prosecution,  310. 

in  other  cases  of  unfair  competition,  310. 

in  trademark  cases,  310. 
of  good  faith,  469. 

of  intent  oi  contemner  immaterial,  474. 
of  loss  of  sales,  422,  423. 
of  loss  of  sales,  in  action  at  law,  423. 
of  other  frauds,  311. 
of  submission  of  others,  472. 

printing  label  in  foreign  language,  evidence  of  frauds,  167. 
registration  as,  of  extent  of  claim,  380. 


976  i.NUKX. 

Itcfcrcnct  s  aif  to  pagct. 
Erolatlou    of   Lnw    of  Trademarks,    IG. 

"ExceUlor"    (wmp),   121.   U:t.  2i:..  a2C. 

"EmceUior"    (stovrw.  vie),    \~\,    1J3. 

EKclasiTr    Licpnacr — 

inu8t  !»•  II  jiiirty,  .'iD. 

EzclnsiTenrBa — 

as  tot   uf  trailiuiurk'H  vulidity,  20. 

EzclnaiTc   Use — 

defined,  r)«4. 

Execution — 

may   hv  levied  on  trade  (jeeret,  2(53. 
on  guodwill,  22(3. 

Exemplary    Damages — 

in  uetiuns  at   law,  421,  422. 

may  lie  allowed  where  no  actual  damages  proven,  421,  r».  43. 

Exhibits— 

attaeliing  to  injunctive  order,  471. 

demurrer  may  lie  sustained  on   inspection  of,  440. 

introducing  conflicting  marks,  as,  440. 

Existence — 

>«f  tradiniark  right,  21. 

Expert  Evidence — 

as  to  liabits  of  customers,  470. 
•  as  to  variance  in  alcoholic  proof   in   li<|Uor9,  468. 

on  catchwords  applied  to  goods,  4(>!). 
on  (|instion  of  infringement,  348. 
on  technical  and  seicntitie  ([uestions,  4(i8. 
valualile  in  doulitful  ease,  4(58. 

Expiration   of  Patent— 

eir<rt    of,  (in    right    t<i    jirciteetion   of   dress,   87,    161. 
efTcct  of,  on  trademarks,  88. 

Exporters — 

may  lia\e  trademarks,  (53. 

Extensive    Sale — 

(1<.<H  not   invalidate  mark,   140. 

'•Extract    of    Nlnht-BloomlnR    Cerens"   (|i.rfiime^,  102. 


INDKX.  977 

RefcrcnccH  are  to  pngra. 


"Fabor"    (pt'iicilH),   102,   121. 

Fac-slmilc — 

di-Iiiifd,  438,  «.   14. 

lU't'd  not  contain   unraHcntial   ftatiins   of    mark,    532. 
one  only  ni'cdcd  for  n'fi;iBtration,  undor  Act  of    1881,  532. 
rcijuin-d   in   rc^iiHtiation,  undiT  Act  of   lOUS,  541). 

"Fadettea"  (case),    180. 

"Fairbank's    Patent"   (scales),   102. 

Fair    Trade- 
required  liv   equity,   40. 

False   Labels — 

avernniit  of   liill   to   restrain  dealing  in,  890. 

False   Pretenses — 

in  sale  of  goods  under  imitation   mark.  410. 

False    Representation,    45. 

as  bar  to  registration,  5U1. 

as  to  foreign  origin  of  goods,  107,  215. 

deprives  owner  of  registered  mark  of  protection,  546,  n.  35. 

in  connection  with  trademarks,  78,  79,  80. 

Falsely   Marking — 

article  "patented,"  84. 

False    Stamping — 

gold  and  silver  articles,  "article  of  merchandise"  defined,  946. 
"coin"  goods,  046. 

deviation  from  marked  fineness,  045. 
fineness  required,  945. 
original  packages,  048. 
plated  goods,  requirements  as  to,  947. 
punisliment,  jurisdiction,  947.  ^ 

"sterling"  goods,  047. 
to  be   properly   stamped,  946. 

"Family"    (salve),  121. 
"Famons"    (stoves),   102. 

"Fancy    Goods"— 

too  broad  for  class  in  registration,  .'>37,  n.  12. 


UTS  INDKX. 

I\< fnntrrs  arr   Id  pa<)rg. 
Fancy    "Word* — 

prottvtrtl   us   tratlciimrk,    1  ;'>;!,    100. 

"Farthctt   North"    (Look  titlr^  'Mi'>. 

••Favorit*"    (lluur),    \2l. 

"Favorltr"    (l.-tt.-r    tWv) .    lo;i. 

Federal    Anti-Tru«t   Act»— 

private  actions  iiridiT,   'MCt. 

Federal    Court* — 

jurisdiition  conturnut  with  stntt-  coiirts  in  trfidcmiirk  canon,  31>r>. 
jurisdiction    dipcndi-nt   upon   divcrao  citi/tiisliip    in    caws   of   unregis- 

tori'd  tradt-mnrks,  301. 
jurisdiction  of,  in  oast-s  of  unfair  compt'tition,  '>'!. 
jurisdiction  of,  in  Iradi-niurk  cuscs.  3!),"),  581. 

Federal  Statutes   (sec   Statutes.  Federal). 

Federal   Trade    Commission — 

Act  of  September  20,  1014,   ostahlisliin;:: 

Sec.    1.   Federal    Trade     Commission — Creation — Membership — Va- 
cancies— Seal,  023. 

2.  Salaries — Kmployees — Classified     Civil     Si-rvici- — Kxpendi- 

tures — Rent    of    oflices,   023. 

3.  Bureau  of  corporations  uholisiied — Transfer  of  employees, 

etc. — Principal  ollice — ln(|uiries  elsewhere,  024. 

4.  Definitions,  02"). 

T).   Power  to  prohibit  unfair  comjietition — Procedun — Review, 
02(;. 

0.  Additional   jxtwers,  028. 

7.   May  act  as  master  in  chanory,  wlien,  !>30. 

H.   Records,  etc..  of  <:()Vernnuiital  dii)artin<'nt^   furnished  com- 
mission,  030. 

0.   Documentary    evidence — Attendance  of   witnesses — Deposi- 
tions— Incriminatinj,'   evidence,  031. 
1(1.    Penalties,  032. 

11.   Anti  triist    acts    and    acts    to    regulate    commerce    not    re- 
|)ealed,  034. 
rules  of  the  conunission,  038. 

Fees    (see    Statutes;    Act    of   1905,     and    Statutes    of    the    Several 

States)— 

for  re;.'iHtration  of  Irailiinark   in   patent  otiice.  .">78. 
rej.'intration,    wli<n    nfnndfd,   7t'.W,  n.    17,    'mO. 

"Fcrro-ManKanese"    (mineral   water  i ,    l.'!7. 

"Ferro-Phosphorated    Elixir    of   Cnlisaya    Bark,"   Ki.l,   1.T7. 


INDEX.  ^'TO 

Jte^crvnct s  arc  to  pages. 
"Fibre    CliamoiB"    (ilrcHrt   liiiiiigH),   121. 

Figurative    W^orda— 

as    valid    tradcinarkH,    Ht-L 

"Filoflo8«"    (silk).   121,   '.VM. 
"Filoaelle."  IJ.J"). 
"Filtre    Rapide  '   (filtors),  121. 
•Tire-Board,"  4:)1,  n.  24. 
"Fire-proof,"    (oil),  10:5. 

Firm  Name — 

as  part  of  t,'ouclwill,  244. 

as  trademarks,   1(58. 

passes  to  purchaser  of  assets  only  by  express  agreement,  243. 

Fish   Inspector — 

marks  of,  T>'^'1,  n.  ."5. 

Flag- 
not  registrable,   ")r)6. 

"Flinch"    (game),  103. 

"Flor  de  Margaretta,"  326. 

"Flor    Fina"    (cigars),  144. 

Florida,    Statutes,  ()'>3. 

Food  and  Drugs  Act — 

misbranding  under,  5(10. 

Foreign    Adjudications — 

upon   right  to  trademark.  200,  note. 

Foreign    Corporation — 

right  of,   to   enjoin    formation  of  new  corporation   under   same   name, 
187,  189. 

Foreigrn    Corporation   Lia'w — 

elTect   of   non-eomplianee,    22. 

Foreigjners— 

had  no  special  privilege  under  Act  of  March  3,  1881,  r)4S,  n.  41. 

Foreign   Language- 
printing  generic  word  in  letters  from,  does  not  make  trademark,  95. 
use  of,  as  evidence  of  unfair  competition,  166. 
words   from,  as  trademarks,    143. 


980  INDKX. 

Tirfrrrnrrs   arc   to  pngct. 

(.HUM  tor  frit  in;:  tnuU-marks   is   not,   r>7.   410. 

Form — 

ni>t   rr^ihtralili-  «>*  trmlciuurk,  r».{S,  nutc. 
infrin^n-mrnt  t>f.  "JST. 

Form,    Sisr    and    Color — 

no  trad. mark   in.   JSd,  -iSI.  '2S7,  'I'lO. 

Former — 

adjudimtion,  .")70. 

Formt    (forms    for    state    rcgistrntion    arc    indexed    under   the   names   of 

tile  wveral   Btatoe)  — 
answer,  H'X\,  S'Mi. 
bill  of  complaint: 

a^'ainnt  dealer  in  spurious  labels,  867. 

trademark   infringement,  85.'),  872,  870,   884,  890. 

iindi-r  t<'n-year  clause,  861. 

unfair  competition,  8(>7. 
cancellation,  application  for,  61S. 
contract  against  disclohinj,'  trade  secret,  257. 
covenant  not  to  re-enpape,  22;'),  n.  52. 
declaration,  action  at  law,  852. 
drawin;;.  form  of,  61fl. 
injunction : 

final  decree,  01,  4.')0,  003,  904,  905. 

interlocutory  decree,  001. 

writ.  003. 
int<'rrojratorieB,  860. 

mandate,  circuit  court  of  appeals,  906. 
oppoBJtion,  notice  of,  617. 

pleading  re^'istration  of  trademark,  801,  881,  886. 
repiBtration,   prints  and   laiiels: 

apjilication    by: 

an  individual — prijits,  r>24. 
a  firm — prints,  524. 
a  corporation — prints,  525. 
an  individual — labels,  526. 
a  firm — labels,  520. 
a  corporation — labels,  526. 
trademark   n-yistration : 

petition.  Oil. 

statement  by  an    individual,  612. 

declaration   for  an   individual,  012. 

statement  by  a  firm,  01.3. 

declaration   for  a    firm,  013. 


INDEX.  981 

RefcrrnrcH  arr  to  page$. 
Forma — Continued. 

trademark  n-f^iHtration  :  — c-ontinin-d. 
Htatcmt-nt  l>y  a  corporation,  (il4. 
declaration  for  a  corporation,  (il 4. 
declaration  under  ten  year  proviHO,  (515. 
declaration  for  a  forei^'ii  applicant,  017. 
notice  of   opposition,  (il7. 
petition    for  cancellation,   018. 

Forma    of  Action,  40."). 

Former  Adjudication — 

as  basis  for  preliminary  injunction,  4r)3. 
value  of,  4r>3. 

Formnla — 

protection  of,  207. 
relation  to  trademark,  .38. 

Frand — 

as  the  basis  of  equital)le  jurisdiction,  2,  3,  4,  12,  14,  47. 

circumstantial  evidence  of,  400,  n.   13. 

evidence  of,   10(i. 

how  charged  in  bill  to  restrain  unfair  competition,  430,  n.  22. 

in  using  one's  own  name,  178. 

no  fixed  rules  for  dealing  with,  in  equity,  340. 

m\ist  be  pleaded  in  action  at  law,  415. 

must  be  proven  in  cases  of  unfair  competition,  43,  51. 

presumed  from  printing  American  label  in  foreign  language,  167. 

presumed  from  wrongful  use  of  trademark,  42,  51. 

Fraudulent   Intent — 

how  proven,  311. 

may  be  inferred,  204,  205. 

must  be  shown  in  action  at  law,  205. 

presumed  in  equity  from  wrongful  use  of  trademark,  42,  294. 

proof  of,  207. 

Fraudulent    Packagea — 

liability  of  dealer  in,  405. 

Fraudulent   R€preaentationa — 

by  plaintitT,  as  a  defense,  417,  436. 

"French"   (paints),  103. 

"Frencli   Tiaaue"  (medicated  paper),  103. 

"Fruit  Salt,"  439. 

"Fruft"  (vinegar),  103. 

Function — 

ol  trademarks,   17,  IS,  n.  33,  551. 


982  iNDi:x. 

Refercncrs  arc   to  pagc$. 

o 

"G»lpn"    ( nmiiuf«itnr«(l  jjIukh),   103. 
'•G.    E,"    (ilcftric  lunipKt,   :U'2. 

General    Effect— 

(i.K-triiir   of.   :U«. 

Generic   Terms — 

n  matter  of  ovidoncp,  140. 

cun  not  \>v  trademarks,  T."*.  11.1. 

classified,   I'G. 

common    to    trade,    no    cxehisive    ri;.'lit    to,   conveyed    liy    renistration, 

1.S4.  la.i. 
defined,  m. 

from  dead  languat^es,  not  valitl   trmleniarks.   14:1. 
illustrations  of,  08. 

include  ;:eo^ra|)hical   and  descriptiv.-   words  and   proper  num«8,  93, 
judicially   defined.    132. 
may  l>e  distinctive,   ir)4. 

not   made   trademarks  \>\   reK>><tration,  385. 
when  protected,   149. 

"Genuine    Yankee"   (soap),  283. 

GeoKraphical    Names— 

as  employed   l>v   sole  owner   of   natiiral   product  and   place  of  produc- 
tion, 100. 
as  trademarks,  (il.  03,   1.")!). 

can   not   l>c  essential  feature  of  trademark,   r>41, 
classification  of,   ">41. 
false  us*'  of,  vitiates  trademark,  l(5r». 
fancifully  us«'d,  l<5t>. 

may  I'c  descriptive  or  deceptive,  .'')40,  »».  24. 

not  made  rejiistrable  hy  aurroundin;,'  jj;iH)metrical  fljiure,  542,  »>.  24. 
not   n-nistrahlc,  ^'enerally,  541. 
not    re;;iBtrahle    illidir   Act   of    1005,   557. 
not   trademarks   l.ecause  generic,  03. 
protected  a^'ainst  unfair  competition,    140. 
iM'Condary   meaninj;,  102. 
when  protected  as  trademarks,  102,  100. 
when  rejfiHtrahU,  541,  502. 
who  may  cf)mplain   of  false  use  of,   102. 
why  ohjcctionalth-  as  trademarks,  150,  103,  104. 

Gcorfcla,   6tatate>,   057. 


INDEX.  983 


Rcfcrcncrs  arc  to  paget. 
"German"   (Hwcct  cliocolutc) ,  Ki't,  '{20. 

"German  Honachold   Dyes,"  32G. 

"Germania,"  :i2(i,   535. 

"Germea,"  .'{26.  ' 

Get-up — 

proiuTty   in,  4(1,  207,  298. 

"G.  F.,"  :U2. 

"Gibraltar"   ( lainj)  cliimnoys) ,   10.3. 

Glassblovcrers    and   Glasi-stainera— 

{i;oo(l\vill  of,  222. 

"Glendon"    (iron),  10.3. 
"Glenfield"    (starcii,  etc.),  121. 
"Gold    Dust."  .320. 

Gold  and  Silver  ^Va^e — 

false  .stani|)in;,',  !(44. 

"Gold  Label"   {l.n-ad),   103. 
"Gold   Medal"  (salcratus) ,  103. 
"Golden    Crown"   (cigars),  121,327. 
"Golden"  (ointment),  103. 
"Golden  "Wedding"   (whiskey),  121. 
"Goliath,"  535,  n.  6. 

Good  Faitb— 

as  a  <lefense,  295. 

Goodvpill — 

administration  of,  in  jtartncrsliip  estate,  245. 

advertising  as  an  element  of,  43. 

a])praisal  of,  238. 

analogous  to  trademarks,  229. 

as  sul)ject  to  levy  and  sale,  225. 

classes  of  business  having,  221. 

comiH'tition  between   vendor  and  vendee,  239. 

conveyance  of,   by   stockholders,  220. 

covenant  to  make  valuable,  242. 

covenants  not  to  re-engage  in  business,  233. 

damages  for  impairment  of,  246. 


984  INDKX. 

Rrfcrcnrca  are  to  paget. 

Goodwill — C'ontinutMl. 
difm.Hl.  '218,  -ilU.  210. 

P'IuthI  and   Iik-hI,  diHtin^niislu'd,  218,  228. 
(fiH'H  to  jMrHoiml  roprfHiMtativc,  IMK 
in  hankruiitov,   221. 

in  ndatiitn  to  Hrm  and  iitrporatc  namt-s,  220. 
intk'paraldc  from  tradmuirkn.  2S,  ."i7.%. 
invaHion  of,   KH. 
involuntary  alienation  of,  22t». 

jurindiftion  of  frdcral  i-onrtn  in  casi-s  involving',  252. 
hxal,  227.  229. 
mortj;a;;t'  of,  220. 

not  nrcossarily   inrludcd   in  niortj:am'  of  (.-ntiro  assftrt,  228,  n.  72. 
of  fori'ijjn  corporation.  22«l. 
of  li'arncd  professions.  224,  241. 
of  nt'WspapiT,  221. 
of  partm-rsliip,  :}.'>,   22(».   2:i!».  243. 
professional,  22.S. 
propertv  in,  220. 
remedies  of    pureliaser.   24.'>. 
rescission  of  contract  for  sale  of.  250. 
ripht  of  vendee  to  ro-assign,  233. 
rights  of  vendor,  230. 
sale  of,  22.'). 

sale  of,  on  dissolution,  238. 

sale  of,  conveys  trademarks  without  special  mention,  28. 
subject  to  eminent   domain,  220. 
ta.vation  of,  22«i. 

trademarks  inseparable  from.  OS,  101,   'u'y. 
trademarks  can  only  be  assigned  with,  08,  'uit. 
valuation  of,  .32,  238. 

vendee  of,  enjoined  from  re-engaging  in  business,  241. 
what  words  necessary  to  convey,  227. 

"Goodwill,   etc."— 

<b-fined,  22H. 

"Goodyear   Rubber    Co.."    103,  185. 

"Gothic,"  :!27 

"Gonraud'B    Oriental   Cream"    (cosmetic),   122. 

Grade,    Style    or    Quality— 

niarkb  of,  imt   rtj;iHtral)le,  .">73. 

"Grand    Master"    ( cigars),   122. 

"Granite"    (kitchen   uteiisilH),   104. 


INDEX.  985 


References  arc  to  pagc$. 
'«OranoIithlo"   (artiflcial  Hton*-),  lO-l- 

"Granulated    Dlrt-Klller"    (Hoap),   104. 

**Grape-Nut»,"  '.V.V.\. 

"GreatcBt  Value   for   the   Money"  (hIkxh),  104. 

*'Or«en   Mountain"  ( Hcy tlu'-ntoiu-H,  etc. ) ,  104. 

"Grenade"  (syrup),    122,   ir)4. 

"Grenadine"  (wyrup),  147. 

Groups  of  Letters — 

as  tradfinarks,  ;{40. 

"Guaranteed"    (corsets),  104. 

"Guenther's   Best"    (flour),  104. 

Guilty    Knowledge- 
need  not  1>»'  proven,  wlien,  209. 

"Guinness,"  327. 

"Gyrator"    (holtnifj;  macliiues),  104. 

H 

"Habana,"  402,  n.  16. 

Haberdasher — 

goodwill  of,  222. 

Habit— 

of  customers  is  foundation  of  goodwill,  220. 

Hallmarks — 

combination  of  as  trademark,  72. 

"Hamburg"   (tea),  104. 

"Hand   Grenade"   (fire  extinguisher),   104. 

"Hanford's   Chestnut   Grove"    (whiskey) ,  122. 

"Hansa"    (lard,   etc.),    122. 

Hardx^are    Dealer- 
goodwill  of,  222. 

"Harvard    Classics"   (hooks),  122. 

"Harvey's   Sauce,"  104. 


986  INDEX. 

Rrfrrmceg  arc  in  pnfjra. 

tradfmHrkrt  in,  (iOH,  <>11. 
"Hiulcton   Boiler   Company"   (rasr) ,  189. 
'Hcadacho    Wafer.."    lOJ 
"Health    Food"   (.-.r.;!!  prtxluctM  i ,   104. 
"Health    PrcierTliiK"    ( corsrti'K   104. 
"Hellotypc"    (prinlnt.    1-22. 
"HermltaRe"    (wliiskcy),  .'J27. 
"Hero"   (jars).  122. 

"Hif^hly    Concentrated   Compound   Fluid    Extract    of    Bnchn,"    104. 
"Holbrook'i"    (srliuol  a|)iiJiratiis  1 .   104. 
"Holeproof   (hosii-ry).   122,  .'^iT. 
"Holland   House"   (caBo),  .Sr><]. 
"Home"    (wwinj;  machines),  122,  327. 
"Homeopathic    Medicinc»."  lO'i. 
"Honeymoon,"   H27. 
"Hoosier"    (drills).  122. 

"HoBtetter's  Bitters"— 

infrinjrcmcnt  l>y  dt-alin^'   in  nuitcrial   for  refilling,  313. 
iiifrinp'd  by  otln-r  words,  .*<27. 

Hotel    Namei,  3r)4. 

"Howqna'i    Mixture,"   122. 

"Humphrey'^   Homeopathic  Specific!,"   327. 

"Hunter"    (hIkm-h,  «>tc.).  122. 

"Huntaman'a   Cherry    Brandy,"   .322. 

"Hunyadi"    cawH,   10'),  207.  207.  H84. 

"Hurricane,"    'M'.\. 

"Hydro-Bromo    Soda   Mint,"    10;'). 

"HyReia"    (wat.r),    12;{. 

"HyRlcnic"  ( iindirwcar ) ,   lOf). 

*'HyKieniquei"    (HUHp-ndern) ,    123. 


INDKX.  987 

UefertitvcH  arc  to  jxigct. 


Idaho,    Statntei,    titll. 
"Idcftl"   (foiiiilaiii  piiisi,  123. 

"Ideas" — 

art  proix'rty,  'M)H. 

Idem    Sonans — 

ill  propiT  iianif  cases,   183. 

Identity— 

(if    infriii;;in;,'   mark,    14,  n.  21. 

Illinoia,  Statutes   and  Forma,  i\C)4,  GG8. 
Illiteracy  of  the   Consumer,  306. 

Illustrations — 

of  <,'('m'ric  terms,  98. 

of  valid  trademarkrt,    114. 

Imitation — 

of  particulars  common  to  the  trade,  300. 
of  trademarks,  .'{()(). 

of  trademark,  may   be  limited  or  partial,  300. 
tlie  rif,'ht  of,  358. 

"Imperial"   (l)eer,  etc.),    10'),    123. 

Importers — 

may  have  trademarks,  63. 

Imposition — 

on  tlie  public,  as  test  of  infringement,  305. 

Imprint^ 

etTect  of  omission,   i^tSCt. 

Improper   Joinder — 

of  other  causes  of  action  witli  suits  to  restrain  unfair  competition,  405. 

"Improved"— 

addition  of,  to  mark,  no  defense,  442. 

Inciting   Breach,   'MV-^. 

India- 
trademark  rifihts  of  alien  in,  fift. 

Indiana,    Statutes    and    Forms.   (>G0,  673. 


I^SS  INDEX. 

Ifrfrrrnrrg  arr   In  pagcB. 
"Incliau    Pond"    ( scytlu*Ht(>iu-H) ,    123. 
"Indiiui   Root"   (pillH),   123. 
Indikn    Tribes — 

.  .null,  n.-  with  limy  1m-  wholly  in  a  Hiii;,'lc  Htut<',  .')34,  n.  ."J. 
"Indiirnted    Fibre"   ( \V(>o<l|iulp   jiriKlucts  i ,    10.'..   l.'J". 

Industry — 

(iymholi/.tHl  l>y  Iratliniiirk,  4.  ».  .'{. 

"In-er-Seal"    (l)ak.ry    proihu-ts*,    123. 

Infancy — 

not  a  doft-nsc,   441. 

Infant — 

liiihlf  for  costs,  400. 

Infringer— 

liable  for  whole  profit  on  infrin^'inp  article,  450. 

may  recover  from  person   procurin;:  the  infrinf,'iinent.  404. 

Infringement — 

hy  a  non-identical  word  or  mark,  .'521. 

hy   applyinj;  manufacturer's  mark  to  his  {joods  not  intended  to  be  so 

marked,  .'{l.'t. 
hy  counterfeiting:,  'M\(\. 
hy  ^'oods  of  e<pial  (|uality.  3.37. 
I.y   imitation,  300. 

hy  others  than  defendant,  no  defense,  443. 
by  refilling  jienuine  packages,  313. 
by   Kfdicitation   of  complainant's   a^rent,  43fi. 
defined,  270. 

discontinuance  of.  no  defense  to  action  for  damapcs,  448. 
evidence  of  loss  of  sales  resulting  from,  423. 
••Xpert  evidence  as  to,  407. 
how  pleaded,  in  action  at  law,  413. 
in  another  jurisdiction,   34R. 
judicial   tests  of,  301,  342,   3r)2. 
liability  of  person  ordering,  to  mnnufacturer,  200. 
may  be  partial.  270,  444. 
must  I)e  on  same  elass  of  poods.  307.  310 
of  lKK)k  titles  and  play  titles  by  motion  j)icturc  titles,  204 
of  catcli-wordH,  I.'')!.  344,  400. 
of  form,  size  and  color,  280,  287. 
t^^Ht^-d  by  probability  of  deception,   301. 
t^'Hts  of,  .301,  342,  3.12. 
wliat  participants  liable  for,  402. 
when  single  instance  of,  warrants   injunction,   437. 


INDKX.  989 

l\il<-rrurvH   tirr   to   pngrs. 


Initials— 

iis   t  riKlcinaikH,   .'{.'{H. 


Injunction    (icp    Forms;    Interlocutory    Decree;     Preliminary    In- 
junction)— 

a;,'iiiii.Ht   dealers,  j)riiiters,  en;;riiverH,  ftc,  2i)S. 

upiiiiHt  (liH(lt)siire  of  trade  Hecrt-t,  253. 

againut  fraJiduleiit   imitation   of  tin  ta^j,  281 

agninHt  lict'nHco  on  lueaili  of  c(tndition,  448. 

af^ainut  n-filling,  '.\V.\. 

against  vondtr  of  j,'oo<hvill   re-en;^aging  in  businoas,  239. 

can  not  issue  in  suit  to  wliicli  c.xchisivo  licensee!  is  not  a  party,  59, 

denied  when  douht  w  hetlier   idaiiitill's  mark  generic,  451. 

denied  when  phiintitr  guilty  of   laelies,  2()<i. 

denied  where   exelusiveiiess  of  phiintilFs   right  doubtful,  4.")1. 

denied  wliere  plaintills  riglit  not  exclusive,  452. 

denied  where  plaintilVs  right  or  defi-ndant's  infringement  doubtful, 
451. 

enlarging  on  hearing  of  contempt  proceedings  473. 

forms  of,  780,  701. 

granted  against  threatened  infringement,  448. 

granted  on  ex  parte  atlidavits  only  in  clear  case,  452. 

limited  as  to  territory,  23. 

may  be  granted  witiiout  costs,  403. 

may  issue  against  all  persons  connected  with  infringing  corporation, 
240. 

no  contempt  in  violation  of.  where  stayed  by  appeal,  473. 

preliminary,  may  be  reviewed  and  enlarged  on  appeal,  in  federal  prac- 
tice, 4t>5. 

preliminary,  refused  where  defendant  solvent,  and  injury  may  be  re- 
paired by  money  judgment,  451,  ji.  21. 

preliminary,  weight  of  former  adjudications  concerning  plaintifT's 
title,  upon,  453,  472,  570. 

refused  owner  of  registered  mark  containing  false  representation, 
54G,  n.  35. 

right  to,  not  lost  by  laches  and  ac(|uiescence,  208. 

value  of  interlocutory  decrei'  in  another  case,  473. 

when  warranted  by  evidence  of  single  infringement,  3(>0,  437,  443. 

who  liable  to,  205. 

will  lie  against  registrant  by  one  having  prior  right,  546,  n.  35. 

Injury — 

need  not  be   prr)ven,   448. 

Inoperative    Defenses    (see    Defenses) — 

that  the  mark  has  l)ect>mc  indicative  of  quality  through  extensive 
sales,   148. 


900  IN'PKX. 

ItrfcrcnilS  an-   to  pagrt. 
Inaanlty — 

iitit   a   tlcfiiiw   til  rliurj;f  «>f   iiifriii;{tin('iit,    149. 

"Insectlne"   (inHcct    jiowdtTi,   \2'.\. 

Inspection — 

««f  l>^•<lk^<  1111(1   |in|icrM,  47'2. 

Inspection    by    the    Court — 

i>f  luiiflict  ill;;    marks,  Itll. 

"Instnntnneoua"   ( tiipioca  i ,    !(».'>,   104. 
"Ininrance"  (oili,   \'2'.\. 

Integrity — 

H\  mbolizt'd   \>\  trailomnrk,  4,   >i.  .'{. 

Intent— 

diHtiiution  lu'twccn  trademark  and  other  cases  as  to,  294. 

generally,  29;}. 

immaterial  in  action  in  equity,  29;{. 

immaterial  where  no  injury  done,  294. 

of  parties  as  to  assi^mment  of  trademark,  212. 

successive  changeH  of  dress  as  t'vidence  of,  470. 

Intention — 

actual   int<ntion  to  adopt  trademark  necessary,  26. 

Interference— 

aiipriiis,  .")72. 

Letter  title  prevails,  r)44.  fiTl. 

between   re;.Mstrant  and  applicant,  .TR9. 

hur<K;n  of  proof  upon  applicant,  .'{89,  r)44,  545. 

cflTcct  of  decision,  :')!(),  fiTl. 

effect  of  laches,   r)72. 

may  \h'  declared  between   jiartiuT   itiid    firm,  r)44. 

nature  of   issues  in,   .')71. 

nature  of  practice  in,  r)71. 

pri'liminary  skiti-ment,  .SS9. 

re^'istrant  undi-r  Act  of  1S7()  notified  of  ajiplication  under  Act  of  1881 

to  re^'ister   similar  mark,   .T14. 
words  of  like  ItMiks  and  sound,  r)71. 

tnterlocntory    Decree    (see    Forma) — 

us  I'vidence  of  ri;.'ht  to  trademark,  473. 
dccre*'  may  adjudj^c  costs,  49r). 

Intermittent   Use — 

will  not  iHtuldihh  Iradi-mark  ri>;ht,  20. 


INDEX.  'J'Jl 


RrfcrcnctH  arc  to  jutffra. 
"International   Banking   Co.,"   1  ()■'>. 

International  Convention— 

for  iirotcitioii  of   iiiduHtrial  property,  909. 
United  Stut.rt  II  purty,  920. 

InterroKatorioa,  4S((. 
f..nu  of.  S(i(). 

Interrnpted    Use — 

will  not  c-n-atc  tith-,  litl,  04. 

Interstate    Commerce — 

])rcsirit   f.-dcriil  act  ndatt-s  to  trademarks  used  in,  19. 

"Intimidad"  (cigars),  144  . 

Invention — 

name  of  an  unpatented,  130. 
trademark  not  dependent  on,  72,  73. 

"Invigorator"  (spring  bed  bottoms),  123. 

Icora,   Statutes   and  Forms.  074,  676. 

"Iron    Bitters,"   10"). 

"Iron    Clad"  (lKX)ts),  123. 

"Ironstone"  (water  pipe),  105. 

J 

Jeopardy — 

of  mark  by  defendant's  acts  sliould  be  pleaded,  394. 

"J.  H.  W."   (boots),  342. 

"Johnson's    American    Anodyne"  (liniment),  105. 

Joinder — 

of  causes  of  action,  40.'5. 
of  parties  plaintiff,  399. 

Joint   Tort-Feasor — 

liable  fur  wliole  damage  resulting  from  tort,  460. 
licensor  and  licensee  as,  179. 

Judicial    Definitions— 

of  goodwill,  218. 
of  trademarks,  4. 

Judicial  Notice,  467. 


99  J  iNi)i:x. 

/,',  f.i.  IK  .  <  itrr   In  jKifjri.  ~ 

Judicial    Teit»— 

«>f  infriiij;fni«iit.  '.i\2. 

••Jtillpnne"   (sn\i|.  i,   lo.'i. 
'•Jnnkrt    TRblctt."   12.1.  :«J7. 

Jnriidiction— 

infriii>:<'nii'nt  in  iiiiothtT.  348. 

of  itiuity  biimtl  on  rij;lit  of  projxrty   in  Irnd.mark  caw»,  47. 

of  «Hiuity  in  matttTH  of  trach-  went,  2.'>.'». 

of  f»'«l«'ral  fourtH  in  casi'rt  involvin>r  g«MMh\ill.  244. 

of   f.-<ltral   rourts   in  cancH  «>f  unfair  compi'titJon,    ')'2,  :W2,   :tO:i. 

of   fi'drral  roiirts   in   trH«l<niark  i-aHrt*.  :W\. 

of  f.-a.-ral   lourts  undi-r   Ait  of    ISSl.  :iS4. 

of  frdt-ral  courts  under   Art   of    lOO.'i.   r>Hl. 

of  ft'dfral  courts  in  tradmiark  mtions  iM-twrcn  citi/.tns  of  Barao  Htate, 

52. 
of  state  courts,   in   trademark  cases.   .I!).'). 

of  state  and  federal  courts,  concurrent  in  trademark  caees,  395. 
where   complainant   an   alien.   r>47,   »i.   39. 


"Kalier"    (l.e.-r),  «!),  lO.".,  124. 
Kansas  Statutes,  ()77. 
"Katharion"  (  nniedy  ) ,   124. 
Kentucky    Statute    and    Form,  ti70. 
"Kentucky    Club"   (wliiskey),  10l>. 
"Kentucky's  Criterion,"  :!27. 
"Keystone"    (oil,  etc.).   iM.    124. 
"Keystone    Line."  402. 
"Kid    Nee    Knre,"  !>.'>,   10«. 
"Kidney   and  Liver"    (hitters),  106. 

"KinK   Bee"   I  smoking;  tobacco),  124. 

"Kitchen    Crystal"  (soap),   124. 

"Knickerbocker"    (shoes),    124. 

"Kofflo"  (cereal  co(Tee),  124. 

"Kokoko" — 

alK»ri>,M"«l.  refused    re;.MHtra«ion  as  tra.hmark   for  cotton  px.ds,   14.'». 


INDEX.  993 

Itffvrrni-rK  an-  In  paget. 

L 

Label— 

UH  foninnTcial  droHS,  200. 

(Icalor  in,  liuhlc   f(ir  (lamiifjcfl,   4.')8. 

(h-fiiu'd,  r.2i. 

d('Hi;;ninji  l>y  ((Hirt  for  (IcfciKlaiitH  (lirt-ction,  170. 

c'fTt'ct  of  prior  uw  by  othiTH,  71. 

t-n^'ravor,  liability  of,  2!t8. 

falsi',  avcrmciit.s  of  bill   to  n-Htrain   dcalinj,'  in.  2)l!». 

faisf.  inanufacturc  of,  2i)K. 

fraudulent  intent  of  manufaotiircr  pn'Humod,  wlicn-,  2!»lt. 

if  fontainin<r   false  statt-mcntrt  invalidates   trademark  used  therewith, 

70. 
intended  to  br  removed  by  r«'tail  dealer,  344. 
new  label,  abandonment  of  old.  214. 
serves  same  purpose  as  trademark,  21)6. 

Ijabel    Manufacturer —  ,^ 

liability   of.  2!tS. 

Laches — 

as  a  defense,  200. 

as  bar  to  preliminary    injunction.  207. 

as  bar  to  relief  aj^'ainst  unfair  competition,  r)2,  188. 

as  poverned  by  statute  of  limitations,  42."{. 

caution   notice   as  evidence,   210. 

distinpuislied   from   acquiescence.  208,   200. 

effect  of,  in  interference,  r)72. 

in  secret  process  cases,  267. 

may  bar  account,  206,  440. 

may  work  abandonment.   148. 

no  bar  to  injunction.  206. 

none  where  delay  is  to  secure  evidence,  206. 

none  where  ])laintiir  ij^norant  of  infrinj.'ement.  20((. 

vule  tlie   same   in  trademark  and   other   unfair   competition  cases,   32. 

"Lacka^iranna"    (coal).  106. 
"La  Cronica"   (newspaper),  124. 
"Lacto-Peptine,"  124,  328. 
"La  Favorita"  (flour),  124,   144. 
"L'Aiglon"  Case,  20.}. 
"Lake"  (jrlass  product),   106. 
"Lamoille"    (scythe-stones),   124. 


99-4  INDKX. 

Rrfrrmm  arc  to  page*. 
"Landlorda'    Protective    Bureau,"  328. 

■•Li»  Noriiia"    (cif^ar  lioxcsi,  124. 

••Li»    Noruiandi"   (cijjHrM),   KHl. 

"Lanollne"   ( |iiit.iit<«l  wool  fat   iinparation  ) ,  i:»7,  207. 

Laudatory    Adjective*— 

as  traiiriiiarks,  '.t7. 

L>ectnrea — 

piihlicHtion  «if.  n-ntraincd.  2rtO. 

"Leopold"    (oloth).  124. 
"Leopoldihall,"  :J2S. 
•'Le    PaRe"    (;ilu<'>.  124. 

Letters    and    Nnnierals— 

])rot«'cti'(l  apiinst  unfair  comp«'tition,  330. 

whi'thcr  siilijrct  to  api)r()|)riation  as  trademark,  4,  n.  3,  338. 

Letters    Patent — 

«'oni]iarr(l  with  tradtinarkH,  17. 

Levy  and   Sale — 

on  -roodwill,  22fi. 

nil   tradf  secrets,  2(i3,  2(54. 

Liability— 

of  all  connected  with  infrinp-ment,  295. 

of  contrjhutory   infrinjier,   40"). 

of  deception,  in  case  of  unfair  competition,  :<!(>. 

Libel- 

cliarj^'in;,'   trademark    infrin;.'enunt,  .").'». 
in  trade,  .")3. 

License,   ■'>n. 

a^  a  defense,   'lO. 

joint,  of  patent  and  trademark,  .')0. 

onc«'  revoked,  no  defense  to  sulistH|iient  infriii^'cnuTit.  M. 

revocalde,  to  uim*  trademark,  r»l>,  Ifi.'). 

to  iisr  mark  <>r  name  for  fraudulent  purpose,  188. 

"Licensed    Victuallers"   (nlisli).  124. 

Licensee — 

f'Btopped  to  deny  validity,  00. 

I'xclusive,  must  lie  party  to  action,  .')0. 

joint  tort-feawir  with   licensor,  17!l. 

may  >*w  for  infrint'em<-iit.  .*>1l,  300. 

t<rrit<jrial,   n<<d   not  he  joined   as  pluintitT,  .10. 


INDEX.  095 

lirfrrrnrrn  nrr   to  pages. 


liioenaor"— 

iMTcHHiirv  purtv  (<>  Huit  for  iiifritij,'4'mfiit,  5)2. 

"liiebiR's  Extract   of   Meat,"   1()<>. 
"Lientenant    James'    Horae    Bliater,"  100. 

Life— 

of  (riidi  niiiik  riglit,  21. 

"LlBhtniiiK"   (hay  knivt'H),  12r),  328. 
"Lilipntlan  Bazaar"   Caie,  352. 
"Llmetta,"    ."{'28. 

Limited    Use— 

ctlcct  of.  r)3!>,  n.    1(5. 

"Linolenm,"    100,   137. 
"Lion"    (mcrcliandiHc) ,  125. 

Liquidated    Damages — 

in  contracts  affecting  goodwill,  246. 

"Listerine"    (antiseptic),   125,  328. 

Literary    Property — 

not   ])rotct'tc(l  liy  tradi-mark,   197. 

Lithographs— 

improper  reproduction  of,  restrained,  259. 

"Little  Shop,"  328. 
"Liveroid,"   330. 
"Liverpool"    (cloth),  125. 

Livery  Stable — 

goodwill  of,  222. 

Local  User — 

mcrr,  effect  of,  23. 

Location — 

elianj;*'  of,  as  evidence  of  fraud,  312. 

"Loch   Katrine'    (whiskey),   100. 

Locus  Penitentiae — 

in  dismissal  for  unclean  hands,  447. 

"London  Dry  Gin,"  154. 


996  INDE>C. 

References  arc  to  pagct. 
"London     "WhilTB"    (oijjnr»),    12r>. 

"Lonp    Jack"     (tolmcon).    12.').  :»)8. 

Los*    of    Sales — 

as  jtr<H)f  (if  tl«niHj,'rs.  41'.\. 

Iu>\v  i'!<tal>li8ln'«l   ill  rasf.M  of  iiifrinjitnuiit,  470. 

Lionislana   Statutes    and   Forma,    (IT!),  082. 

M 

Made-np    Words — 

as  tradciiiarkH,   142. 

"Magic"    (sovthc-stonea) ,  12ri. 
"Mag^netic   Balm"    (ointm»'nt),  12.1,  137. 
"Magnolia"    (wliiskt-y) ,  39,   125. 
"Magnolia"    (im-tal),   lOti. 

Mail-Matter— 

protection  oi,  ISl.  n.  38.  3r)2. 

Maine   Statutes  and  Forms,    (i83,  686. 
"Maizena"    (corn  flour),  12;"). 

B£alicions    Prosecution — 

disHolution  of  injunction  on  final  licarinfj  as  ground  for  action  of,  4.14. 

"Malted    Milk,"    106. 

Mandamus — 

(iiMS   not    lit-   to  direct   action  of  commissioner   on   trademark   applica- 
tions, 543,  V.  28. 
to  compel  issuance  of  certificate  of  incorporation,   189. 

Manufacture — 

trad<niark  need  not  indicate,  9.  n.  5,   18,  /(.  33,  158. 

Manufactured    Articles — 

immcessary    resemWlances,  292. 

Manufacturer- 
can   not  enjoin   deali-r  lii-ld  out  as  maker,   159. 

Manufacturer   of   False   Labels — 

lial.ility  of.   2<.tti,  2UH. 

"Manufacturers'   Outlet  Co.,"  328. 
"Maple    Leaf,"  M36. 


INDEX.  997 

IfeferenccH  arc  to  pages. 
Mark— 

coiiimDn  to  till'  trade,    i:t4,    l.'J.'i. 

Marking   Article   "Regiitered    U.    S.    Patent    Office,"  387. 

Marque    de    Commerce — 

compri'lu'iHlcd   \>y   our  word   trademark,   8. 

Marque    de    Fabrique — 

(•()in])rcli('iid<'d  liy  our   \V(»rk  trademark,  7. 

Married    Woman — 

liavin}^  separate  estate,  lial)le  for  costs,  490. 

"Marshall's    Celebrated"    (liniment),   106. 

"Marvel"  (mill  products),   125. 

Maryland    Statutes    and   Forms,  686,  689. 

"Maryland    Club   Rye,"   107,  ;}28. 

"Masonic"   (eif^ars),  107. 

"Masons   Patent"  (jars),  82. 

Massachusetts    Statutes    and   Forms,  089,  695. 

Master- 
proceedings  before,  455. 

Master  and  Servant — 

inii)lied  eoiitraet  not  to  disclose  trade  secret,  256. 

Material — 

not  registrable  as  trademark,  538,  note. 

"Matzoon"    (fermented  milk),  107,  145. 
"Mazaw^attee"   (tea),  144. 

Meaningless — 

trademark  must  be,  80,  n.  19. 

Measure    of    Damages— 

in  action  for  breach  of  covenant  not  to  re-engage,  247. 
in  actions  for  invasion  of  goodwill,  245. 

"Mechanics    Store,"  328. 

Medals — 

of  award,  fictitious,  312. 

"Medicated   Mexican    Balm"   (medicine),  125. 


«.»1»8  INDEX. 

References  are  to  pagci. 
•'Medicated    Prunci"   (nii'<litiMr  i ,  107. 

"Menlo    Park"    (  w ulilirt*  1 .  12.'i. 

Merchandise — 

mil  not  Ih'  h  triult-mark,   l.{'.>. 

i>f  H»il>stiu)tinlly   tin-  satiir  drscriptivc   propcrtifH,  Mfl 

"Metallic    Clinton"    (|iaiiiti.    U)7. 

Method    of    ArranKement —  , 

lu.t   n  tradimnrk,   142,  280. 

Method    of    Display— 

(iciijitivi'.  4S,  Hiiti. 

MichiRan    Statntea    and    Forma,   O'.Mi,  700. 
"Microbe    Killer,"    107 
Minneaota    Statntea,  700. 
"Minneaota   Patent"    (fl<)\ir).  10,  n.  8. 

Minor    Differencea — 

of  formH  ami  dress,  no  difcnso.  .344,  n.  28. 

MiabrandinK — 

undiT  Food  and   l)ru;;s  Act,  ir)4. 
repiatration  l>arrcd  by,  .IfiO. 

Miarepreaentation — 

as  to  Ki/f  of  paika^f,  wlicn   packngo  is  ordinary   size  known  to  the 

trade,  445. 
collatrral,  81.  UW. 

cnjoiiH'd  wlictlirr  oral  or  «ritttn,  .'US. 
in   connrcticm   with  plaintilF's  ^roodrt,  80. 
plaint iffs.  .(Tret  of.  HO. 

plaintifT'H  liy  iiw  of  "Patent"  or  "I'atontfd,"  81. 
|)laintitr's,  hy  use  of  "trademark,"  8.'{. 

Miaaiaaippi    Statntea,   700. 

Miaaouri    Statutes    and    Forma,    710,718. 

MiaapcUini; — 

jjrniTic  word  does  not   make  Iradennirk,  n.!. 

Mlatake— 

in  n^'istration  liy  a  partner,  creates  a  trust,  .'t!»l>.  n.  ^,5. 
refund  of  feen  pui<l  liy,  ■''>7!>. 


INDEX.  999 

References  arc  to  pages. 
Mode    of   Application — 

imniatfrial,  !t,  ».  tl. 

mubt  hv  Htutrd   ill  upplication   for  n-^'iHtration,  537. 

Mode  of  Packing — 

wIkii  protcctid   in  i'i|nity,  'M4. 

Modern    Foreigm    Languagea — 

words  taken  from,  us  trademarks,  143. 

Modification— 

in   patent  olliee,   'MS. 

"Mojava"    (coffee),  120. 
♦•Moline"    (plows),  107,351. 
♦*Momaja."   :}2S. 

''Moneys,    Stock   in   Trade,   Debts,   E£Fects    and   Things"— 

includes  goodwill,  227. 

"Monkey" — 

not  ^eoj^raphical,  165/ 

Monograms — 

as  trademarks,  342. 

Monopolies — 

trademark  rij,'lita  as,  2,  56. 

Montana   Statutes,  720. 

"Montserrat"   (lime   juice),  107. 

"Morse's    Compound    Syrup    of    Yellow    Dock    Root."  320. 

Mortgage — 

of  assets  of  business  does  not  necessarily  include  goodwill,  228,  n.  72. 
of  goodwill,  220. 

Mortgagee — 

lien  of,  upon  infringing  goods,  404. 

Motions — 

for  injunction,  451. 

for  particulars,  434. 

to  dismiss,  432. 

to  dissolve,  572,  573. 

to  strike,  436. 

to  suppress  evidence,  574. 

Motive — 

immaterial,  293. 


10(X)  INPKX. 

Rrfrrcncca  arc  to  paget. 
"Mottled   Grrman   Soap."  A29. 

•Moxlc    Nerve   Food."    .{•20. 

"Mount    Vernon   Rye,"  287. 

"Mnfflet"    ( iii'ck  miirfsi,   126. 

Musical    OrKaniBation— 

iiaiin'  of,  ISO. 

N 

Name  (lee  Proper  Names) — 

allix.'.l   to  .^lal.lisliiiiriil,   170. 

iioc»'8sary,  of  a  product.    l.U. 

of  lKH)k.  !U. 

of  r.-l<-l.rity,  170. 

of  drfiiulant,  added  to  mark,  circumstance  in  his  favor,  337. 

of  patented  article,  88. 

of  i>at«iited  article,  not  rcfjistrahlc,  90. 

of  place  of  amusement,   170. 

of  secret   preparation,  2.")3. 

one's*  own,  74,   171,  172.  , 

Name    of   Patented    Article—* 

made  puhliri  juris  by  exi)iration  of  patent,  88. 

protected  from  unfair  competition  after  expiration  of  patent,  15L 

Names — 

C'hriHtian,  of  ap|tlicaiitrt  for  registration  should  be  given,  536. 

of  iK-nefit  societies,    l'.)0. 

of  celebrities,  170. 

of  corporations,   183. 

proper,  in  trade,  172. 

right  to  assume,   171,  ri.  T). 

"Napoleon"    (ci^'ars  l ,  12<i. 

"National    Police    Gazette"    Case,    109. 

"National    Sperm"    (candles  I,    107. 

"Native    Gnano"    ( f<rtili/.c-r ) ,  107. 

Natural  Product — 

name  of,  us  trademark,  18. 

Nebraska  Statutes,    721. 

Necessary   Name— 

of  pro<iu(t,   138. 


INDKX.  1001 

I\'rfc7'vnr(H  arc  to  pngra. 


••Ne  PluB  Ultra.'    MM. 
Nevada   Statutes,  T'i.'i. 

"Jievr  CoinaRe" — 

(loc'trinr,  \4'2. 

"New  Era"    (lu-wspaixr ) .   12ti,   190. 

New  Hampahire    Statutes   aud    Forms,  724,  72U. 

New  Jersey   Statutes,   7'27. 

"New  Manny"    (liar\cst«'r) ,  107. 

Ne^v   Mexico    Statutes,  I'M. 

Nevrspaper — 

goodwill  of,  41. 
infringement  of  imnn-  of,  41. 

"New  York"   (glass  products).   107. 

New  York   Statutes,  738;   form,  l'^6. 

"Nick  Carter,"    Case,  20."). 

"Nickel"    (soap),  12(). 

"Nickel-in"    (cigars),  12(),  320. 

Nick-Names  and  Their  Infringement,   322. 

"Nitro,"  336. 

Nominal    Damages — 

in  actions  at  law,  421. 

Non-Functional    Color,   287. 

Non-Identical   Mark — 

infringement   l>y,  321. 

Non-Infringement, 

defense  of,  418. 

"Normal,"  320. 

Nortk    Carolina   Statutes    and   Forms,   757,  763. 

Nort   Dakota   Statutes,   764;  form,  767. 

Notice — 

before  suit,  inadvisalile.  438,  490. 
defendant  not  entitled  to,  438. 
effect  of,  53. 
want  of,  no  defense,  438. 


1002  INDl.X. 

I\i frnttrcs  nrr   to  pntjct. 

Noticr     of    Oppoaition 

fi)rin  of.  U17. 
rt-^ininitos  of,  ">tl7. 

••No-To-Bac"    ( imdiiin.-) .  12«1,  :j:J4. 

"Nonrishinic    London"  (xtout),   IU8. 

Nnnirrals — 

as  trademarks,  .'I.'IS. 

0 

"O.   F.  C."    (wliiskfy).  VIW,  342. 

OiFer   of    Sabmiaiion    (see    Snbmisaion). 

Official   Brand— 

ii.it  a  tradiiiiark.  .">:{2. 

Officers  of  Corporations— 

whi*n  lialtU'  for  infringomont,  403. 

Ohio    Statutes,  TtiS;    forms.  773. 
Oklahoma    Statutes,  774. 
"Old   Bourbon"   ( wliiskcy ) .  108. 
"Old    Country"   (soap),   108. 
"Old    Crow"    (whiskry),  12G. 
"Old    Innishowen"    (whiskey),    108. 
"Old    London    Dock"    (iiU\\ ,  108. 
"Old    Mill"    (soap),  320. 
"Old    Pepper"    (  wliiskcy  i ,  77,  213. 
"Old    Slc-uth    Library"   Case,     1!I7. 
"Olive"    (liiryclt'B),   108. 
"Omeea   Oil"     (liniment),  120. 

OiuuibuB — 

as  inHtrnniiiit   of  unfair  trade,  .'SO. 

"Oii«-    Night    Cure,"    .V.W. 


INDKX.  1003 

TiefcrcnrcH  arc  to  payrs. 
Ome'a   Own    Name — 

;;tn(Tnlly,  •(■>• 

^'ratuitouB  pi-rmioHion  to  uw,  may  \»'  withdrawn  at  will,  209,  n.  18. 

injunction  a^'ainnt  uw  of,  after  asBif^mont,  ISl. 

ri'vocation  of  license  to  use,  182. 

Hale  of   ri^'ht  tt)  tise,   172. 

"Only   Gennlne" — 

improperly  used  l)y  one   not   havinj,'  e.\cluBJve  title,  30. 

"Oomoo"    (cotton  -ijoods),  14"). 

Opinion    Evidence — 

iis  tit   proliiihility  nf  (lccci)tion,  348. 

"Opportunity    of    Comparison,"    343. 

Opposition — 

notice,  for,  (!17. 

proceedinfrs  in.  300,  nfif),  560,  fiOT,  568,  569,  570,  571. 

right  of  opposer  to  register,  570. 

user  by  opposer  necessary,  500. 

what  proof  admissible,  568. 

when  maintainable  by  corporation,  566. 

Oral   Representations — 

of   identity,  enjoined  whi'n    false,   318. 

Oregon    Statutes  and  Forms,   776,  780. 
"Oriental   Cream"   Case,    108. 

"Origin   or   Ownership" — 

generally,  4,  n.  3,  44. 
test  of.  157. 

"Original"— 

use  of.  after  expiration  of  patent,  151. 

Originality— 

not  a  test  of  trademark  right,  17,  70. 

"Osborne  Honse"  Case,  213. 
"Osnian"    (towels),    127. 
"Otaka"    (biscuit),  127. 

Ow^nership — 

change  of,  public  should  be  notified  of.  29. 
joint  and  several,  58,  130. 

need  not  be  indicated  in  connection  with  mark,  8. 
prerequisite  to  registration,  532. 

"Oxford"    (bibles),  127. 


1004  INDEX. 

Refcrmrrs  nrr  to  pages. 

P 
PackaKe*^ 

iiiii  imt  Ih-  II  trudrniiirk,  I  }0,  2'M . 

(litttin^iuislu'd    from  ronti'iitH,   .'{14. 

rmpty.  restraint   of  r(>ni|M'titt»r   from   Imying,  291). 

frnti(liili-nt.   lialiility   of  dtaltr   in,    lO.'i. 

priMjf  «>f  ilfffption  l>y,  'IW). 

protection   in  iisi-  of,  '2!l7. 

Packini; — 

mtthoil  of.  not   trml.inark.   142,  280. 

"Pain-Killer"    (mftUcino) ,  127. 

PalminK   Ofif— 
rnjoinod,  42. 

"Pancoait."   320. 
"Parabola"   (nct'dU's),  127. 
"Paraffin"  (oil).  108. 
"Paragon,"  32f>. 
"Parchee«i"    (^jami'),   108. 
"Pari*"    (;:art(Tsi.  127. 
"Parion'«    Purgative"  (pills),   108. 
Parties  Defendant,  2!).'i. 

Parties  Plaintiff— 

muKt  intludf  I'.xcluHivf  lict'iiace,  oO,  .390. 
whore  trademark  is  incident  to  realty,  400. 
who  may  he,   167. 

Partner- 
when  trustee  of  mark  for  firms'  henefit.  .199.  ».  35. 

Partnertliip — 

administration  of  partnership  estate,  34. 

agrwmentB  upon  dinsolution,  234,  ?i.  97. 

efTect  of  retirement  of  one  partner,  3.'). 

(foodwill   of,  .3.'). 

injunction  liv  witlidrawin^'   partner  a^rainst   iis<'  of  firm  name,  245. 

name  must  not  inijxtrt  incorporation    (in  Illinois),  1S9. 

<me  not  a  partner  can  not  secure  re;,'istration  of  mark,  .'>49,  h.   19. 

ri^'htw  of  partners  in   trademarks  on  dissolution,  .">S.  243. 

hale   «if   ^'ocMlwill    on    disaolution    conveys   tradmuirks    without    spwial 

mention,  32. 
trademarkH  of   individuals  merj,'ed  in  partm  rship  prup.rty,  34. 


INDEX.  *  1005 

Rffvrtncca  are  to  pages. 
Partnorahip    Namea,  74. 

"PaaainK  Off"— 

tlic   i;n;,'lisli  i<iiiival<nt  of  tinfuir  comix'tition,  2. 

Patent— 

action  for  infrin^cmont  of: 

improperly  joined  with  charge  of  unfair  competition,  430,  n.  2'2. 

jiroperly  joined  with  cliar{,'e  of  trademark   infringement,  405. 
<unipared  with   trademarks,  2. 
elfeet  of  expiration,  H~ ,  HH,  rt  set/.,  570. 
elFect  of  nnsuccesHfnl  aiipiieation  for,  92. 

Patent   Office  Rules   (aee  Trademark  Rnlea  of  Patent  Office),  5B8. 

Patented   Article — 

dress  of.  protected  after  expiration  of  patent,  87. 

rcpistration  refused  name  of  or  mark  for,  90. 

trademark  rijrlit  in  name  applied  to,  88. 

trademark    ri^dit   in    name   applied   to,   not  abandoned  during  life  of 

patent,  02. 
unfair  trade  in,  52. 

"Patent,"    "Patented,"  "Patentee"— 

unauthorized  use  of  words,  81,  84,  437. 

Patentee — 

rij,'ht  to  use  name  of,  181. 

"Patent    Plnmbago    Cmcibles,"  82. 

"Patent  Solid-Headed  Pins,"  85. 

"Patent    Thread,"  86. 

"Pectorine"    (medicine),  127. 

Penal  Laws   (see   Names  of  the  Several  States). 

Pending — 

in  Act  of  1005,  meaninp,  584. 

Pennsylvania    Statutes    and    Forms,  782,  785. 

"Pepko,"  336. 

"Pepto-Mangan"   (medicine),  127,  144. 

"Perfect   Face   Paste,"  108. 

"Perfection"   (mattresses),  127. 


1(H)6  INDKX. 

Itcftrcnn  K  iirr   to  p<igr». 
Periodical— 

infrin>;<m.nt  of  imm.-  of,  U>S.  lOlt.  ^(M). 
titl.s  ..f,  lis  triul.miirks,    11.   inS.  ino. 

Prrpctnal    E«i«tencc    of    Trademark*,  21. 

••Persian"  (tlir.ml).   1J7. 

Personal    RepreBentatlve— 

^'(KKlwill    ^'IM'H    to,    '240. 

*'Pe»«endede"    (  watilurt^ .   147. 
••Philadelphia"   (Im-.ti.   !()!>. 

Philippine*— 

[ir.itritiim  of  rf^iistcn'tl  tradomarkfl  in,  60*.),  Gil. 

Phonograph    Record* — 

imitation  of,  282. 

PhotoK^aph* — 

iin|iroiMr  rtproduotion  of.  rcHtrainod,  2.'>9,  273. 

Picture*— 

as  trademarks,  141. 

common  to  tin-  trade,  l.'J'),  ».  •">2.  HI. 

descriptivf,  not  a  trademark,   141. 

Physician — 

;r,„„l\\ill    i.f.    22:t. 

"PiK*   in    Clover"   (pu/./.lii,   127. 
"Pile    Leclancha,"   4.')1. 

Place*  of  Anin*en\ent— 

names  of,  17!'. 

Play   Title   a«  Trademark.  202. 

Plea^ 

eaii  not   naeli  defects  upon   face  of   liill.  441. 
in   avoidanee  of  <liscovery,  472. 

Pleading — 

in  tlie  action  at  law,  .149. 

jiiriwlietional  fiietH  in  proceedingB  in   f..l.  ml  court s.  :191. 

tendency  of  mark  to  deceive.  .'lOS 

Plurality    of  Markii    for   Sincle    Article.    3'M. 


INDKX.  l(J<>7 

RrfvrvncvH  arr   t<i  juKjrt. 
"Pocahontas"   (conl).   lOO. 

"Poroua"    (pluHUTH),   101). 

"Portland"    (hIovch),   127,  .T20. 

Porto    Rlco^ 

pniti'ctioii  of  rc^i.stirt'd  trudrnmrks.  (i()!i.  till. 

Portrait — 

of  owner,  cfri-ct  on   aMHignahility,  20,  note. 
iiiiautliori/.od  pulilicutiun  of,  2.'))),  271,  272. 

Postcard — 

illustrated,  as  trademark,  140. 

"Post  Office"    (diroctory),  109. 

Prayer  for   Relief — 

in  hill   in  ciniity,  4.30. 

Preliminary   Injunction    (see    Injunction,    Preliminary)— 

appt'al   from  order   frrantint;.   40;") 

denied  because  of  laches,  207. 

not  fjranted  on  ex  parte  affidavits  except  in  a  clear  case,  452. 

"Premises,   Stock   in   Trade,    etc." — 

{loodwill  not  included  in,  227. 

Presumptions — 

as  to  carelessnesa  of  consuming  purchaser,  343. 
none  in  favor  of  federal  jurisdiction,  .391. 

"Pride"   (cigars),   127. 

"Pride  of  Rome,"  329. 

"Prime   licaf"   (lard),  109. 

Primitive    Merchandise    Marks,  1. 

Principal — 

liable  for  infringement  by  agent,  404. 

Prints   and  Labels    (see   Forms;    Statutes,   Prints   and   Labels) — 

adverse  decision,  appeal  from,  ")21. 
advertisement,  when  considered  a  print,  521. 
appeal  to   commissioner,   521. 
application,  510. 

for  renewal,  522. 

requisites  of,  519. 


1008  INDEX. 

Hrfrn  »r<  s  (ire   to  pagm. 
Print!    and    Lnbrla    (ifc    Formi;    Statute*.    Printi    and    Labela)- 

(."ontiniH'd. 
artiili'H  of  munufiutiin-.  lUlinition  of  tlir  wordu,  010. 
aKHi^Mimt'iit  of,  ri22. 
orrtifu-at*-  of  n'^'intrntion.  .V21. 

rciu'Wiil  of,  .'>2"2. 

hi^rnntiin'  to,  otc,  ri21. 
commi!<!*iotnT,   apju'iil    to,    ')21. 
copies  of  print  or  label,  filing  of,  rAQ. 
di'ciHions  portHining  to  ri'^i«try  of  labels,  SIT), 
duration  of  term  of  repistration,  .')21. 
examiner,  appeal  from  deoipion  of,  .'i21. 

flH'8,    .")22. 

lab«'l.  definition  of  the  words,  521. 

pertinenee  to  the  artiele  of  mnnufaeture  recpiired   in  jirints,  521. 

print,  definition  of  the  word.  .")21. 

proprietor  or  aj^ent  should  si^m  the  api)licaliou,  519. 

renewal  of  certificato  of  registration,  522. 

term  of  registration.  521. 

Printer— 

of  friiudulcnt  labels,  298. 
proof  of  intent  of,  299. 

Printing:— 

as  mtans  of  fraud,  l.')2. 

Priority   of   Appropriation — 
generally,  69. 

Prior  Richt— 

I  Ml '(i. 11  of  proving,  213,  n.  48. 

Prior    Use- 
controls  even  as  against   registrant,  rAC),  n.  35. 
no  defenw,  unless  on  same  elass.  72. 
void  IjocauBP  accompanied  by  falsi-  r<-pre8entations,  no  defense,  443. 

Privacy — 

right   of,  207. 


PriTate  Lettei 

publication   of.   nstraincd,  200. 

"Prir.-    Medal."   lOit. 

Probability    of    Deception— 

an  test  of  infringement,  'UJl. 

in  unfair  competition  caiM-s,  301. 


ProoesB— 

secret,  2rj3,  20"). 


INDKX.  1009 

Rrfrrrnrrs  arc  to  pagca. 


Producer — 

tnidrnmrk  need  not  iiulicat)-,  IM. 

Product — 

lU'CfHHary  name  of,  136. 

Profits— 

1111(1  (lamn;;i'H  may  Im-  rccovcrrd  in  ((juity,  SCiO,  420. 
made  liy  wale  of  infrin^'irij:  article  may  lie  reeovered,  429, 
plaintill'  not  limited  to  profits  due  to  use  of  mark,  383. 

Promoter — 

unfair  competition  of,  181. 

Proof    of   Fraud- 
ill  other  eases,  Til. 
in  trademark  cases,  61. 

Proper   Name — 

assi},'nment  of,  can  not  be  re-assifjnpd,  244,  n.  37. 

can  not  he  assigned  for  fraudulent  use  in  competition,  73,  188, 

can  not  he  technical  trademark,  1«)8. 

could  not  be  registered  under  Act  of  March  3,  1881,  542. 

defendant  using  his  own  in  good  faith,   174. 

defendant  using  in  manner  calculated  to  deceive,  177. 

fictitious,  does  not  disentitle  to  relief  in  e(|uity,  182. 

how  conveyed,  74. 

not  trademarks  because  generic,  !>4. 

of  celebrity,   170. 

of   first  owner   of   mark   being   included   in   mark   does   not   render    it 

unassignable,  20. 
registration  of,  under  Act  of   ino."),  541). 
secondary  meaning,  108. 
the  right  to  assume,   171. 
the  use  of  one's  own  name,  35,  178. 

"Property,    Credits    and    Effects"— 

goodwill  not  included   in,  227. 

Protection — 

relative,  of  patents  and  trademarks,   16. 

Publication- 

etfect  of,  567. 

Public    Policy— 

as  to  contracts  involving  title,  58. 
as  to  covenants  not  to  re-engage,  235. 


1010  INDEX. 

ItrfirrnrrH  air   to  page*. 
Publirl    Jnrl*— 

cxtt-iittivc  H4il«-  «liH-H  not   rt-iuUr  iimrk.   134. 
tt-»t  of  wlu'tluT  word  liUH  lu'conii',    141'. 
that  murk  Iihh  iMroiUf,  uh  u  (It-frnm',   1:54. 
\viirtl«  iiiny  iK-oonu-.  \>\   lurlu'«,   14S. 

-Pnddlnr."   1J7.  XH. 

PnfflnK— 

liariiil.->    mi.-ri|insintatii«ii.   44."). 

Pnnitlyr    Damage* — 

allo\vc>d  where  no  actuHl  dumu^f  proven,  421,  note. 
can  not  he  a8w»s»ed  in  (Hjnity,  400. 
in  actionH  at  law,  41!i. 

Purchairr — 

dr^Tre  of  eare  of,   ;}04. 
|)rrsnni])tion«  a«  to  care  of,  303. 

Pure  Food  Law— 

di?itiiuti\f  iiiinu'S.  l.'»4. 

mishraiKliii;:  under,   1">4. 

tradeiianif  as  defense  to  violation  of,  80. 

"Pnrlty"    (oleoniar^iarine) ,    100. 

Q 

Quack  Medicines — 

trademarks  applied  to,  are  not   protected.  2'28,  2r)4. 

Quality— 

delin.d.   132. 

(inferiority   or  superiority!    of   infrinj^ing  goods  immaterial,  338L 

not   indicated   liy   trademark,  20. 

"Queen"    (s1i(M'«),  127.   104. 

"Queen    Quality"   (  slioes  i ,  127.    104. 

B 

"Radium"   (silk),    128. 

"RaleiKh,"  100. 

"Ranier"   (iK-erl.    128. 

Real-Estate     Dealer- 
mark   U'-ed    liv.    not  a   trademark,   532,  n.  3. 

"Red  Crota"— 

Act  «.f  .Fanuarv  .'i,  1000,  022. 


INDEX.  1011 

UcfcrcnccH  arc  to  pagc$. 
♦'Red  Croia  Plaitcr,"  :J2.J. 

"Red"    (rtiiiilTi,    lO'.l. 

Referee — 

tfliu'tiuicc  to  (li^tiiil)  fimliiigH  of,  in  compi'ti'iit  cuhch,  474. 

Reference — 

for    iiccoiiiitiiin,    4")4. 

Refilling— 

luirdcn  of    proof   in   ciiscs   of,   .'}!.'). 

«'iijoiii('(l  t'Vi'ii   wlii'ii  (lorn-  at   the  customer'H  ri-qucst,   313. 

packagi'S  with  ajjurious  goods,  313. 

ReflttinB— 

1 1  adiinarked  articles,  3iIo. 

Refund — 

of   Tatciit  Oflice  fees,  579. 

"Registered    Trademark" — 

falsely   iinin  intiiij.'.   Sd. 

Registration    (see   Forms;   Statutes;  Trademark  Rules   of   Patent 
Office)— 

action   to  compel,  .'')74. 

advantages  of,   384. 

application   for,  .'i53. 

a  prereciuisite  to  trademark  rifzht  under  English   statute,  20. 

as  evidence  of  e.\t«'nt  of  registrant's  claim,  386. 

by  aliens,  r)03,  n.  7,  .'")4n,  .')!)0. 

by  one  partner  through  mistake,  3i)!),  h.  3."). 

can  not  validate  mark  otluTwiae  invalid.  66. 

certificate  will  issue  to  assignee,  ru'^. 

citizenship  of  applicant  immaterial,  .>40. 

class  of  goods  must  be  stated,  54!t. 

constitutionality  of  Act  of  IflO.l,  37!l. 

(late  of  adoption  stated  in  application  not  conclusive,  380. 

defense  that   it  does   not   make  valid    trademark   of   mark   common  to 

the   trade,   417. 
description   of  essential    feat\ires,   ■)37,   ".    13. 
disadvantages  of,  386. 

does  not  preclude  third  party,  546,  n.  35. 

doubts  as  to  similarity  resolved  against  applicant,  .540,  n.  20,  ;>63. 
effect  given  by  state  courts,   565. 
features  of   mark    not    inclmled    in.   aliandoned,  38(5. 
federal,  advantages  of.  384. 
fraudulent,  cfTcct  of.  67. 
function  of  commissioner  in  applications  for,  as  to  title,  543,  n.  27. 


1012  INDEX. 

Hrfrrrnrrx  arc   to  pnfjrs 
R«-Ki«tr»tlon    imee    Formt;  Statnte^:   Trudcmark    Rul»««   of    Patent 

Office)— I  out imu'd. 
j;rniitf.l  only  f«>r  cIush  in  wliicti  mnrk  \f>  nrtually  used,  537,  n.  12. 
prantrd  only    to   valid    trndi-marks,   .">.'1'2,   n.    1. 
in  color,  '2S7. 

invalid    fcdrral    ntatntos.    ;17S. 
is  rocord  of  adoption  of  tradcinark.  384. 
jnriwliction  of  conprcss  conccrninj;.  :J7H. 
limits  rcffistrant  to  matter  claimed,  38rt. 
mode  of  application  must  be  stated.  538,  n.  15. 
must    he  pleaded.   415. 
no    institution    of    siiit     for    trademark    infringement    without,    under 

English  act.  378. 
not   a  grant  of   right  or  privilege.   3S5. 
not  a  means  of  acquiring  trademark.   1!>,  05.   53!t,  n.    16. 
not  conclusive  as  to  right  to  trademark,  540,  n.  35. 
not  granted  for  use  on  "fancy  goixls,"  537,  »i.  12. 
of  cor[»orate  names,  542,  n.  25. 
of  difendant's  mark,  not  a  defense,  440. 
of  geographical  words,  .')(J2. 
of  mark  eonunon  to  trade,  54(5,  n.  35. 

of  mark  of  volunUiry  association  of  manufacturers,  refused,  507,  533. 
of  name  of  celebrity,   274,  n.  80. 

of  name  of  or  mark  for  patented  article,  refused.  533. 
of  partnersJiip  mark,  grantinl  only  on  application  of  partner,  .540,  tiote. 
of  i)roper  name  dot's  not  create  trademark  right,  06. 
of   trademark,   does   not   cure   ohjiftioii   of    its   being   colorable  imita- 
tion of  another  mark,  385. 
only  prima  facie  evidence  of  ownership,  38<i,  n.   10. 

ownershij*  a   prerequisite,  532,   n.   4. 

pleading,  form  of,  852. 

prima  facir  evidence  of  ownership,   385,   n.    10. 

refused  coat-of-arms  of   the  United  States,  4^»3. 

refused  descri|)tive  words  reproduced  in  letters  from  foreign  language, 
147. 

refused  form,  material  and  color,  .508. 

refused   gt-nerie   words,    'AMi. 

refused  geographical    nanH>s,  541,  n.  24. 

refused  name  of  patented  article,  1)0. 

refus«fl  picture  and  word  not  true  alternatives,  540,  n.  22. 

refuH*  d  proper  and  geographical  names  joined,  542,  n.  25. 

remedien   conferred   by,  07.  , 

right  to,  not  concluded  by  registrability  in  foreign  country.  .535,  n.  C. 

ftatc   (sec  statutes  of  the  several  states),  00. 

the  valid  federal    statutcH    (see  .Acts  of   1881    and    1!»05,   in    .Appendix). 

under   Act  of  lH7<t  was  ecjuivalfiit  to  public  use,  64. 


INDKX.  101. '5 

!>'( fprrnrcH  arc   to  pngrs. 

RrKl«tratIon    (mee    Tornm;   Stntntca;    Trndrmark    Rnloa    of    Patent 

Office)  -Coiitimi.d. 
iiiuliT   Kii^'isli   Htutntf  ciiMstnictivf   ii^cr   of    Irudciiiark,   (i.'t. 
use  of  fuc -siinilcH,   in,  .'»;JS,  .')4!t. 
v«Ii(Iity  of    prcHfiit  /iMh-ral   «tiitiitc,   .'{71'. 
value  of,   .'{H4,    "):M,   n.    7. 
wlifti    refused,    fee    not   refunded.   .">."J'I.   »i.    17. 

ReisBue   of  Patent — 

cxleiids    lite   i>f   fiiidenuiik   ii|>|(Iii.d    tn    [liitciiti'd   article.   !•:{. 

Relative    Protection    Given    by   Patents    and    Trademarki,    16. 

Relief- 
ill   et|uity  4.")1. 

Religions    Order— 

♦••adeiiKirks  of,  69. 

"Remington,"   tiO,   n.  24. 

Removal    of    Bnsiness*- 

notice  of,  as  unfair  competition,  .312. 

to  plaintilT'g  locality,  as  proof  of  fraud.  .312. 

Renewal  Privilege    Under  Act   of    1905,  21,   576. 

Repair    Parts,  3I.>. 

sale  of,  under  name  of  manufacturer  of  machine  to  be  repaired,  358. 

Replacement — 

of  parts  of  trademarkcd  articles,  315. 

Republication — 

when  ordered,  567. 

Res  Adjndicata— 

effect  of,  488. 

how  proven,  488. 

in  opposition  proceedings,  570. 

none  created  by  decision  of  court  of  foreij^  country,  449. 

Rescission — 

of  contract  for  sale  of  goodwill,   for  vendor's  fraud,  250. 

Resemblance- 
inspection  by  court  as  test  of.  300.  342. 
may  establish   right   to  injunction.  204. 
need    not   be   such    as    to   deceive    purchasers    having   opportunity   of 

comparison,  342. 
unnecessary,  292. 


1014  INDEX. 

Jiffrrcncro  arc  to  paget 
ReatMiirniitB — 

iwitni'^  i>f   |irotoft«'iI.  H.V4. 

RratrKint    of   Trade — 

comlniuit ion    in,  2'A'>. 

contract  rclntinj:  to   trade  wcrct   is   not   in.  2')3. 

in    salo  of   ;foo<l\vill,  '2.'l."». 

in   sale  of   riplit   to  um-  proper  naiiif,    17!'. 

Retail    Dealer— 

i-o>t>   niiiy    not   l>r    ini|H>>.»'<l   jifiiiinst.   4!t;{,    n.  20. 

Rerocation   of   License    to    Use   Name,    182. 

RcTiTal^ 

of    .I'tion   ii<.'iiinst   (Icctascd    infrinper's   rcpresontativc,  400. 

Rhode   Island  Statutes  and  Forms,  TSft,  790. 

'•Richardson's    Patent   Union"  (niacliinc),   109. 

Ri^ht   of   Privacy,  207. 
N.w   York  Btatute,  278. 

Rifiht    to    Imitate,  i'.H,  358. 

"RisinR    Snn"  (stove  ]toli»h),  128. 

"Roachsault."  !•.->,    128. 

"Robert's    Parabola   Gold-Burnished   Sharps,"  330. 

"RoRer    Williams"    (elotlil.   12S,   170. 

"Rogers,"  .i.W. 

"Rose"    (vanilla    extract).    109. 

"Rosebud"  (<aniie(|    .-almon),    128. 

"Rosendale"   (eenient).    110. 

"Rou^h    on    Rats,"  3.'J.">. 

"Royal"     (liiikin^'    powder),    128. 

"Royal  Blue"    (earp«'t  swjH-por) ,  128. 

"Roy    Watch    Case    Co.,"  :V.U). 

Royalties  on  Articles  Made  by  Secret  Proceis,  264. 

"R.   P.    Hall."   as   Trademark.  173. 

"Rnbbcrset"  ( l.niHhes) ,    110,  330. 

"Ruberoid"      nx.flnff),    110,  330. 

"Rye    and  Rock"  (liquor),    110. 


INDKX.  1011 

References  are  I'o  pagct. 

8 

"Safety"  (powder),   110. 
"Saeaf  oam,"  rM. 

Sale— 

(tf  businesa,  conveys  tradcinaiks  used  tlicrcin,  27. 
t)f  tradi'inarks,  27. 

Sales— 

dimiinitioii   of.  us  evidence  of  daniaRC,   423. 

evidence  of  extent  of,  470. 

exfi'HHive,  dws  not  destroy  trademark,   11)1. 

Saloon — 

•.'oodwill  of,  222. 

"Sanitary"    (filter),  110. 

"Sanita.,"    14.},    3.30. 

"Sapollo"   (scourin<;  Urick),    128,   330. 

"Saponifler"  ( coiictiitrated   lye),   128. 

"Sappota    Tolu,"  .534. 

"Sarsaparilla   and  Iron"  110. 

"Satinine"  (starcli    and    soap),    110. 

"Satin    Polish"    (l>oots  and  shoes),  110, 

"Satin  Skin,"  336. 

"Sawyer's    Crystal   Blue    and    Safety    Box,"  330. 

"S.   B.,"  334. 

"Schiedam  Schnapps,"  110. 

Scienter,  293. 

Scope^ 

comparative,   of    trademarks   and   tradenames,    14. 

Scotland — 

trademark   riplils  of  alien   in.  ftO. 

t 
Search  Warrants — 

under   Act  of   1876.  531,  n.   1. 

under  local   statutes    (see  statutes  of   the  several   states). 


1016  INDF.X. 

Rrfcrrnrin   arr   to   pages. 

Srcondarjr    McanlnR.    I'"' 
d.-niietl.    100. 

iloi'trino   applinl    ti>   tia<ifiiiiiiu'!«,    14,   100. 
how  proven,   l."):i. 
of   pro|HT   nanu'B.    1(K'. 

Secret- 
in   tratlf.    2y.\. 

Secret    Preparation- 
name  of,   as   tra<lcniark,  265. 

Secret   Procesa,  3S. 

assifinability  of.  38. 
tradt-niarks   on    product  of,  265. 

Section    3449,    R.    6.    IT.    S.,  408. 

"Selected    Shore"   (mackerel),  110. 

Selectors — 

of  merchandise,  may  liave  trademarks,  61. 

••Sefton"    (cloth),    12'.). 
"Self- Washer"    (soap),    l.")l. 

Servant — 

lia)>le   for  infringement,   403. 

Shape — 

infriii;.'<nunt    of,    restrained,   287. 

"Shawknlt"    (stoekinp*),  120.  330. 

"Sherlock   Holmes"  Case,  204. 

Sherman    Antl-Tmst   Act,  375. 

claim    for    dama;.'es    under,   can    not  be   joined    with    bill    to    restrain 
unfair  competition,  430,  n.   22. 

Sho'w-Card — 

as  trailenuirk,   !•,   n.   6. 

"Shrewibnry.    Marshall    &,    Co.    Patent    Thread,"  331. 

SlRns- 

fr:uiilultnl.    wlicn    enjoined,    319. 

"Silvrr  GroTf"   (mlnskey),    129. 

Silver    Ware— 

falw  Htampin^'.  040. 


INDEX.  1017 

Itcfercncca  arc  to  pagrt. 


•Similarity"— 

degree  of,  50. 


"Simplex,"  .'{.tl. 

"SlnKcr"    (srwiii;,'   macliines^,    111,    137. 

Single    Sale— 

ulicii    siiniciciit  to   srciirc   ill  jiiMctioii,  :Jfi!t,  n.    13,  437,  443,  n.  71. 

"Sir  J.  Clark's  Consumption  Pilli,"   43G. 
"Six  Little   Tailors,"  120,  331. 

Sise— 

imitation  of,   rostra iiu-d  200. 
no  trademark  in,  287. 

Skill- 
s'iiiholized  l)y  trademark,  4,  n.  3. 

Slander — 

in  trade.  .')3. 

of  title  to  trademark,  .■).■>. 

"Slate    Rooflnp"    (paint),   120. 

"Sliced    Animals"    (toys),  129. 

"Snowflake"  (crackers),  111. 

"Social  Register"  (directory),  129,  335. 

"Sole    Manufacturer"— 

as  ]);\r   to   relief,  78. 

"Sole   Proprietor" — 

use  of  words  enjoined,   401. 

Solicitation— 

of  former  customers.  3.59. 

"Somatose"  (meat  extract).  Ill,   143. 
South    Carolina   Statutes,  701  ;    form,  794. 
South    Dakota    Statutes,  70.") ;    form,  SOO. 
"Southern   Company,  St.  LiOui8,"33l. 
"Sorosis,"331. 
"Spearmint"    (<.aim).   111. 

Specific    Performance — 

of  contract  for   sale  of  goodwill.  225. 


1018  INDKX. 

Referencm  arc  to  paget. 
Specimen*— 

iiivi'8ti^Htioii.  .'>.")2,  nns. 

"Splendid"  <  lloiir^.  111. 
"StandRrd    A"    (tipirs),    111. 

StAfce    Line — 

^•IHMlwill    of,    2-22. 

"Star"    (tol.ncco.  vlv.).   Ill,   129. 

"Stnrk."  331. 

State  Penal  Laws,    Ml. 

State    ReKistration— 

ail\  .llitii;jf>    of.    .■('.I.'i. 

State  Statutes  (see  Statutes.  State). 

Statute  o£    Frauds — 

iij:r<'<'m<iit   not   to  «'iipap<'   in   rival  busint'sa  does  not  come  witliin,  233. 

Statnte   of  Limitations — 

in   cast'   of   laclio,  209. 

Statutes,   Federal:  Act  of    1870.    .'lOl. 
Statutes,   Federal:   Act  of    1876,   .')28. 

Statutes,   Federal:   Act    of   March    3,    1881,  .">32, 

action: 

by  commispioiier  on  application    (scv,  3i,  .V40 

for  damajifs    (sees.  7.  It),  rA't.  .")46. 

for  an  injunction    (sec.  7),  M't. 

jurisdiction  of  I'nited   States  courts   in   an    (sec.  7),  545. 

when  liarre<l    (sec.   S).  .")4({. 
aj)jn'llatc  jurisdiction   of    I'liitcd    States   courts    (sec.   7),  545, 
a|>|ilicant : 

citi/ens)ii|i   (»f.    to   he   recited    (sec.    1),   532. 

domicile  of.  to  Ix-  recited    (sec.    1),  532. 

name  of,   not   rejjistrahle    (ftec.  3),   540. 

name  of,  to  he  specified   in  the  application    (s«h'.    1),  532. 

statement   of.    to    recite   what    (sec.    1),   .">32. 
application: 

action    on    same    hy    tlio   commissi(mer    (se<\    3i.  .'i40. 

conflicting;   with   another    (sec.  31,  540. 

lenjrtli  of  time  of  use  of  mark,  to  lie  recitttl   in    (sec.   1),  532. 

muHt  1m-  accomfianied  by  a  written  declaration    (8«>c.  2),  540. 

miiHt   recite  what    (»ec.   1),  532. 

time  of  receipt  of,  to  Ik-  ncorded    (sec.  3),  540. 


INDKX.  1019 

1\<  fi  rrurcH  arc   In  pages. 
Statntcs,  Federal:  Art  of  Mnrch  3.   1R81      (  out itniid. 
article: 

if     injurious,    an     action     Idr    iiiiina;.'c^     or     iiijiiiict  ion     in     liarrcd 

(Hfc.    8),    .")4»i. 
not    inamifacturcil     in     tliis    c(iiititty,     term     nf     rc;»iHtratioii     for 

(sec.  .■)) ,  .>4."i. 
nwHifjiuncnt,  coniniissioiicr   to   iinscrilic   furins    ami    rules    for    ^hpo. 
1-2),  .-)47. 
bars: 

to  an  action  for  (lamajjes  or  injunction    (sees.  H,   11  i,  7i4(\,    r)47. 
to  rej,'istration    (sees.    1,   2,   .3),    'ui2,   r)40. 
business,  if  uniawfiij.  hars  an   action   for  (laina;,'eH  or   injunction.    (.s<ic. 

8),  r)4t>. 
certificates   of    re<iistration : 

liow   and   wiien    issued    (sees.   4,   13),    r»44,    .")48. 
use  of  same  in  courts  as  evidence   (sec.  4),  544. 
citizenship  of  ajijjlieant: 

as  affecting  tin-  rij^lit  to  register   (sec.  1),  ~t3'2. 
to  be  specified  in  the  application   (sec.  1),  ')32. 
claim,  presumptive    lawfulness   of,   to  be  decided   by    the  commissioner 

(sec.  3),  r)4(). 
class  of  merchandise  to  be  recited   in  the  ai)i)Iication    (sec.  1),  r>32. 
commerce  with  foreign  nations  or  Indian  tribes,  use  of  trademark  in, 

necessary  to  registration    (.sees.   1,  2,  3),  532,  540. 
commissioner: 

action  on  a|)pIication    (sec.  3),  540. 

to  decide  |)resuniptive  lawfulnes.s  of  claim    (sec.   3),   .'V40. 

to   prescribe   regulations  for    registration    (sec.    1),   532. 

to  prescribe   rules   and   forms   for  assignments  and  transfers,    (sec 

12),    547. 
to  sign  certificates  of  registration    (sec.  4),  544. 
common  law  and  equitable  rights: 

not  abridged  by  expiration  of  term   of  certificate    (st^c.    11),  547. 
not  al)ridged   by   statute    (sec.   10).   547. 
compensation,    registrant   aggrieved    may    recover    (sec.   7),   545. 
conflicting  applications  (sec.  3).  540. 
convention  with  a   foreign   power  as  conferring  the   right   to   register 

(sec.  3),  540. 
confusion   of   the   public   mind   by  similarity  of    marks   bars   registra- 
tion   (sec.  3) ,  540. 
copies: 

of  printed  specifications  to  be  kept  on  record   (sec.  4),  544, 
under  oflicial    seal   to  be   evidence    (sec.  4).  .)44. 
copying  and   using  registered  trademark,   damages   for    (sec.   7),   545. 
counterfeiting,  damages  for   (sec.  7),  545. 


1020  INDKX. 

Ri  fm  ivt  s  nrr   to  pa(jr». 
StMtvtra.  Federal:  Act  of  March  3,   1881-(tiiitiiuii'd. 

cuurtH  of   iH|iiity.    iirnotiiv   to   !>«•    followol    in    olVu  r   iutimi    <>n    vonllii't- 

iiifj  iipplirutioDH    ( !*iv.    3).   .">4(>. 
otnirts  of  tlu'  I'nitrd   Statt't*.   juriiulictiun  of    (wo.   7),  r>4.'). 
(inmiipi'H : 

iioti«)ii    fi>r.    \\  lull    liHiri<l    (ttoo.    St,    .">4«l. 

for  iiflixin^r   friuitliilcnt    tnulcumrk    to    nuToluindiso    (s<'c.    7),    •"•4"). 

for    falM"    or    frauiliiN-iit    rrjii^triition     ( mr.    !M ,    ")46. 

for   wronjifiil    us4>  of    rt;.'istfrfd    trudcmiirk    (see.    7),   .">4.'i. 
dt-crit  of  tlio   jMililic: 

iictioii    to   dtfcihl    trailcm;irk    >o    tix-d.    not    muiiitaiinililf    (sit.      8), 
.'>4rt. 

Ity   .'•imilaritits   in   iimrk>,   Imrs   rc'ristrutioii    (sch^b.   2,   3),  540. 
declaration : 

niii^t  l>f  in  writing:    (sec.   2),  540. 

must   lie   vt'rilit'd    by    whom    (si'C.   2),    r»40. 

must  contain   wlint    (si-c.  2),  r)40. 

wlien   false  or   frau<lulent  damam-s   for    (sec.   9),   r)4fi. 

with  a  forci^'n  power,  us  conferring  tlu-  rij^ht  to  register    (sec.  3), 
r)40. 
description : 

must  truly   represent  the  mark    (sec.  2».  .")40. 

of   tlu'  goods  re<juire<l    (si-c.    1),  r>32. 

of   the    mark   re«juired    (.sec.    1).   532. 
domicile  of  applicant  must  be  recited   in  the  application    (sec.  1),  532. 
duration   of  certificate    (sec.    5),   545. 
tijuitiible  rights  not  affected   by  statute,   or   expiration   of  term    (sees. 

10.    11).   .-)47. 
equity: 

aggrieved  registrant  may  resort  to   (sec.  7),  543. 

courts  of,  practice  followed   in   interference  cases    (see.   3),   540. 
evidence: 

copies  under  seal   to  be  received  as   (sec.  4),  .'>44. 

of  ownership,  registraticui  to  be  prima  facie  (sec,  7),  545. 

of  registry    (sec.   4),   544. 
expiration    of    term    of    certificate    does    n»)t    abridge    common-law    or 

•Hpiitable    rights    (sec.    11),    547. 
fac  Himilrs  : 

of  trademarks   to   be  filed    (sec.    1),   532. 

pre8<>nted,  must  truly  represent  the  mark    (sec.  2),  540. 
false   registrati')n,   damages    for    (sec.   fl),   54(J. 
fees: 

for   regihtry,   and    how    |)ayal)le    (sec.    1),    5,'*2. 

formerly    [laid    with    intent  to    jirocurc    registratifui    (sec.   0),   545. 
foreign  countries,  residents  of  may  register  wlien  (sees.  1,  3),  532,  540. 


iNi)i:x.  1021 

UifirrntcH  arc  to  pagrs. 
Statutes,  Federal:  Act  of  March  3,  1881— roritimK-*!. 

Iciii  ij:ii    lint  inns   or    lixliaii    tiilun,   triiilcniiirkK    UHcd    iii   iDmriiiTcf   with, 

aloiij;  ii'j.'istriil)lc    («t'CM.    1,  2,  ;<  I ,  ."lU'i,  ."i4(>. 
fdifi;,'!!    powtT    coiivciit  ion    witli,    uh    c-«mfcrriiiK    rij^lit    of    ic^'i->tration 

(s.'c.  :»).  •'►•lo. 
fdiincr   rijilits  mid    rciiwiliis   |>rrHrivf(|    ( src.    Kh ,   .')47. 
fonriH  for  nssinimu-ntK  ti»  ln'  pn-Hcrilu'd  liy  {•oinmiHHioucr  (»«•.  12).  r)47. 
fraud   in  olttaiiiiii;,'  rfj.'istration  barH  uii   ac-tioii    (m'c.   H),  .)4(J. 
fraudulent : 

diTlaration   and   rf;;istration,   dania^'ps   for    (hi'c.   9),  ri4(J. 

trademark,    dainafifs    for    adixinf^    same    to    niprtdtandist!    (wc.    7), 

r)4r.. 

jroodn,  particular  (i(S(ri|)tinn  of  Hame,  to  lie  rccitrd    (hcc.   1),  ■>32. 
identity  witli    olinr    tradcniiiiks.   liars   re^^istration    wlien    (necs.   2,   3), 

540. 
imitation  of  re<,'istered   tradenuirk.  penalty    for    (see.   7),  ■")4.'>. 
Tiiilian   trihcs  or   foreijrn   nations,   tradeinarka  used   in    commerce  with, 

alone    re;,'istral.le    (sees.    1,  2,   3),  532,   540. 
infringement,   remedy    fur    (sec.   7),   545. 
injunction : 

action   for,  when   liarritl    (sec.   8).   546. 

ajrainst  the  wrongful  use  of  a  rej^istered  trademark    (see.  7),  545. 
interference   practice,   to    follow    the    rules   of    Inited    States  courts  of 

equity    (sec.  3) ,  540. 
issue  of  certificates  of  registration    (sec.  4).  544. 
jurisdiction,  original   and  apjiellate.  of  rnited  States  co\irts    (sec.   7), 

545. 
lawfulness  of  claim  to  trademark  to  he  decided  hy  c(mimissioner    (sec. 

3),  540. 
length  of  time  of  use  of  mark  to  lie  recited    ( sec.   1 ) ,  532. 
location  of  apjilicant  to  he  specified    (sec.   1),  532. 
manufacture  of  articles  abroad,   registration   for    (sec.   5),  545. 
merchandise,  class  of  to  he   recited    (sec.   1),  532. 
mistake    or    confusion    in    the    public    mind,    caused    by    similarity    of 

trademarks,    bars    registration    (sec.   31,    540. 
mode  of  allixing,  to  he  recited    (sec.   1),  532. 
name  of   applicant : 

not  registrable    (sec.   3),  540. 

to  be   specified   in  the   application    (sec.    1),   532. 
oath  to  declaration,  how  and  by  whom  made   (sec.  2),  540. 
ownership,  registration   to  he  iiritna  facie  evidence  of    (sec.  7),  545. 
pemilty : 

for   false  or   fraudulent   registration    (sec.   0),   546. 
for   imitation  of  trademark    (sec.  7),  545. 
printed  copies  of  specification   to  be  kept  of   record    (sec.   4),   544. 
receipt  of  application,  time  of  to  be   rworded    (sec.  3),   540. 


10*J2  INDEX. 

Ii>  fi  n  III  I  s  lire  to  pagrit. 
Statute*.  Federal:  Act  of  March  3,  1881-  (  ontinucd. 
rwordin^; : 

of  limo  of   rcoript   of  np|)liciition    (r.v.   ;i  > ,  .'.4(1. 
vi  tiHiicftTs  of  rij^lit  oi  uKf   (wo.  12),  547. 

rworiln   «>f   trH«l»'murk!«.    stiitoiiu-nts.   tloolarationi..   I'to.,   to   1»f  kepi 
(800.   41.  ."»44. 

registration : 

HB  H  condition  proctnlont  to  roj^istrution  uliroi'd   (s..v   l.l..  .'>4S. 

niitliori/oil    whon     (sec.    1).    .'>32. 

bars  to    ( soos.   1.  2.  3),  .'>32.  .')40. 

by   rosidents  of   foroijin   oountries    ( seca.    1.  3).   .'>32,  .'i4n. 

oortificatos  of.  Iiow  and  wlion   issued    (sees.  4.    13),  .')44,  .'>48. 

certificatoh  of  uso  of  sumo  in  courts  as  ovidonco    {«^ec.  4),  r>44. 

expiration  of  t.rni  of.  dors  not  abridge  common  law  or  oqnitablo 

rijjhts  (sec.   Ill,  .")47. 
foo  for   (sees.   1.  6).   ")32,  .i4.'i. 
liow  ofToctod    (soc.  1),  .')32. 
marks  arc  registraiilo    (sec.  .")),  .")40. 
obtained  l»y  false  or  fraudulont  roprosontations.  damages  for   (sec. 

fl),  .")46. 
records  of.  to  hi'  kept    (soc.   4),  .")44. 
renewal   of,   can   be   made  whon    (soo.  .")).  .">4;"). 
restricted    to   marks   used    in    foreign    or    In.lian    commcroo    (sees. 

1,  2.  3),  r>.32,  .540. 
right  to,  as  affocted  by  citi/onship  of  applicant   (soc.  1),  532. 
right  to.  as  conferred  by  treaty  convention,  or  declaration  with  a 

foreign   power    ( sec.  3  ) ,  540. 
right   of  action    secured   thereby    (sec.   7),  545. 
rules  for.  to  be  prescribed  by  the  commissioner   (sec.   1).  532. 
to  be  prima   facie  evidence  of  ownership    (soc.   7),   .545. 
use  in  foreign  and  Indian  commerce  a  prerequisite  to   (sees.   1.  2. 
3  ) ,  ,532,  .540. 
regulations  and  rules  to  be   i>rescribed  by  the  commissioner    (sees.    1. 

12),    .532,    .547. 
remedy    for    infringement    (soc.    7),   545. 
renewal  of  registration    (see.  5),  545. 
reproduction   and   use   of   registered    tradeniark.    jMniilty    for    (sec.    7), 

.54.5. 
resemblance  to  other  marks  must  b«'  avoided    (sees.  2.  3).  .540. 
restrictions: 

on  actions  for  damages  or  an   injunction    (sec.   Si.   .540. 
on  actions  for  infringement    (sees.   8.    Ill,    ''jn.  547. 
on    registration    (swh.    1,  2,   3),  .532.   .540. 
right  to  UHo  t!ie  mark  must  Udong  exclusively  to  the  apiilicint   (sec.  2», 
540. 


INDKX. 


102:3 


IfrfrrrnrtH  nn    l<>  finprK. 
StatntoB,  Federal:  Act  of  March  3,  1881      (  oiitiiitK  <]. 
ii<,'litH  ut  cominoii   law   and  t'ljiiity   ii«)t  uliri(lj{wl: 

by  i'xj>irati(iii   of  tin-   tmii   of   r('>{iHtiati(Hi    (m-v,    II),   .Vt7. 

hy    tlic  <'inutiin-Mt  of   tin-   htututi-    (nor.    10).   .")47. 
nilcH  and  ifmihitions,  tn  lie  prcHcrilu'd   liv  tlic  commiwHioncr    (men.   11, 

12),    .")47. 
Himilaiity   <<•  otlicr   marks  Wars   rcfiistratioii,  \vli«ii    (seen.    1.    12),   .")32, 

r)47. 
Bpecifications,  |)rintc>d  ropifs  of.  to  \h-  k»pl  of  rt-eurd    (hcc.  4),   .V44. 
Ktatement  of  ai)plicant: 

to  rt'citc  wliat    (sec.    1).   .');J2. 

rwoidinj;   of    (wt'c.    4),   544. 
terms   of   rcjjistration: 

duration  of   (sec.  .">),  545. 

expiration    of,    does    not    al)ri(I<;<'  common-law    or   ('(juitahle    riglita 
(sec.    10).   547. 

limitation   of    (sec.   5),  545. 

renewal  of   ( sec.  5 ) ,  545. 
time  of  receipt  of  application   to  l)e   recorded    (sec.  3),   540. 

of  use  to  he  recited    (sec.    1).   532. 
transfers  of  tlu-  ri<.'ht  of  use,  how  re^xulated    (sec.  12).  547. 
treasury  departnu-nt,  dei>osit  of  trad«Mnark  in,  00!). 
treaties  as  conferrinj;  the  ri<,'ht  of  re;L;istration    (sec.  3),  540. 
United  States: 

citizens  of.  may   ohtain   re<j:istration    (sec.  3),  540. 

courts  of,  to  have  jurisdiction,  when    (sec.   7),  545. 
use : 

if  an  unlawful   husiness,  hars  an  action    (sec.  8).  54(5. 

if   \vronj;ful,   common-law   and   equitable   rights  unimpaired    (sec. 
10).  547. 

if  wrongful  or  unlawful,  burs   registration    (sec.  3),   540. 

length  of  time  of,  to  be  recited    (sec.   1),  532. 

right  of,  must  be  exclusive   in  the  applicant    (sec.  2),  540. 

right  of,  transfers  of   (sec.   12),  547. 

unlawful,  of  tradenuirk,  damages  or  injunction    (sec.  7),  545. 
verification  of  dtclarntion,  how  and  by  whom  made    (sec.  2),  540. 

Statutes,   Federal:  Act  of   February   20,    1905,  549. 

abandoned  trademarks,   action   may  not  be  brought   on    (sec.   21),   583. 
action: 

by  commissioner  on  application    (sec.  6),  565. 

for  damages    (sees.   16,  li).  25).  579,  581,  585. 

for  an   injunction    (sec.    10).   581. 

jurisdiction  of  United  States  courts   in  an    (sees.   17.   18.   19.  20), 
581,  582. 

when  barred    (sees.   21,  28),   583,   586. 
Act  of  1881,  rights  of  registrants  under   (sees.  12,  30),   576,  587. 


](»J|  INHKX. 

I'ffcrcncrs  nrr   to  p<igrit. 
Statute*,  FedrrRl:  Act  of  February  20,   1005 — tontinii.il. 
"allixfil"  lii'liiu'il    (.H«v,   211 1 .  ."iM». 
iimciulnu'ntrt   to   applicutions    IIU.I    iiiniri    Att   i>f    ISHI     (?.cii*.    It,   24), 

578,  ,'.S-1. 
appmlH: 

fo<*«  for  (t»»'OH.  S.  1-lt.  .'>7.'J.  .')7S. 

to  till"  ooinmisHioiH'r  of  putfiits   (m'ch.  7.  >>.   l-'Ji.   'u*K  -u'-i,  "Jd. 

to  tln'  court  of  a|)|u'ulH  of  tlie  Distrii-t  of  Coluinliia    ( »tf.  i>),  574. 
patfiit   |irn<tii'f   and   proci'durc   t«i  novorn    ( Htv.   }•).  574. 
ap{>o1lato  jurisdiction  i>f  Initcd   Statos  coiirtH   (  u-c.    17),  581. 
applicant : 

"ap|)licanth"'  defined    (m'c.   2!> ) ,  5Sl5. 

iMti/cnsliip  of,  to  he  recitwl    (see.   1),  54!>. 

domicile  of,  to  he  recited    (sec.   1),  54H. 

loi-ation  of,  t«»  Ik'  recited   (sec.  1).  549. 

name  of.   to  he  recited    (sw.   1),   5411. 

statement  of.  to  reciti-  what    (.hcc.    It.  .">4!l. 

who  may  apply  for   re;;  i  strut  ion    (sec.    li,  540. 
applications: 

action   on   s;»me   hy    tlie  cominissioner    (sec.   fi ) ,    5fi5. 

contlictin^    (.sec.  7),  57*^. 

date  of.   in  foreijin   country   must   he  stated   when    (sec.   2).  554. 

e.xamination   of    (sec.   6),   505. 

fees  on    filin;;    (sees.    1,    14),   54!t,    57S. 

filed  under   the  Act  of  1S81    may  l>e  amended    (sees.   14.   24).  .578, 
584. 

length  of  time  of  use  of  mark   to  he   recited    in    (sec.   1),  .549. 

may  he  assigned    (sec.   10 1,  574. 

must   he  addressed   to  tlie  commissioner   of   patents    (sec.    1),   549. 

must   be   accomj»anied   hy    a    drawing    (sec.    1).    540. 

must  he  aceonri)anied   hy  a   written  declaration    (sec.   2).   554. 

must  he  accomi>anied  hy  specimens  of  the  trademark    (sec.  1),  .549. 

must  he   filed    in   the   patent   odice    (sec.    1),   54!l. 

must  he  in  writing   (sec.  1),  549. 

must  he  signed  hy  the  applicant   (sec.  1),  540. 

mUHt  recite  what    (sec.   1).  549. 

must    state    how    trademark    is    applietl    or    alhxed    to    the    goods 
( sec.  1  ) ,  549. 
article,    if    injurious,   an   action    for    daiiia;.'es    or    injiinetion    is    harred 

(sec.  21).  .583. 
assignments: 

applications  for    registration   may   he  assigned    (sec.    10),    574. 

ftH'H  for  recording    (sec.   10),  574. 

nuist    he   acknowledged    according   to    laws  of   country   or    state  in 
wlii'-)i    I'Venitcd      (  KTc.     10 1,    574. 


INDKJC.  lO'J.'j 

llrfirrniiH   nil     to   pngrit. 
Statntea,  Federal:  Act  of  Febrnary   20,   1005      (  out  iniinl. 
aHHi|riiiiii-iitH: — ciintiiiiird. 

must  til'  ill  (•oiiinction  with  tlic  ^'oddwili  ^,[  tin-  iiiihiiioHH    (wc.  10), 

574. 
miiHt  Im.'  ill  wiiliiij,'    (sec.    10),  r>74. 

nford  of  assi^'iiiiiciits  to  !)«•  ki-pt  in  the  patent  oflTirc   (hoc.  10),  574. 
shall    he   void    uiiIuhh   recorded    in    the    patent   ofl'ice   within    three 

months    (sec.    10),   .'>74. 
trademarks  may  be  assi;;iie(l    (.sec.    10),  TuA. 
bars: 

to  action   for  ilama^'es  or   injunction    (hccs.   21,  2H).  r)H3.  .'i8fi. 
to  registration    (sees.    1,  2,  4.    ")),  r>4i>,   r>.")4,  .')."(6. 
business,   if  iinlawful,  bars  an  action   for   dama^ics  or    injunction    (sec. 

21),  .-)H:}. 
cancellation,  proceeding's  for    (sees.  ];{.  22).  .")7»t.  .)S;{. 
certificates  of  rej^istrution : 

in  case  of  forci;;n  registration,  shall  cease  when   the  forei;,'n   regis- 
tration expires   (sec.  12),  .')7<». 
issued   under   the  Act  of   1881.  may   he   renewed    under   the   Act  of 

February  20,  I'tOo    (sec.   12),  .570. 
issued  under  the  Act  of  1S8I.  shall  remain   in  force   (sees.   12,  30), 

576,   587. 
may  be  cancelled    (sees.   13,   22),  576.  .583. 
may  be  issued  to  the  assignee  (sec.  11),  575. 
may  be   renewed    (sec.    12),  576. 

shall  bear  the  seal  of  the  patent  office   (sec.  11),  575. 
shall  be  signed  by  the  commissioner  of  jiatents    (sec.  11),  575. 
shall  not  be  issued  to  foreign  applicants  until  they  have  obtained 

registration  in  country  of  residence   (sec.  4),  556. 
shall  remain   in  force  not  more  than  20  years   (sec.   12),  576. 
shall  state  date  of  application    (sec.   11),  575. 
use  of  copies  of  in   court  as  evidence    (sec.   11).  575. 
citizenship: 

as  afl"ecting  riglit  to  register    (sec.  1).  .540. 
of  applicant   to   he  recited    (sec.    1).   .540. 
class  of  merchandise   to  be  recited   in  application    (sw.    1).   .540. 
coats  of  arms  not  registrable   (sec.  5),  5.56. 
commerce : 

between   states    (sec.   1).  540. 
♦      foreign  applit-ants  need  not  state  that  the  trademark  has  been  use:l 
in    commerce    with    the   United    States    or    among    the    states 
thereof   (sec.  2),  554. 
with  foreign  nations   (sec.  1),  549. 
with  Indian  tribes    (sec.   1),  540. 
commissioner: 

action   on  application    (soc.  6),  565. 


1026  INDEX. 

Ucfrrrnrcs  arc  in  pngrs. 
StatntrB.  FrdcrRi:  Act   of  February   20.    1  905  -  ( '.mt  itim d. 
ruminiKhioniT : — i-«>ii  tinned. 

iip|»ral«  to    (»!•(•.    8),    'u'A. 

jiiriMlirtion  «>f.  t«)  runr«'l  ri'j;i8trationH  {m'c>*.  l.'J.  22),  .*)7fl,  583. 
iiKHV    rrfiis*'  to  rt'^isttT    iiitrrfcrinj;   iiiiiikH,   wlu-n    (hit.   7),   ."iTO. 
to   <i(HM»l«'   pn'siimptivo    liiwfuliuss   of  cliiiin    [hoc.   K).    .'»fl.'». 
to  pn'wrilH-  rc):tilHtionH  for  n';;iHtration   (Ht-c.  2(1),  riHri. 
to  tiipi   tln'   r»'rtifi('«t«'»  of  r«>);iHtration    (m-c.    Ill,   '»7."». 
ooniMionlaw    and    t'(initahlc    ri^rlitn    not    iihridgcd    hy    statute    (soc.    2;{ ) , 

ronlliitinj;  aiiplications    (s«'('.  7),   .")70. 

confnsion  of  tin-  |iul>Iir   mind  liy  similarity   of   marks  har.n  ri>;irttration 

( spc.    r> ) .    .').")6. 
constitutionality  of.   37fl. 

contempt,  action   for  violating,'  injunction    (sec.  20),   .')82. 
convention   with    a    foreign    |K)\ver    as   conferrin;j   tlip    ri>;lit    to    register 

(sec.»i.    1,  4>.   .■)4!),   .■>.")»!. 
copies: 

of  actiuil    tradrmitrk   or  fnc-simihs    rt(jnir«il    from    iijiplicant    (sec. 
1),   r>4!t. 

of  printed  specifications  to  he  kept   of  record    ( -.cc.    11).  .">7.'), 

of  records  of  injunction   procee(liii<;s   furiii>het|   to   cnurts   ai>plying 
for  same    (sec.   20),  582. 

of  puhlications,  i)rice8    (sec.   14),  578, 

of  records  under  official  seal  to  be  evidence    (sec.   11),  .')75. 
copyinp  and  u.-^inji  registered  trademarks: 

damages   for    (sees.    1(5,   10),  570,  581. 

restraint   of    (sec.    10),   581. 
counterfeiting,  damages   for    (sec.    18),   570. 
courts    of    the    United    States,    jurisdiction    of     (sees.    10.    17,    IS,    10), 

570,    "»81. 
damages: 

action    for.    wlicn    l)arred    (  s.k-s.   21.   28),   583.   58(1. 

for  allixing   fraudulent  trademark    to   merchandise    (sec.    Ifi),    570. 

for    false   or    fraiidulent   registration    (sec.    25),    585. 

for  wrongful  use  of  registered  trademarks  (scvs.  1(1.  10),  570.  581. 

may   la-    increased    (sees.    10,    10),   570,   581. 
deceit   of   the    public: 

action    to  defend    trademark   used    in,   not    maiiitaiiialde    (see.    21), 
583. 

by    similarity    in    marks,    bars    registration    (sec.    5),    550. 
deceptive  tradetnarks.  action  under,  may  not  be  brought   (sec.  21),  583. 
declaration  : 

may  be  verifie<l.  before  wluun    (sec.  2),  554. 

mUHt  be   in   writing    (sec.  2),  5.'j4. 

muft  l»e  veri/ieil,  bv  \vlif>m    (sec.  2l,  554. 


INDIX-.  101'7 

/'i  fi  11  iirrs    (IK     In    jKiffis. 
Statutes,  Frderal:  Art  of  Febmnry   20,   1905-  (  .prilimi.<i. 

il<'('lariiti(iii : — {■oiitiiiiwd. 

iiiiiHt  <-iiiitiiiii  wlmt    ( Hc*'.  2),  .■).">4.  , 

f(»r   forci;;!!    iipplicantH    (hcc.    2).    ")."»4. 
iiiidir  tciivoHr   |>r()vi^(i    (hcr.   .'»),   fjoO. 
wliiii,  falHf  <»r    fruiKluli'iit.   (Iiuiiii^m'h    for    (we.    2.">).    .'.8.'). 
(IcflTiitioriH   of   "aflixcd,"   "ait|ilicaht,"    "owner,"    "porHon,"    "Tenintuint," 

"Htat«'8."   "trademark,"    "Triited   State»"    (hoc.    2»),   5S0. 
description : 

niiiht  truly    deherihe    the   mark    (see.    2),    ').'>4. 
of  tile  ^'oods   re(|uired    (see.    1),    ."»4!». 
of   till-   mark    reipiired    (sec.    1),   .')4!». 
deseriptive    trademarks,    not    re;;istral)lc    {hi'C.    .')),    .l.^C. 
ilestriietion    of    infrinj^in;,'    trademarks     (sec.    20).    i582, 
domicile  of  applicant  must  be  recited   in  the  ai)plication    (sec.  1),  .")4!». 
drawing  of  the  trademark   required    (see.    1),   540. 
duration  of  the  certificate  of  registration    (sec    12).   .")7(!. 
eipiity,    aggrieved    parties   may    resort    to    (sees.    17,    1!»,   22,    2;j),   r>81, 

.■)S.S.    .■)S4. 
evidence:  , 

copies  under  seal  to  be  received  as    (see.   11),  .'i?;). 
of  ownersliip,   registration   to  be  prima  facie    (sec.   16),  570. 
of   registry    (sec.    11),   TuTy. 
examination  of  applications: 

ajjplicant  to  be  notified  of  the  result  of    (sec.  fil,  ;>65. 
commissioner  of  patents  to  cause   (sec.   6),  56.). 
fac-s^imilrs  of  trademarks,  when  to  be  filed    (sec.   1),  549. 
false  registration,   damages  for    (sec.   25).  585. 
fees: 

additional   fee  not  required   for  apj.licatioiis   pending  at  the   date 

of  passage  of  this  act   (sec.  14),  578. 
for  cO|)ies    (sec.  14).  578. 
for  recording  assignments    (sec.   14),   578. 
for  registration  or  renewals   (sees.   1,  14),  54f). 
if  paid  by   mistake  may   be   refunded    (sec.   15),  57fl. 
on  a{)i)eal  to  the  commissioner  of  patents    (sees.  8,  14),  573,  578. 
on  filing  notice  of  opposition    (sec.    14),  578. 
flags  or  coats  of  arms   not  registrable    (see.   5),  556. 
foreigners: 

entitled  to  date  of  application    in   colintry  of  residence   in   certain 

cases    (sec.   4).  55<i. 
must  designate  representative  in  the  United   States   {»ih:.  3),  555. 
must  first  register   in  country  of  residence   (.sees.  2,  4),  554,  556. 
must  give  date  of  registration   in  country  of  residence  or  date  of 
application  therefor   (sec.  2),  554. 


1026  INUKX. 

liifrrrnrr.i  arc   to   parjru. 
Statutes,  Federal:  Act  of  February   20.   1005      (  uiitinii.  ,1. 
fon-i^'iHTH :  — I'oiitinutHl. 

imiHt  ro!*i«Ii«   ill   h  i-ituntry   iitrnrtliii;,'  Himilar   |>ri\  ilrj^cH   to   tin-  citi- 

/oils  t)f   till'  I'nilril   States    ( wc.   4  I,    'I'M. 
net-*!    not    statr   that    mark    lian   Ihimi    uhciI   in    rommorcH'    witli    tli" 

I'nitc'd  Stat«'s  or  anion^  the  HtatoB  tliert*of   (nee.  2),  554. 
nofiros  for,  may  he  wrvod  on   their  representatives   in  the  I'nited 

States    ( !M*c.    ."J).    555. 
when  entitled   tt)  rej;ister    (si'es.   1,   2,   4).  54!»,   5.VI,  55(J. 
foreign    nations,    rejiistration    of    tra<lemark    u^ed    in    eurameree    with 

(see.    1),   541). 
foreifin  jxiwers  conventions  or   treaties  with,  and   laws  of,  as   alTivtin;^ 

rij{ht  of   regiatration    (sees.    1,  4),  .54ft,  556. 
former  ri^'hts  and  remedies  |inserv<'d    (sees.   12,  2.'}),  57tJ. 
fraud   in  ohtaininj,'  rejiistration,  hars  an  action    (see.  21),  583. 
fraudulent : 

declaration   and   re>,'istration.   ilamaf,'es  for    (sec.   25),  585. 
trademarks,  damages   for  allixing  same  to   merchandise    (sec.    16). 
57ft. 
poographical   terms,   not   ropiatrable    (sec.   5).   .5.56. 
gooils,   particular   descri|»tion   of,   to  be   recited    (sec.    1),   .54ft. 
identity  with  other   trademarks  bars   registration   when    (sec.  5),  5.56. 
imitation  of    registered    trademarks,    penalty    for    (sees.    16,    1ft),    57ft, 

581. 
immoral   or   scandalous   matter   not    registrable    (sec.   5),    5.56. 
importation    of   articles   of    merchandise    bearing    unlawful    trademarks 

])rohibited    (sec.    27),    585. 
Indian    tribes,    registration    of    trademarks    used     in    commerce    with 

(sit.    1  ).   54'.). 
infringement.   reme<ly   for    (sees.    16.    l!)),  57ft.    581. 
injunction : 

action   for,  wlien   barred    (sees.   21.  28),   58.1,  580. 

against  the  wrongful  use  of  a  regsitered  trademark   (sec.   1ft),  581. 

may    be   enforced    iiy    proceedings    to    punish    for    contempt     (sec. 

20),   .582. 
may  be  enforced    in    any   jurisdiction    (sec.    20).    .582. 
notice    of.    may    i»e    s«-rved    wherever    defendant    <aii    be    found    in 
Inited  States    (sec.  20),  .582. 
injurious  articles,  action   may    not   be   brought  on   trademarks   used  on 

(see.   21  ),    58:{. 
Interferences : 

examiner    in    charge   of    has    jurisdiction    f)ver — 
cunceilationH    (sec.    l.'l),   576.     , 
interferenccH    (sec.   71,   570. 
(jppctsitions   (sec.  7),  570. 
when   declarcfl    (sec.   7),  570. 


INDKX.  102!) 

/.'.  /« II  IK  I  s  lilt    to  jiiifit  n. 
Statutes,  Frdernl:  Act   of  Fcbrnary   20,   1905— f  ontinu.  <1. 

iiittrfrrinj;    trii<li'imiik-«.    Miilh.    aiul    |>r<» liiijjh    in    <-(|iiity     ( m-c    22), 

.-.h:j. 

iHHUc  of  (■.•rtiflcut.'H  <.f  r.KiKtration    (wh-h.  «,   11),  :>«.'),  .'.Tr). 

to     llSHijJIll'I'K       (  K«'C.      11),      .")".">. 

jurisdiction : 

of  tlif  coMinii-sioncr  of  |iatrntK    ( spck.  8,    13),  'u'-i,   ')7fi. 
of  tin-  <XHniintr  of  int<'rf<T<ncc'H   (wfH.  7,  13  (,  TwO,  rtHi. 
orin'iun]  an.l  apix-lh-tc.  of  tin*  I'liitt'd  Statrs  courts   (hoch,  fl,  10,  17, 
IH.    in.  20.   22).   :)74.   .-•7!t.   .ISl.  .-.S2,  M'.i, 
lawfulness  of  diiini    to    trinlcniark    to   !).■   .l.'ci.icd    Iiy    tlic   coinmi«Nioncr 

(sec.  «),  MVk 
lawful    tradcnuirks,   or   tliost-   uscl   lawfully,   alone    rc-^'i^tral.lc    (sc<;.   •'.). 

length  of  time  of  use  of  trademark  to  he  recited    (hcc.   1),  541). 

list  of  trademarks  to  l.e  i)ul)lisiied  in  the  Official  Oa/.ctte   (sec.  6),  oG:). 

location  of  applicant  to  he  s|)ecified    (sec.   1).  .')4!». 

mercliandise    bearing    unlawful     tiadeuuirks.     importation     prohihited 

(sec.   27),   .')8.-). 
nieri'handise,  class  of.  to  he  recited    (sec.   1).  .")4!). 
mistake,    or    confusion    in    the    public    mind    caused    by    similarity    of 

trademarks,   bars    registration    (sec.    .")),   556. 
mode  of  aflixing  trademark    to  be   recited    (sec.    1),   549. 
name  of  applicant: 

not   registrable,  except  on   certain   conditions    (sec.  5),   5.56. 
to  be  specified   in  the  application    (sec.   1),  549. 
notice  of  opposition  and  of  the  grounds  therefor  to  be  given  to  appli- 
cants   (sec.  7  1 ,   570. 
notice  of  registration : 

registrants   must  give    (sec.   28),   586. 
form  of    (sec.   28),   586. 
notice  for   foreign   applicants  may  be   Si-rved   on    their   representatives 

in  the  United  States    (sec.  3),  555. 
oath   to  declaration  may  ])e  made  before  -whom    (sec.  2),  5.54. 
<)»ppositions: 

may   he  made   by    any    person   who  believes  he   would  be  damaged 

by  registration   (sec.  6),  565. 
must  be  accompanied  by  fee   (sec.  14),  578. 
notice  of  grounds  of  opposition  shall  be  given   to  ajiplicants   (sec. 

7),  570. 
notice  of,  must  be  fihd  witliin  30  days  after  publication   (sec.  6), 

565. 
notice  of,  must   be  verified    (sec.   6),   565. 
proceedings   under    (sec.    7),   570. 


1U3U  INDEX. 

Krfcrniccs  arc  to  pages. 
Statutes.  Federal:  Act  of  Febrnary  20.   1905 — ContiniKd. 
uppo.sitidiis:      cDiitiiiUcd. 

|iulilii-iiti«ii   of   tradi'iiunks    in    Ollii-iiil    Cia/.cttf   Itcfoif  registration 
to  I'lmlilc  opposition   to  he   madi-    (  m-o.  ti  i  .   ."><!.">. 
"owiut"   ilt'fiiu'd     ( si'c.    211),    .">Sr>. 

o\vm'rslii|i,  n  "■i^tratiini   to  In-  prinni  f<i<ir  i-vidrm-e  of    ( -.fc.   1(5).  579. 
|H'iijilt_v  : 

for   false  or  fraiidnlfnt   rcfjistration    (si'o.  2.")),  .IS."), 
for   imitation  of  trademark    (sees.   10,   1!»,  20),  570,  581,  582. 
"person''   defined    (see.   2H).   r)86. 
petition,  to  contain  what    (sec.    1).  54!t. 

jKirtraits   of   living   individuals   not   registralilc   without    their   consent 

in  writing    (sec.  5),  55ti. 
printed  copies  of  specifications  to  he  kept  of  record    (sec.   11),  575. 
printed  copies  of  trademarks   to  be   furnished  hy  the  olTicc    (sees.    II, 

14),  575.   578. 
|irofits  may  be  recovered    (.sec.   191.  581. 

publication   of  trademarks  in   the  Official  Gazette    (sec.   fi),  565. 
publications,   prices  of  copies  of    (sec.   14),  578. 
recording: 

fees  for    (sec.   14),  578. 
of  assignments  (sec.  10),  574. 
records  of  trademarks,  statements,  declarations,  etc.,  to  be  kept   (sec. 

11),   575. 
refunding  of  fees   (sec.   15),  570. 
refusal  of  an  a|)plication   (sees.  G,  7).  .5fi5,  .170. 
"registrant"   defined    (sec.    29),    586. 

registrants  undt-r  the  Act  of  1881,  rights  of    (sec.  12),  576. 
registration : 

authorized  by    (sec.   I),  540. 

bars  to    (sees.   1,  2,   4,   5),   540,   5.54,   5.56. 

by  residents  of  foreign   cnuiitries   (sees.   1,  li) ,   540,   555. 

certificates  of — 

duration    (sec.   12),  576. 

liow   and   when    issued    (sees.  fi.  11),   .")65,   575. 
rt-newal  of    (si'c.   12),  576. 

use  of.  in  courts  as  evidence   (sec.  11,    lli),  575.  579. 
fees  for    (sec.   14),  578. 
how    effected    (sees.    1,   2),    rt4'.).    5.54. 
marks    not    registrable    (s«'c.   5),   556. 
obtained  by   false  or  fraiidiihiit    ripresrntalion,  damages   for    (sec 

25),    .585. 
of  marks  used    10  years  jirior  to  the   passage  of  this  act    (sec.  5), 

5.56. 
records    of.    to    l)e    kept     (sec.    Ill,    575. 
renewal   of,  can  be  made,  when    (■'cc.   12),  576. 


INDEX.  1031 

References  arc  to  paffcs. 
fttatutes,  Federal:  Act  of  February  20,  1905 — Continuod. 

registration :  — oontiimcd. 
li^lit  te- 
as airi'ctod  l)y  fiti/.»'iislii|)  of  iipplicaiit    (sees.    1.   4),  .'>4!),  .'>.»0. 
as  fonftrred   by  tri-aty,  or  coiivciition    witli   a    foreign   i)0\vpr, 
or  by  tlu'  laws  of  a  foreign  country   (sees.  1,  4),  r)40,  f)")*!. 
rules  for.  to  be  i>rescribe(l  l)y  the  eornniissioiier   (see.  2^0,  ">H."). 
to  be  prima  facie  evidence  of  ownersliip    (sec.   KS ) ,  .">7i'. 
U8C  in  foreign  or  Indian  or  interstate  commerce,  a  |»rere<juisite  to 

(sec.    1),  549. 
\\\w   is  entitled  to    (sees.    1,  4),   540,  55(>. 
rcfjulations  and  rules  to  be  prescribed  by  the  commissioner    (sec.  28), 

585. 
remedies  for   infrinj^'ements    (sees.   16,   If),  20.  2.3).  570.  581,   .582,  584. 
renewal  of  certificate  of  registration  (sec.  12),  576. 

must    be    made   not    more    tlian    six    months    prior    to   expiration 

(sec.  12),  576. 
who  may  request   (sec.   12),  578. 
ra|)resentatives  in   the   United   States,    foreign   applicants   must   desig- 
nate   (sec.  3),   555. 
reproduction  and  use  of  registered  trademarks,  penalty   for    (sees.   10, 

10,  20),   570,   581,   582. 
resemblances  to  other  marks  must  be  avoided    (sec.  5),  556. 
residence  of  applicants  required    (sec.   1),  540. 
restrictions: 

on  actions  for  damages  or  an   injunction   (sees.  21,  28),  583,  586. 
on  actions  for  infringement    (sees.  21,  28),  583,  586. 
on  registration    (sec.  5),  556. 
review  by  commissioner  of  adverse  decision    (sec.   9),  574. 
right  to  use  the  trademark  must  belong  exclusively   to  the  applicant 

(sec.  2),  554. 
rights  at  common  law  or  equity  not  abridged    (sec.  23),  584. 
rules  and  regulations  to  be  prescribed  by  the  commissioner   (sec.  26), 

585. 
scandalous  or  immoral  matter   not  registrable    (sec.   5),  556. 
schedule  of  fees  (sec.  14),  578. 

similarity  to  other  trademarks,  bars  registration  when    (sec.   5),  5.56. 
specifications,  printed  copies  of.  to  be  kept  of  record   (sec.  11),  575. 
specimens  of  the  trademark  r<'(iuired    (sec.   1),  540. 
statement  of  applicant: 

to  recite  wliat    (sec.   1).  549. 
recording  of    (sec.    11),   575. 
"states,"  defined    (sec.   29),   586. 

states,  registration  of  trademarks  used  in  commerce  between    (sec.  1), 
549. 


1032  INDEI. 

llvfircncrn  an    Id   pmjis. 
Stntutra,  Federal:  Act  of  Fcbrnary  20.  1905 — Continued. 

ti'ii  years'  use  pricir  to  the  |iassaj:c  of  tliis  net   jHTmits  registration  of 

ef'rtaiii    marks    ( neo.    .')),    ."irifl. 
term  of  registration: 

duration  of  (see.  121,  ."i7<l. 
liniitation   of    (sec.   12),  ."i7fi. 
renewal  of   (sec.   12).  T)?!?. 
time  of  uso  to  l>o  rcoitwl   (sec.  1),  .V40, 
"trademark"   definwl    (sec.   21)).   r>8fl. 

tradennirks   to  lie   puldisliod  in  Oflicial   Gazette    (sec.  fi).  .Irt.'). 
transfers  of  tlie   riglit  of   use.  liow   regiilated    (see.    10).   r>74. 
tn-asury  department,  deposit  of  trademark    in    (s<'c.  27),  .">8.'). 
tri-aties,  as  conferring  tlie   riglit   of  registration    (sees.    1,  4),  .">4fl,  r)56. 
I'nitcd  States: 

citizens  of,  may  obtain   registration,  when    (sec.    1),  r)4fl. 
courts  of,  to  have  jurisdiction,  wlien   (sees.  16,  17.  18,  19),  571',  381. 
definition   of  the  term  "United  States"  as  used   in  this  act   (sec. 
211).   r)86. 
unlawful  business,  use  of  trademarks  in,  bars  an  action    (sec.  21),  W.i. 
use: 

if  in  an  unlawful  business,  bars  an  action    (sec.  21),  .">8.3. 

if    wrongful,    common-law    and    iMiuitabie    rights    unimpaire^l     (sec. 

23).  .")84. 
length  of  time  of,  to  be  recited    (sec.   1),  ")40. 
mode  of,  to  be   recited    (sec.   1),  54!). 

right  of,  nuist  be  exclusive  witli  the  applicant    (sec.  2),  .').')4. 
right  of,  transfers  (>f    (sec.    10).   .'V74.    . 

unlawful,  of  trademarks,  damages  or  injunctions   (sees.  Ifi.  1!»,  20), 
.')7n,  ryS\,  582. 
verification  of  declaration,  how  and  liy  whom  nuide    (sec.  2).  554. 
writ  of  ccrtmran,  may  be  granted  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States    (sec.    18).    .■)S1. 

Statntes,    Federal:   Prints    and    Labels— (Act    of    1874)— 

art,  works  of,  not  registrable   (sec.  3  i .  513. 
commissioner:   51,"?. 

juris<liction  as   to   registration    (sec.  3 1,  513. 

to  sign   and  seal  the  copy  of  record  of  registration    (sec.   3),  513. 
copyright   law,  ai»plication    to   registry    of    prints   and    labels    (sec.   3), 

513. 
cut,   the  word  construed  as   meaning   what    (sec.   3),   513. 
engraving,  the  word  construed  as  meaning  what    (see.  3),  513. 
fees  for  registration    (sec.  3),  522. 
fine    arts,    registry    not    alIowe<l    to    illustrations    or    works    eonne<teJ 

with    (sec.   3),   513. 
illUHtrationu,   when  registrable    (sec.   3),   514. 


iNDi:x.  1033 

I'rffrrnfrs   (irr    tn    jtnijnt. 
Statute!,  Federal:  Printi  and  Labels— (Act  of   1874)— Confmupd. 

IhIm'Is,    roj^JHt ration    of    (  m-c.   'S)  ,   .">14. 

law    of    copyri^'lit,    ai)i>licatioii    of    to    n-giMtry    of    i>riiit»   uuJ    lulit'ltt 

(B«'C.   3),   514. 
Patent  OfTicc  nileR,  f)!?.  . 

])ictorinl    illuHtratioiis,   wluii   rcfiistialjlo   (mc,  3),  r>ir>. 
I)riiit,   till'   word   constriicd   as  mi-anirij,'  what    (sec.  3),  f)]."*. 
record   of   ro<,'istration,  copy  of.  fee   for    (sec.   3),  522. 
rej,'istration,  provisioMs  as  to   (sec.  3),  51!). 
works  of  art,  not  registrable   (sec.  3),  516. 

Statntea,    Federal — 

Section  344!»,  K.  S.  U.  S.,  408. 

Statutes,    State- 
Alabama,   (520. 
Alaska,  620. 
Arizona,  620. 
Arkansas,   621. 
California,  19,  n.  40,  628. 
Colorado,  638. 
Connecticut,  643. 
Delaware,   64!). 
Florida,  6.53. 
Georgia,  657. 
Idaho,  661. 
Illinois,  664. 
Indiana,  669. 
Iowa,  674. 
Kansas,   677. 
Kentucky,  679. 
Louisiana,   679. 
Maine,   683. 
Maryland,  686. 
Massachusetts,  689. 
Michigan,  6!)6. 
Minnesota,    700. 
Mississippi,  709. 
Missouri,  710. 
Montana,   720. 
Nebraska,  721. 
Nevada,   723. 
New   Hampshire,    724. 
New  Jersey,  727. 
New  Mexico,   737. 
New  York,  738.  * 


1034  "NDl-X. 

Krfrrcncvs  arc   to   piUjcs. 
Stntiitra,    State— lont inu«'<l. 
Ntirth  raroliim.  7.*»7. 
Nortli    Diikota.   7«4. 
Oliio,  708. 
Okliilionui.  77-1. 
()rP};on,  77t>. 
IVnnBylvania.  7S'2. 
IUkxIo   Islaiul.  7S6. 
South   I'aTolina.  7'.'1. 
South  Dakota.  705. 
Tonne«80<>,  801. 
Texas.  80"». 
I'tah.  807. 
Vermont.   SliO. 
Vir^'inia,   H13. 
\Vasliin}!ton.  817. 
West  Virj.;iiiin,  8*22. 
.Wisconsin,   82t5. 
Wyon>in{r,   820. 

"Steel  Shod"  ( slices ^  111. 
"Steinway."  .{iil. 
"Stephen*,"  '-V-U. 
"SterlinB"   (air).    120. 
"Stillman   Mills."  213. 
"St.    Jamei"  ( iicwspaiuT,  •■tc.) ,  130. 
"Stock    BeloiiKlnK    to    the    Partnership"— 
iiH-hnlo    ;; luiH.    2'27. 

•Stock    in    Trade    and    Effects" — 

^r,„„l\\ill    iKit   iii.liKlfd   ill.  227. 

Stock    Quotations— 

as  proiM-rty,  366. 
contracts  for,  300. 
protection  of,  306. 

"StoRa   Kip"    (l)0(>ts),   111. 

"Stone   Ales" — 

■  su-c,    lt'.2.  »i.  72. 

"Strainht    Cut"  (cij^arcttes) ,    111. 

Strncture — 

iimtiitioii  ».f.  202. 

"Stuart's    Dyspepsia   Tablets."  'l.tl. 


INDEX.  1035 

Itifirrturs  nrc   to   pages, 
Sabniiaaion— 

liy   ()tlni>   as   ••vidcncf  of   ri>,'lit    (o    liH<l<iiiiirk,   472. 
(ilTcr  of  oil  conditioiiH   iiiHiilliciciit,  4!l2. 
t<)  avH>i(l  coHtH,  4():{,  404,  4(1.".,  4;{H,   4!I2. 

imiHt  lie  coiiiploto,  4!n,  402. 

iiiHV  !>(•  iiuulc  at  any  Htaj;<'  of  the  case,  491. 

Subpoena   Dnoes    Tecnm— 

for    (lra\viii;;s    ciiforcod    ngainut   ol)jcction    tlii-y    relate    to    secret    pro- 
cess. 263. 

"Substitution" — 

(IcCnic.l.    .'nT. 

"Sncceiior    to" — 

riglit  of  |>iii(lias<  r  of  husinoss  to  advertise  as,  230. 

SugBestiveness — 

does   not    invalidate,   '.».".,   1t(i,    l!t4,    195. 

Snits   in   Eqnity— 

for  invasion  of  goodwill,  24.'). 
generally,  424. 

"Sunlight"   (soap).   1.30,  .331. 

Supreme    Court    (U.    S.)— 

appeals  to   nndei    Act    ino.l,   ."iSl. 
certiorari  from,  under  Act*  1  !•()"),  581. 

Surname —  A 

as    trademark.    17.3. 

registrable  under  Act  of  1881,  564. 

"Svenska    Snusmaganiset,"  112. 

"Swan,"  3.31. 

"Svran  Dow^n"   (eoinplexion   powder).   130. 

"Sweet    Caporal"  (cigarettes),  130. 

"Sweet    Liotos"   (tobacco),    112. 

"Sweet  Opoponaz  of  Mexico"   (perfume),  130. 

"Swing"    (scythe-sockets),  112. 

Symbol — 

as  trademark.  4,  ».  3,  158. 

may  be  infringed  by,  or  infringe,  a  word,  332. 

Syphons — 

acts  to  ]irotect    (see  statutes  of  the  several   states). 

"Syrup   of  Figs"   (medicinal   prejiaration ) ,  149. 
"Syrup    of    Red    Spruce   Gum"   (medicine),   130. 
Systems    of    Licensing,    155. 


^^'^6  INDKX. 

Rcfrrcnrts  arr    tit    pages, 

T 

"Taffy  Toln"   (cliewinp  pum) ,  112. 

as  trademarks,  2S1,  3B3. 

Tailor— 

f,'tHMiwill  of,  222. 

"Tamar  Indien"   (lozoiigi's) ,    130,   144. 
"Ta«tcle««"    ((lni<rs>.    112. 
Taxation  of  Good-\Vill,   224J. 
Taxation  of  Trade  Secreta,  "263. 
Taxation   of   Trademarks,  GO. 

Telegraph   Blanks— 

not  morcliandis,.  within  Act  of  1881,  546,  n.  34. 

"TelcKraphone,"  WM]. 

Telephone     Number — 

a.>;   nifdium  of  unfair  compt'^tion.   113. 

Tendency — 

to  (l<(«'ivc,  118  ti'st  of  infringe,  u-nt,  305. 

Tennessee    Statutes,  SOI. 

Ten-Year   Clause — 

explaincii,   ."><i4. 

Term   of  Rei;istration.  .'>76. 

Territorial  Limitation— 

none  a-  ii|.|.:i.(i   to  trademarks,  21. 

Territorial    RiRht— 

ashignuhility,  20,  21t. 

aHHignnient    of    refused    recordation,   576i, 

Tests   of   Infrineement,  10. 

Texas    Statutes,  80."). 

Theatre- 
name   of.    170. 

"The    Demon."  323. 

"The   Good  ThiuKs  of  Life"    (periodieal),    130. 


INDKX.  1037 

Itrf)  rritrrn   tire    to   pagcB. 
"The  Nile"  (|>la.vin>;  ciirds),   l.'JO. 
TIioinBonian  ( incdic-incH) ,  112. 
"Thomaon's    GIove-FittinK    Corseta,"  241. 

Threata — 

as   unfiiir    iiirti|ictit ion,    H72. 

"Tidal    Wave"   ( toliacco) .   I.'IO. 

Time — 

as  an  I'k'int'iit   iii   unfair  lompctition,  180. 
r<(|uir('(l  to  create  trademark   right,  64,  n.    10. 

•♦Time-Keeper"    (watolies),  112. 

Tin   Tag- 
not   a   trademark,   2S1. 
fraudulent  imitation  of,  enjoined,  281. 

Title- 
book,  as  trademark,  0.3. 

former    adjudication    estahlisliinp,   conclusive   on    application   for    pre- 
liminary   injunction,   453. 
of   periodical   as   trademark,    108. 
of  play  as  trademark,  202. 

re<;istration  only  prima  faciv  evidence  of,  441. 
should   he   pleaded,   441. 

"Tipo"   (wine),    112,    148. 

"Tivoli"   (beer),  130. 

"Tod"   (watches),   144. 

"Tonge's,"  331. 

"Toothache    Gum,"  1 1 2. 

"Tower    Palace"  case,   213. 

Trade    Libel,  r)3. 

slander    or    lihel    not    actionable    in    absence    of   proof    of   special    dam- 
age, 54. 

Trademark— 

ahandoninent   of,  210. 

acijuisititm  of,  generally.  61,  65,  72. 

adjectives  a.s,  07. 

alien   can   not    have,   as   against    a   citizen   making   prior    adoption    in 

good   faith,  68. 
analogy  of  to  goodwill,  28. 
article  itself  is  not,  139. 
as  monopoly,  56. 
assignability  of,  27. 


1038  INDEX. 

Pefcrciirfs  (!»■<•   ^>   paijfs. 
TrRdrmark — ContimnMl. 

ii'«>i};iumnt  l>y    implication.   :W. 
Hti<<i}!niiH-iit  of  t<-rrit<ii  ill!  li^litH  in,  20,  20. 

iu-<j»i<'!4t  of,  ;n. 

ran  not  cxint  *'in  j:ross";   nm^t  Im-  "aiipfixlant."  2.'>. 

can    only   l»o   assijjmd    with    j;o<><l\\  ill.    'M\. 

raxual  uw  ran  not  »Ti*at«'.  i\4. 

counterfeiting,  :UM). 

court.'*   not    critical   of.    w  licrc    frauilulcnt  coni[H>titiuti   exists,  441. 

(Icnnci.   4. 

(Icfin«il   by    Act  of    1  !»().■.,   .VS(i. 

(Ic|u>n<lpnt  on  priority  of  appropriation,  (l!>. 

iliHtinfiuishrd  fron>  patents  and  copyriplits.   17. 

<liHtin}.'uislic(l    from    tradename.     HI, 

does    not   U-come   piibliii    juris    tlirou^^li    extensive   sales,    1.34. 

earliest  recognition  of,  1."). 

evolution  of  tile  law   of,    1(>. 

function  of,  defined,    17. 

imitation  of,  may  he   limited   or   partial,   ^I'.K 

includes  the   French   mart/ue  <lr  fahrhiur   and   fiiurquc  dc  commerce,  7. 

infringement  akin  to  forgery.  .")7. 

in   initials,  340. 

in    name   of    secret    jireparation.    i.')3. 

insejiarahle  from  husiness.  2."). 

inseparalile   from   goodwill.  .SI,   32. 

in   title  of  book,   l!»tJ. 

in    title   of   periodical.    I'.lS. 

in  title  of  play.  202. 

invalidated    by    dishonest    label,   76. 

is   an   assurance  of  (|uality,   132. 

letters  and   numerals  as,   338. 

'made-up"  words  as,   142. 

may  Ih.*  a  word  in  common   use.  when,  0.">. 

may  be  pun-ly  fanciful.  !).">. 

nuiy  consist  of  word   from  ilead   language.  143. 

may  indicate  mitural  prodiict,  !M. 

mav   pass  by   imjilication  as  incident    to  realty,  37. 

method   of  arranging  gcKxls.   142. 

miss|ielling  generic  word  does  not  mak«',  ".M. 

ino(|e  of  aflixing.  immaterial,  !>,  n.  <>. 

must  be  distinctive,   4.  .'i.  (J,  7,   H,  '•'.   "■   4. 

muHt  be  exclusive,  7.  20. 

must  Im*  nn-aningleHH,  HO,  n.  III. 

must  l»e  truthful,  7.'i. 

muht  not  be  common  to  the  trade,  fi!>,  131. 

names  as,  4. 


INDKX.  1039 

h'vfirrtirrs  arr   to   pagcH, 
Trademark — Contiinic*!. 

iiifd    not    iiiduiitc   iiiiiniifiutiirf  or  plticc   of   iiiunufacturc,  0,  n.   5. 

iiojii-   ill   iiiiiiH-  of  patented  artici*"  aft<»r  expiration   of   patent,  03. 

no  ri;;lit  of,  in  form,  si/c  or  <'olor,  I'M),  2H2. 

no  rifjlit  of,  in  m-iesHary  name  of  product,  l.'UI. 

not  acipiired   by   rej;iMtration,    !!•. 

not  defined   l>_v    Aels  of   1870   and    ISSl,  XW.  nolr. 

of  lianki'iipt.  .'ill. 

of  partnersliip,  jianses  witli  nale  of  j^oodwill,  M. 

oi   varialde  sound  and  pronuneiation,  ^4t). 

on   product  of  secret   process,  2((."). 

packaj^es  as,    140. 

|>«'r|)etual  existence  of,  21. 

jiiclures  as,  SO,   141. 

printing'    ;;eneric     word     in    letters    from    foreign    alphabet    iloes    not 
make.  it.'). 

proper  names  can   not  constitute,   !>4. 

remotely  descriptive  word  may  be,  96. 

reproduction  of.  proof  of  fraudulent  intent,  2!t4. 

reipiisites   of   valid,   20. 

ri<;lit  aecpiired  only  by  adojitioii  an<l  actual  use,  25. 

rifilit    of.   in    word    ajiplied   to   patented    article  durinj^   life  of   the   pat- 
ent.  !»2. 
wlicic    use   of  mark    antedates   patent,  !•<). 

rij;lit   to,   a    common-law    right,    111. 

right  to,  a  right  of  property,  18. 

right  to,  may  be  common  to  several  owners,  .32,  58. 

right  to,  must  be  exclusive,  7,  20. 

right  to,  is  not  monopoly,  2,  56. 

right    to,    protected    in    territory    under    military    government    of    the 
United  States,  600. 

suggestive  words  may  be,  !)5,  06. 

ta.xation  of.  60. 

territorial  limitation.   21,   23. 

territorial   rights  to,  can  not  be  conveyed,  20,  20. 

the  law  of.  but  part  of  law  of  unfair  trade,  4,  40,  .50. 

unlawful    to  apply    to    manufacturer's    product   to   which    he   does  not 
intend    its   application.    315. 

water-mark  may  be,  0. 

what  are  essential   features  of,  537,  «.   13. 

wojds  and  devices  common  to  the  trade  can  not  be,   132,  133,   134. 

words  of  variable  sound,  340. 

words  from  dead   languages    143. 

words   from    foreign   languages,    143. 

words  of  ilouble  meaning  as,   104. 

valid,  illustrations,  114. 


1040  INDEX. 

Trademark    Rules    of   Patent    Offlce- 


Sul)j»H't. 


Rul.-H. 


AbandoiuHl    applications 


Almniloiu'd  tradomnrkft   

Art  of  ISSl,  rights  of  registrants  un«l«'r 

Action  of  the  oHici"  to  Im-  dircc-tt'd  to  tlic  merits 

Additions  to  papers  not  permitted 

Advertising   stamp    of    attorneys    not    permitted    on  j 

drawings 

Allowance : 

Amendments  after    

Notice  of    

Amendments: 

After   allowance    

Form  of    


45  (a) 
57  (ad) 

in 

(SI 
39 
42 

■M'>  ( 7 ) 


In    general 


Now  matter  not  permitted  in 

To  amendment,  form  of    

To  applications  filed  under  Act  of  1881 

Will  give  sueli  applications  new  serial  num- 
bers and  dates  of  filing   

To  declaration,  will  not  bo  permitted 

To  rules,  will  be  published  in  the  Official  Gazette 

To    statement,   when    permitted 

Appeals: 

To  the  Commissioner  of  Patents 

To   the    Court    of    Appeals    of    the    District    of 

Columbia 

Applicant: 

Foreign,  must  file  certified  copy  of  foreign  reg- 
istration in  certain  cases  

May  prosecute  his  own  case    

Should  not  correspond  with  office  if  he  has  an 

attorney  

Applications: 

Abandoned  

Are  pr«'served  in   secrecy    

Conflicting,  practice,  etc J 

I)at<'  of,  in  foreign  country,  must  be  stated,  when 


56 


57 


17 
11 

I.    H 


l*a:'e8. 


1  ■*■ 

•  (' 

) 

r.7 

(a 

(1) 
25 

4f. 

47 

4S, 

40 

50 
33 

500, 603 

591 
605 
508 
598 

597 


44 

599 

40 

598 

44 

.'.00 

42 

.508 

41,42 
43,  44,  45 

.508,  590 

41 

.508 

43 

598 

20 

503 

2(! 

.-)03 

35 

.506 

74 

608 

41 

.508 

603 


603 


.")00 
580 


588 


I    500, 603 


503 
601 
505 


INDKX. 
Trademark  Rules  of  Patent  Office- -Continued. 


1041 


Siitijcct. 


Illll.H. 


38,  :w,  40 
2<5 


Applifntions: — continuod. 

KxiuniimtioM    of    

Fci-   on   liliii^i    

Filed  uiidiT  Act  of  ISHl  may  be  Hincnded 

Will  lie  jrivcii  lu'w  hcrial  iiumlicrH  and  dates 
of  filinj,'  under  Aet  of  Fel).  20,   11)0.")..  . 

May  1)0   assijrned    

May  include  all  fioods  comprised  in  a  8in;,'le  class 
upon  which  trademark  is  used   

Suspension    of     \   4.')  ( />-rf) 

To  contain  what,   form  of 

Assignments :  | 

Fees    for    recording    |  '|' 

Must  be  recorded  within  three  months |  <>'^ 

Orders  for  copies  of,  must  give  liber  and  page  | 


JOi 


of  record    

Provisions  regulating    

Attendance  of  applicants  in  person  not  necessary 
Attorneys : 

Correspondence  will  be  held  with    

Disbarment   of    


In  general 


May  not  act  as  notary   j 

Registration    of    | 

Stamj)  of,  not  permitted  on  face  of  the  drawing  | 

Substitution  of    | 

Bars  to  registration    I 

Cancellation,  proceedings  for    


()7 

(•)3,  G4,  65 
0 

1  ' 

I  '' 

I         11,12 

I  13,  14,  If)  I 

i  34  ■ 


I 

30(7)  I 
13] 

17,  m  I 

52, 53  I 
54,  55  I 


Certificate  of  registration:  | 

Date   of    I 

Duration    of     | 

IssMe  of    I 

Issued  under  Act  of  1881,  shall  remain  in  force.  | 
]\Iay  be  renewed  under  Act  of  Feb.  20.  1005.  | 
Description  of  tlie  trademark   itself  required,  when  |  I 

(see    statute)     I       22  ( ?*)  | 

Descriptive  marks  not  registrable   I  ^^  | 

Disbarment  of  attorneys ]  ^'^  I 

Domicile  to  be  recited    (see  statute) j       22  (6)  | 


40 
50 
40,  58 
61 
61 


I'agcB. 


597, 508 

503, 606 

593 

503 
605 

504 
59!) 
592 

60(> 
606 

606 
605 

588 

588 
590 

589 

596 

589 

597 

589 

590, 591 

602 

598 
604 
598, 604 
605 
605 

502 
591 
590 
592 


1042  INDKX. 

Tradriiiaik    Hulr«    of   Patrut    0»H<r      (  «in(  iiuiiil. 


Suliji«ct. 


Rules. 


Pnjjm. 


l>i)ul)l('  o<»rr«'i»|M>iul«inc  imt    iill<i>\<(l i 

DrHWill;;:  I 

FuruiHlii'd  l>y  tlir  olliof   

Mu»t  not  Im'  folded    I 

UcquiHiteA    of     I 

Duration  of  term  of  rf;;istration    

Knililcni  of  frat<Tiiiil   wK-icty   not    rc;;istrHlilt' 

Kn^lihli   lan^iui)^:*'  to  l>e  used  in   tin-  application   pa- 

|M'r8  and  aHsij;nnit'nts    

Krasun-a  by  applicant  or  attorney   not   permitted ...  i 
K.\amination : 

ApplieantH  will  he  notified   of  the  result  of    ... 

( >f    applications     

(H  applications   for    re<;istration   «if   tradenuirks 
previously  rcfjisti-red  iinder  Act  of  ISHl.... 
Kxaniiner   in    char;.'e   of   trademarks,   ori<;inal   juris- 
diction  of   proceeding's   hefore    

Kxpross  charges  must  he  prepaid 

Fac-aimilc  of  trademark,  when  to  he  tiled 

Fees: 

Additional     fee    not    retpiired     for    ajjplieations 
pending;  at  the  date  of  the  j)assa;,'e  of  Act 

of    Pel).   20,   V.W'i    

IIow  paid   

Refunded,   when 

Schedule   of    

Flapj  or  coats  of  arms  not   re;;istrahle    

Foreij.'ners : 

Kntitled   to    date   of   ai)plication    in    cciuntry    of 

residence   in   certain  cas«'s    

Having    manufacttiring    estal)lishnients    within 
the  United  States  may  obtain   regi.xtration, 

when 

Must  designate  represi-ntative  in  United  States. 

Must   file  certified    coi>y   of    foreign    registration 

unless  application   is  made  under  section  3 

of   the   Act   of  May    4.    liMlU 

Must   first   register   in   country   of  residence   un- 
less ap|>lication  is  made  under  section  .'{  of  | 
the    Act    of    Ma\     J.    I'.XMl     I 


:j7 
nfl(t5» 

3(( 

r>9 
in 

2;{,  «•>:$ 

42 

38 
38,  3«,  40 

20 

38 
10 

22  (e) 


2ti 

51)3 

},  70,  71 

088,  (507 

72 

t;os 

«J) 

00(i 

19 

noi 

27 


18 
28 


17.  18 


18,  (\'l 


688 
r,97 

r>!>7 

t!04 
TtOI 

."»!)3,  «or. 

.'>»8 

r)97 

597, 598 

593 

597 
589 
593 


594 


59(1 
594 


5!)0 


■.90,  00.". 


indp:x. 

Trademark  Rules  of  Patent  Office — ('(uitinurd. 


1043 


Subject. 


ForciniHTrt: — continued. 

Must  givf  clut(!  of  rcgiBtrntioti  in  foiiiitry  "f  n-H- 
idi'nc*'  or  (latf  of  application  tlii-rcfor  un- 
1»'H8  application  ia  made  iindcr  sct-tion  'A  of 

the  Act  of  May  4,  l'MH\    

Must  rt'sidc  in  a  country  alFording  Himilar  priv- 
iU'm'a  to  the  citizens  of  tin-  United  StateH 
unless  a])pIieation   is  made  under  section  :{ 

of  the  Act  of  May  4,  190(5 

Need  not  state  that  mark  has  l)e«'n  used  in  com- 
merce witii  the  I'nited  States  or  among  the 
states  tliereof  unless  application  is  made 
under  section  ;J  of  tlie  Act  of  May  4,  l!l()(i.  . 
Notices  for,  may  be  served  on  their  representa- 
tives in  the  United  State's   

When  entitled   to  register    

Foreign  nations,  registration  of  trademarks  used  in 

commerce    with     

Fraternal   society,  emblem   of.  not  registrable 

Cieographical   terms  not    registrable    

Goods,  particular  description  of,  to  be  recited    (see 

statute )      

Goods,  to  be  included  in  a  single  registration,  must 

be  comprised  in  a  single  class 

Immoral  or  scandalous  matter  not  registrable 

May  be  issui'd  to  an  assignee   

May   be  canceled    

Rene\va\    ot     

Will  not  be  issued  to  foreign  applicants  until 
they  have  obtained  registration  in  country 
of  residence,  except  as  provided  by  section 

3  of  the  Act  of  May  4,  190G 

Charges  for  express,  postage,  etc.,  must  be  prepaid. 
Citizenship: 

As  afFecting  right  to  register    

Of  applicant  to  be  recited    

Class  ot  merchandise  to  be  recited  in  application... 

Coats  of  arms   nut  registral)le    

Commerce : 

Between  states   


Xi 


17 


17 

29 
17,18 

19 
19 
19 

22(b) 

30 
19 
65 
52 
60 


19 


59.5 


590 


590 

.'•}94 
590 

.591 
591 
591 

592 

594 
591 
60r. 
602 
005 


18,62 

.590,  60.=; 

10 

589 

16 

.590 

22(6) 

.592 

22(6) 

.592 

19 

591 

591 


1044  lND^:x. 

Trademark  Rules  of  Patent  Office— I'oiitiiiucd. 


Sulijcot. 


t'omniiTcc: — contimnHl. 

Foreipn  applii-imts  need  not  Htatr  that  tho  tradr- 
mnrk  linn  liet-n  uwd  in  commerce  with  the 
I  nitid  StHl4'H  or  nmonji  tlie  state  thereof, 
unh'KW  appliciitioM   is  made  under  section  3 

of  the   Act  of  May  4,    1!)()(> 

With   foreijjn  nations    

With   Indian   trilH.'8    

CommissiomT  of  Patents: 

Appeals    to     

("ommunieations  to  Ik'  addressed  to 

Petitions    to    

No  fee  re<juired  for    

(dninninications.      (See  C*orresp<»ndence. ) 
Conflictinji  applications,   interferences,   patent  prac- 
tice to  govern  in    

Copies  of  actual  trademark  nnjuired  from  applicant 

Copies  of  puldications,  prices  of 

Copy  of  forei<;n  registration  required  of  foreign  ap- 
plicants unless  ajiplication  is  made  under  sec- 
tion :{  of  the  Act  of  May  4,    1!K)(; 

Corporations  must   recite   under  the    laws   of   what 

state  or  nation  incorporated 

Correspondence : 

Ciiarges  for  postage,  etc.,  must  he  prepaid..    .. 
Checks,  drafts,  etc.,  to  he  drawn  to  the  Commis- 
sioner's order    

Decorum  and  courtesy    retpiirtd    

Douhle   correspondence    not    j)erniitted 

Ix'tters    relating    to    apjilieation     sliould    state 

what 

Letters    relating    to    registend    marks    should 

state  what    

Must    he    addressed    to    the    Commissioner    of 

Patents  

Must  he  in  writing    

OfTice  can  not  exj)ound  the  law,  etc 

Personal  attendance  unnecessary    

Separate  letter   for  each   suhject  of   incpiiry  re- 
quired   

Will  be  held  with  the  attorney 


IS, 


Pages. 


3:j 

590, 595 

19 

50 1 

10 

501 

r.fi 

t)03 

3 

588 

r.6 

(i03 

r)6 

•J03 

46 

599 

{€) 

593 

09 

60(> 

17 

590 

(b) 

592 

10 

589 

3 

5SS 

2 

588 

8 

588 

5 

588 

r. 

588 

3 

588 

1 

588 

9 

589 

(] 

588 

4 

588 

7 

588 

INI'KX. 
Trademark  Rules  of  Patent  Office — Cuiitinued. 


1045 


Suhjfct. 


ItulfH. 


I'm^fH. 


('ourtt'Hy    and   dccoruni    iciinirrd    of   iiiiplicantH    and 

attorneys  

Date  of  (ritilicati'  of  ri'fjjistrutioii    

Dt'ot'ptivi!  tradfuiurks  not  rcj,MHtraldc 

Declaration : 

In   general    


Alay   not  1)(>   amended    

Ke<iui8ite8    of     

For  forci^in   a]ii)licants    

Under   ten-year    proviso    

To  1)0  verified  before  whom    j 

Decorum  required  from  applicants  and  attorneys... 
Indian    tribes,   rej^istration   of    trademarks   used    in  I 

commerce    with     j 

Information  of  certain   kinds  not   furnished 

Injurious  articles,  trademarks   used   on,    not    re;,'is- 

trable 

Insertions  by  applicants  or  attorneys  not  jK-rmittcd 
Interferences : 

Commissioner's  attention   invited  to — 

Irref^ularity    in    declarinj,'    

flatter  not  relating  to  j)riority 

Statutory    bar   to   registration 

Examiner  in  charge  of,  has  jurisdiction  over — 

Cancellations 

Interferences  

Oppositions 


40 
l!l 

Ifi,  :n,.j-2 
:j:j,  34,  s.") 

31,32,33 


From     decision     of     examiner     of     trademarks, 
appeal  may   be  taken    

Motion  to  dissolve,  wlien  made 

Decision  of  examiner  of  trademarks  bind- 
ing upon  examiner  of   interfi-rences.  .  . 

Motion  to  shift  burden  of  proof — 

Made  before,   and    determined    by,   the   ex- 
aminer  of   interferences 

Motion  to  stay  proceedings   

Not  delayed  by  failure  to  prepare  for 

Preliminary  (|uestions  must  lie  settled  by  exam- 
iner of  trademarks  before  declaration 

Preparation  for    


33 

32 

34 

2 

10 
9,  2o 

19 
42 


50 


'>HH 
598 
-.91 

590, 595 
59« 
59(i 
595 
595 
595 
59« 
58S 

591 
589, 593 

591 
598 


48 

600 

48 

600 

48 

600 

2,  .14 

602 

40 

599 

l..-)4 

601,602 

48 

600 

49 

601 

601 


601 
601 
600 

600 
600 


104G  iN'nrx. 

TradrmArk  Rnle>B  of  P«tent  Office— iontinuod. 


Siihjoot. 


I        Ihlh'H.       I  I'llJJl'W. 


Int«'rf«TiMci'H: — rontiiniod.  | 

ruliliriition  of  tnuUninrk  iniist  Ik*  iniuli-   in  tin-  I 
(Uliiial    CHzrtt*'    U-fdrc    intiTftTrncf    IH    do- 

flari'd 

SusjM'nsion  of  intorffn-iio'  lor  fonsidtTation .  .  .  .| 
Tradt-nmrkw  munt  Imvc  lu>«-n  dccidi-d   to  \»-  rv^^•  I 
istrahle 


Wlu-n    <lt'(!iirf<l.    pnicticc S 


I  M^- 


47 
4S 

47 
4(5,  47 
4!t.  .")(> 
r.8,  «2 

65 


10 


Issue  of  cortificaU'H   of    rc;,'istratioii j 

To  assi^riu't*    I 

Lawful    tradt-marks,   or   tlios*-   u>»fd    lawfully.   al»)ne  j 

n'gistrahlc | 

Lonjrtli  of  tinif  ust-d  to  Ix-  n-citrd    (sec  Statiitc)  .  .  .  .|        22  (h 
Ix'tttT^,  rules  and  rc^iulatioiis  ;,'ov(Tiiiti;:.      (Sec  Cor-  I 

rt'wpondriicc. ) 
List  of  tradi-marks   to   l.c  pulilislird    in   tlic   Ollic-ial  j 

Gazt-tti' I 

Mi'rcliandis«',  class  of,  to  Itc  rccitt-d   (si-c  Statute)  .  .  .1 

Merits,  ollice  action  to  Ik-  dircct«'d  to  tin- I 

Mode    of    applviii;,'    and    allixiii;;    trademark    to    the  j 

^'oods  to  Ik-  recited    (see  Statute) | 

Mutilation  of  papers  not  i)ermitted 

Name    of   applicant    not    registrable,   except    under 

certain    conditions    

Name  of  applicant  will  Ik?  made  uniform 

Name  of  a|iplicant  to  We  r<'cited   (see  Statute) 

New  matter  not  j)ermitte(l  liy  amendment 

Notary,  attorney  may   not   act   as 

N<itice    of   allowance    

Notice   of   opposition,    and    of   tlie   ".'rounds   tlierefor, 

to  he  t;iven  to  applicants    

Notice  of   rejfiHtration : 

Form    of     

Ke;;ihtrants   must  j;ive    

NoticeH    for    foreii;n    a|)plicantH   may    he    served    <»n 

their   representatives   in  the  United  States 

Oath,  to  he  niaih'   l^c■f..^e   wliom 

Oppottitions: 

May   Im-    made    hy   any   person    wlio   helieves    he 
wo\il(l  he  dama^'ed   hy   re;;istration 


tiS 

22(6) 

.10 

22  ( b ) 
42 

1!) 
24 
22(?>) 
41 
34 
40 


7:i 
7. J 


20 


:.l 


(1(H» 
tl(M) 

(i(KI 

0»1) 

flOO.tSOl 

(iU4,  00") 

((0(> 

.->oi 
r)02 


.'V02 
.-)02 

r)08 

:.oi 
rm 

.')02 
.">0H 

rm\ 
r)OS 

U02 

tuts 

(lOK 


:,<M\ 


t-.oi 


INDKX. 
Trademark  Rnlei  of  Patent  Office— (oiitinuL-d. 


Sultjcct. 


1047 


I        I'illlcH.       I  I'ttUfH. 


OppoHitioiiH : — foiitiiMird. 

May   lu'   (ih'd  l)y   uttitnu'y j 

MuHt   1k'   acfompunH'd   liy    frc j 

NoticH-  of  ^^rounds  of  ojipositioii  hIiuII   lu-   f,'iv<'n  l 
to    applicantH     

Notico    of,    iiiiist    lie    filfd    within    thirty    dayn 
after    piiltiication    

Notic-c  of,  muxt   lit'   vrrifiid 

Proct'i'diiifis    iiiidtT     

Orders  for  copies,  to  specify  what 

Personal  attendance  of  applicants  unnecessary 

I'etitions  to  fommissioner  of   Patents 

No  fee  reijuired   for    

IVtition   to   contain    what 

Portraits  of  livinj,'  individuals  not  rej^istrable  with- 
out tiieir  consent  in  writin;r 

Postaj^'e    must    he    prejtaid 

Powers  of  attorney : 

Filin<^   of    

Ke(piisit<'s    of     

Revocation   of    

l*rinte<l  copies  of  trademarks  furnished  by  the  oflice. 
Priority  proceed in;,'s,  patent  practic<'  to  <rovern .... 
Publication  in  the  Oiricial  dazette: 

Of    re<^iatered    trademarks 

Of  trademarks   before   registration 

Publications,  ])rices  of  copies   of 

Kecording  assij^nments    

Fees  for 

Kefunding  of  fees   

Refusal  of  an  ajjplication,  office  proceedings 

Registrants  under  Act  of  1881,  rights  of 

Registration : 

Barred,   when    

Certificate  of,  date,  duration,  etc 

Of  attorneys    

Of  marks  used  ten  years  i)rior  to  the  passage  of 
the  Act  of  Feb.   20,    190.') 

Of  particular  trademarks,  office  can  not  advise 

as  to    

Renewal   of    

Who   is  entitled   to 


51 

r>i 

r>4 

r>i 

51 

51,  54, 55 

07 

6 

56 

56 

22(a) 

19 
10 

12 
12 
14 
66 
46 

68 
40 
69 

62,  63 
69 
72 

38,  39 
61 


17, 

19, 

62 

40, 

59 
11 

20 

n 

25 
60 

16 

17 

18 

liOl 
601 

(502 

601 
601 
601,602 
606 
588 
603 
603 
592 

591 
589 

589 
589 
589 
606 
599 

60(i 
598 
606 
605 
606 
608 
597, 598 
605 

>90.59 1,005 

598,  604 

589 

592 

589. 5«3 
605 
590 


1048  iNDi:x. 

Trademark  Rnlei  of  Patent  Office — ('out  iniio<t. 


SuhjcHTt. 


Kill. 


l'HJ»t*8. 


IJfrnittancfs,    Imw    mml»' 

lu-ni'wal  i>f  i'«Tliliout«'»  of  rc^iHtratiun 

Ktpaynu-nt  of  im)nfy,  wlu-ii  iniuli- 

Kj'pri'wntativfrt  in  tin-  L'nitod  Stuti'«,  foriMj^n  appli- 

oaiitH  iTHiKt  «l«'8ij;nat«'   

Ittsiiifuci'   of   applicants   rtHiuircd    (svv   Statute).... 

Restrictions   on    re);ihtration 

Return  of  papers  laekin;;  in  courtesy  and  decorum.. 

Return  of  application  papers  not  allowed 

Review  by  Commissioner  of  l|atents  of  adverse  deci- 
sion    

Scandalous  or  immoral  mutter   not   re^ristraltle 

Schedule  of  fees    

Secrecy,  applications  preserved  in 

Separate  letters,  when   r«H|uired    

Si;,'natures  of  a])|>lieants  must  lie  uniform 

Sjx-ciniens  of  tlir   trademark    re<|uire(l 

Statement : 

May  lie  amended   

Must  recite  what   

States,  repistration  of  trademarks  used  in  commerce 

amon^' 

Sui»8titute   declaration,  wlien    required 

Snlistitution   of   attorneys    

Suspension   of   ajiplications    

Ten  years'  use  prior  to  Fel).  20,  litO"),  j)crmits  re^ris- 

tration  of  certain  marks    

Term  of  rej^istration : 

Duration    of     

Rcni'wal   of    

I  ransfir  of  trademark  ri<;hts  (see  also  Assij,'nmentH) 
I'nlavsfu!    business,   tradenuirks    ust-d    in,   not    re^^is- 

trahl.- 

Manner,  or  mode  of,  to  lie  recited I 

Time  of,  to  Im-  recited   (see  Statute) | 

\'eri(i(ati<)n  of  declaration    I 

Wei'kly  issue  to  close  on  Thursday 

Writing,  buHiuebb  tu  be  traasactcd  in j 


•20 

-)<>,«•>  1 
60.  (il 

lit 


a.  70, 71 

r)88 

607 

00 

6or> 

72 

608 

28 

594 

22(6) 

592 

17.19 

sno 

591 

2 

588 

4.-) 

599 

.-•« 

603 

11) 

591 

<;<) 

606 

2(> 

593 

4,42 

588 

598 

24 

593 

22  (r) 

593 

41 

598 

22(6) 

592 

1!) 

591 

35 

596 

13 

589 

4r)(6-f/i 

599 

592 

604,  (iO.'. 
(iO.'i 
60."i 

591 


22(6) 

.'i92 

22  ( 6 ) 

592 

34 

596 

40 

.598 

1 

588 

IND£X. 


1049 


INDEX   TO    TRADEMARK    FORMS. 


Siil>j<'<t. 


ForniH. 


PufJfH. 


ApplinitioM    for   I'liiu'i'llalidii   <if  ;i    tijulciiiark 

Declaration   for : 

Aj)|)licatit)ii8  inuK'r  tin  year  i)r«)viau 

AsHociations 

Corporations 

Forms 

Fon'i{,MuTH 

Under  Keetion  .'I  of  the  Act  of  May  4,  1000. . 

Individuals 

Notice  of  opposition    

Petition 

Statement  for: 

Associations 

Corporations 

Firms 

Foreigners  under  section  3  of  the  Act  of  May 
4,   1!)06    ■ 

Individuals 


tllK 

Hi:) 
614 
014 
01. J 
010 
017 
012 
017 
Oil 

014 
614 
6l:i 

010 
012 


References  arc  to  pages. 
Trade    Names — 

defined,    10. 

distin^niished  from  trademarks,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14,  15,  48. 

generally.   10. 

"Trade  Rights"— 

conveys  tradenames,   30,  n.   78. 

Trade   Secrets- 
actions  and  defenses,  200. 

as  subject  of  levy  and  sale,  and  taxation,  263. 
conveyed  with  goodwill,  250. 
defined,  2.")3. 
frmiduient,  2.")4. 

may  lie  subject  of  expired  patent,  201. 
must  he  unknown  to  others.  201. 

privilege  of  witness  from  disclosure,  2.").'),  20:{,  204,  205. 
subject  to  lc>'y  and  sale,  263. 
subject  to  taxation,  263. 


Trade  Slander,  53. 


lOoO  INDEX. 

ItrfcrcnccM  arc  to  pnget. 

Tradra    Union— 

hilxl  ..f,  us  tniiirumrk,  G'J. 

"TruJford,**  il.'U. 

Treaty— 

(l«-tin«'«l.  ."»;{."),  M.  (I. 
nmkiii;;  power  nf  (\)nj:r«-rtK.  Itusis  of  Act  of  ISSl,  380. 

Trofttie*   and   Conventiona — 

ax  rmiffrriiif,'  ri^'lit  to  ri'^istration.  r)4n,  r»r)G. 

jiKiioial  notice  takni   of,   4ti7. 

witli  forci;.'ii  nations,  »iiuiniTutt<l,  lH>'.l. 

"Trenton."   .">40,   h.  24. 

"Trilby"    (j;lov.>st.    l.'JO. 

Trnstee — 

iliity  of.   (o  prottrt   title   to  tr.uloniark,  .1!tO. 

in  l)ankriiptiy  lias  title  to  liankrupt's  trailtniarks,  HO,  n.  79. 

Traits — 

eoiieerninj;  titlfs  to  tradomarks,  .Si)0. 

Truth— 

iniiispt'nsalilf  to  valid  murk,  73. 

"Tncker    SprinR"    (Led),  112. 

"Turpentine    Shellac"— 

as  tradename,  14. 

"Twrin   Brothera"    (yeast),  l.'U. 
"Tycoon"    (tea).  112. 

XT 

Ultimate    Consumer — 

prolialde  (le(eptii)n  of,  aH  tent  of  infriM>rem«-nt,  307. 

"Unclean    Hands" — 

aH  a  defenw,  44*1. 

"Uneeda"    (l.iseiiiti,  12,   l.'U,  .131. 

Unfair    Competition    (see    InfrinRemcnt,    and    Juriiidiction) 

lil'fWeell    vendor   UIkI    Velldi f    goodwill.    Jlld. 

Iiill  in  «-<|uity  to  enjoin,  4.'{{l.  n.  22. 

Iiy  impropiT  iiw  f)f  proper  name,  restrained,  47. 

Iiy  UH4'  of  tradename,   14.  n.  21. 

diMtin>.'niMlied    from   (rademark    infrin^'enietit ,  47. 


INDEX.  1051 

RefercnrcH  are  to  pagrit. 
Unfair    Competition    (»ec    Infrinijenient,    anil    Jurisdiction) — Con- 
tinued. 
^'fiiiTif  wohIh  |irott'it('(l  ajjaiiiHt,  47. 
in  wluit  it  ooiiHirttH,  2. 
law  of,  includcrt  law  of  tradt  iiiarkH,   t. 
law  of,   IH  well   Hi'ttli'd,  42. 
rt'lirf  ajiaiiiHt,  hawed  on  fraiid  aj,'aiiiHt  the  jdaiiitilf  ami  tin-  imldic,  47. 

Union  Labels — 

and  otlier  niarkw  of  tradis  unionn,  r>(»7,  ').'J2,  ^((7. 

an  trademarks,  (»2. 

infrin^'finent  of,  enjoined   hecaiine   unfair   competition,   tJ2. 

♦'Union  Metallic  CartridRe  Co.."  j42. 

"Union    Station"    (ei^'arH),  303. 

"United  States"    (dental  rooms),  112. 

United    States- 
defined  in  Aet  of   lOOo,  .")86. 

United    States   Statutes    (see    Statutes,    Federal). 
"Universal,"  331. 

UnTvary — 

deception  of,  as  test  of  infringement,  304. 

User— 

a  prerequisite  to  acquirin<;  trademark,  .'iSO,  .')73. 

after  application    filed,  may    l)e   shown  hy  supplemental    petition,   r>3n, 

n.  1(). 
casual,  insuUicient   to  create  trademark   right,  G3,  G4,  72. 
character  of,  necessary,  64,  539. 
held  immaterial  under  Act  of  1870.  (>4,  .'i.SO. 
must  he  shown  to  secure  rejijistration,  r)3n. 
must  he  actual,  ()3,  ril'.i. 

must  he  upt)n  <;oods  actually  upon  the  market,  70. 
of  trademark,  limited  to  indicating;  origin  and  ownership,  1.57. 
originally  unlawful,  not  cured  hy  ahandonment  of  mark  hy  owner.  71. 
single  instance  of.  sufficient  to  eatablish  right  to  trademark,  04. 

Utah    Statutes,  807. 


1052  INDEX. 

Rcfcrcncca  arc  to  pagct. 

y 

"Vacnnm"  (tiros),  113. 

Validity— 

as  of  dnto  of  adoiition,  in.''i. 

V&lnatlon  of  Goodwill,  .32.  2:)8. 
Valnation    of    Trademark,  .VI, 

Value    of    Trademark — 

should  be  plcadod  in  fi'di-rnl  practice,  415. 

"Valvollne"   (hibricntin;,'  oil),   113.   131. 

Variable    Sonnd — 

words  of,  as  trademarks,  349. 

"Velva,"  336. 

Vendee — 

of  goodwill,  right  to  re-assign,  233. 

Vendor'^ 

of  goodwill,  rights  of,  230. 


Vei 

how  laid  in  action  at  law,  414. 

Verification— 

of  bill   in  equity,  430. 

Vermont   Statutes  and  Forms,  800. 

"Vertical  Top"    (ci;,'ar  molds),  113. 

"Vichy"    (mineral  wattri ,  335. 

"Victoria"   ( lozenges  i ,  113. 

"Vienna"   (bread),   166. 

"Vita-Ore,"  113,  331. 

"Vitaicope"    (machine),   131. 

Virginia  Statutes   and    Forms.  813,  816. 

"V-O"    (medicine),  113. 

Voluntary   Association — 

rcj/iKt ration    fur   mark   umd  by,  refused,   509,  533. 

"Vulcan"   (matches),  131. 


INDEX.  1053 

Referencca  arc  to  page$. 

W 

Waiver— 

always  questiun  of  fact,  208. 

iiihk;  without  knowlcdfje  of  facts,  208. 

"Waltham"    (watchi-a),  10,  n.  8. 

••Wam«utta"    (muHlin),  308,332. 

'Warehouseman — 

BubmisBion  of,  to  avoid  costs,  493. 

"Warren,"  332. 
"Warner"  (corsets),  I'M. 
W^ashington    Statutes,  817. 

Water-mark — 

may  be  a  trademark,  0,  6;"). 

"Water   of   Ayr"  (stone),  113. 
"Waverly"    (bicycles),  131. 

"Weber"    (pianos),  334. 

"Webster's    Dictionary."  113. 

"Welcome"   (soap),  332. 

W^est  Virginia   Statutes,  822. 

Wliarfingers — 

liandlinj,'  infrin^'ing  goods,  given  lien  for  charges,  404. 
lien  of,  upon  infringing  goods,  404. 

"WTiirllng  Spray"    (syringes),  113. 

"Wllloughby  Lake"    (scythe-stones),  131. 

W^lsconsin   S^tatutes,  826. 

"Wistax's  Balsam  of  W^ild  Clierry,"    131. 

Witness- 
privilege  as  to  disclosure  of  secret  process,  263. 

"W^onderful   Magazine"    Case,  108. 

"Worcestersiiire"    (sauce),   113. 


1054  INDEX. 

Rcfrrcncvs  arc  Id  poijii. 
Word*— 

Hiiji-otivoH,  07. 

at«  tnnlfinarks,  fi,  Or>,  07,  141. 

lH>como  jii-ncric  tliroiijjh  iiw,  148. 

from  a  fon-ign  lanj^^iiapo,  143. 

Iih(<Iou8  per  sr,  54. 

may  !>«•  infringed  by,  or  infringt',  a  pymbol,  332. 

of  doiil>K"  meaning,  194. 

suggt'stivo,  !•;"). 

Wrapper!,   140. 

Writ    of   Injunction- 
form  of,  T'.'l. 

Wyoming    Statutes,  829. 

"Yale"    (locks),  113. 
"Yama-Mai,"  334. 
"Yankee"  (soap),   131. 
♦'Yucatan"    (leather),  113. 
"Yusea,"  332,  360. 


lINTVKR^ITYf.rrM.IFORNU 


AA    000  772  212 


.*V  ,•«•...'' 


i.  >.  h 


>x.  ,x;^ 


Ir-^ 


^,",iW:/  ..M'.  i 


